777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9875
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:51 pm

Now that part 1 has reached over 300 posts, heres part 2 EK A350 Audit A350 Closes Gap On B787 (by PanAm_DC10 Apr 11 2007 in Civil Aviation)

This contest at EK is really starting to heat up now, and its turning out it could be a nail bitting finish for both Boeing and Airbus. Airbus really needs this order, to help close the gap on Boeing at the B787s lead
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:58 pm

I still think if Ek really wanted the 787-10 they would have ordered it by now. This order will go to the A-350, since Airbus has a "we'll give you want you want if you order it" phillosophy when it comes to EK.
One Nation Under God
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:02 pm

This is an interesting statement made by Clark. What does he really mean by closing the gap? XWB is closer to 787 but not matched it yet. Why is it publically announced.. to pressure Boeing for the Price they want or to pressure Airbus for a better price to make up for "XWB closing the gap but not quite there yet.

One thing is for sure Boeing is laughing because they can afford to price low having captured 540+ orders and are in an enviable business position of being able to force Airbus so low in pricing that they will struggle to get the 300 or 400 oders they need to get to recover investment in the XWB program.

What is interesting is do any XWB orders converted from A350 orders count as new orders in 2007 or are they 2005/2006 orders already accounted for??

Obviously the first assembly/flight is getting close for 787 and I find it very intruiging that for various reasons the 787-10 either for marketing (affecting 772ER) or engineering (unable to or not quite there) has not been anounced.

Is Boeing awaiting design freeze for A358/9 or are there issues with engineering the -10. Interesting especially as Airbus after about 7 versions of the A350 many folks on this site readily believe that the brochure version of the A350-1000 is a 777 killer. Boeing is either struggling with delivering the required performance of the -10 or is reluctant to release it and I believe Airbus will struggle to produce the A3510 as suggested.

So far the Airlines seem to agree with SQ still to firm up their A350 and what is that suggesting. SQ QF are doing very well screwing Airbus over delays and scoring cheap aircraft (more cheap optioned A380 and A330 as compensation)

In any event Boeing are in the strong position whenever they go to the negotiating table in the 787/A350 battle.

I still believe that EK want the 787-10 GEnX powered but if Boeing don't sharpen the pencil enough they could go A350. Airbus need this order (any order) more than Boeing.

The Paris Air Show will be very interesting thats for sure......
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:02 pm

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1):
I still think if Ek really wanted the 787-10 they would have ordered it by now. This order will go to the A-350, since Airbus has a "we'll give you want you want if you order it" phillosophy when it comes to EK.

And why not - if they're really going to order 100 copies that's $20B at list prices, however if they don't order you could be left with a very expensive white elephant
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:10 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
Clark. What does he really mean by closing the gap?

That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
What does he really mean by closing the gap? XWB is closer to 787 but not matched it yet.

This is semantics, but that would IMO be more a case of "narrowing" a gap, or indeed "closing" a gap. What Clark said is that the gap is "closed". Anyhow measuring any gaps, one way or another, isn't an exact science as different airlines will have different requirements.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8654
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:30 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.

Says Airbus. Key word: says. They have nothing but a paper airplane with specifications that now match what Boeing is actually building with the 787. If that's good enough for EK, so be it. It is well within the realm of possibility that the in-service performance figures of both aircraft could leave a significant gap.

Lord knows it has happened in the past between Airbus and Boeing widebodies. Other than that, I don't know what else there is that needs to be said.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:37 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 4):
That the gap between the old A350 & 787 is no longer there.

Says Airbus.

It was clark who said it. Its hard to dispute information that none of us have seen, and its not like he is going to more gullable or supicious than you or I.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
What is interesting is do any XWB orders converted from A350 orders count as new orders in 2007 or are they 2005/2006 orders already accounted for??

They're already accounted for - have a look at how the AY order was booked in March they went from 9 XNB to 11 XWBs (I think - the differance was definitely +2) and the order sheet just shows +2.

Any cancellations will show up a negative in this year though!
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:12 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Says Airbus. Key word: says. They have nothing but a paper airplane with specifications that now match what Boeing is actually building with the 787. If that's good enough for EK, so be it. It is well within the realm of possibility that the in-service performance figures of both aircraft could leave a significant gap.

As I've said in the original part of this thread. How is this any different than when Boeing promised things about the 787 (or when it was still the 7E7) and Airbus was offering up a re-engined 330? I mean, which was the bigger leap of faith?

I don't buy it for either one, that that is an excuse for not believing the manufacturer. Airbus hasn't missed much. The 380 as far as we can tell meets or exceeds it's guarantees other than the weight issue (which has been countered with other performance boosts). It has been delayed insanely, but who could have anticipated that debacle and you can better believe that Airbus will work extra hard not to have those events occur again. The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

cheers.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:43 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:00 am

Perhaps making a really big twinjet is more difficult than we first figured. The 777-300ER may have been a really unique achievement that is difficult to repeat without huge risk. It's kind of like Concorde... except you know... successful.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 3):
And why not - if they're really going to order 100 copies that's $20B at list prices, however if they don't order you could be left with a very expensive white elephant

I think that Airbus would be foolish to repeat the mistake of launching another airframe that has a dissproportionate number of airframes relying on 1 customer, especially if it is EK and the problems they had negotiating everything post A-380 delivery debacle.
One Nation Under God
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.

The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.

The fact that there are no lawsuits might actually suggest otherwise.

This fwd weight issue is very murky and seems to have gone very quiet as soon as it appeared in the media. In any case it's hard to see much merit in an argument that loading an aircraft outside its certified weight and balance parameters (due to incorporating heavyweight business/first interiors) could found a claim against a manufacturer. But I guess if you were looking for problems in the 340-500/600 it's a pretty good sound-bite.

There's another thread on this which has degenerated into the usual A v B rubbish.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 13):

The fact that there are no lawsuits might actually suggest otherwise.

You are right. I should have been more accurate and said news of threatened lawsuits.

Quote:
This fwd weight issue is very murky and seems to have gone very quiet as soon as it appeared in the media. In any case it's hard to see much merit in an argument that loading an aircraft outside its certified weight and balance parameters (due to incorporating heavyweight business/first interiors) could found a claim against a manufacturer. But I guess if you were looking for problems in the 340-500/600 it's a pretty good sound-bite.

I always viewed this as initiation of negotiation through the press. It was only a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure they caught Airbus's attention. And the anonymous wannabe plaintiffs seemed to be suggesting that performance parameters were not met by Airbus. But information here suggests that it was due to incorporating Airbus promoted lower deck options. Perhaps Airbus didn't provide data regarding the impact of these features.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:44 am

Quote:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
The 345 and 346 acvtually met their guarantees (other than a few heavy winged 346s. They just don't perform as well as the competition.


The news of suits regarding CG issues for the A346 suggests otherwise.


It is news of some airlines looking at the possibility of legal proceedings. That does not necessarily imply that there is any case to proceed with.
Other than that, I had until now been under the impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarantees on fuel burn. If what Dank says is true, then it seems to be the case that every airbus aircraft past & present that I'm aware of has met its performance guarantees, which would be a slap to the face of another one of those often suggested but never proven airliners.net urban legend.

[Edited 2007-04-18 00:01:44]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
I had actually been under the impression that impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarentees on fuel burn

There was a very good article in FI about 18 months to 2 years ago on the A345/6's turbulent EIS.

All of the operators interviewed said that the fuel burn on these aircraft was within the guaranteed specification.
LH were quoted as saying there was a specific route (not named) where they sometimes struggled to meet the specified fuel burn on their A346's, and were investigating trim/c of g changes, but on all other routes it performed just fine.

There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
which would fly in the face of another airliners.net urban lagend.

Indeed.  Smile

Regards
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:28 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
Other than that, I had until now been under the impression that the A340-500/600 did not meet their guarantees on fuel burn. If what Dank says is true, then it seems to be the case that every airbus aircraft past & present that I'm aware of has met its performance guarantees, which would be a slap in the face of another on of those often often suggested but never proven airliners.net urban legend.

As I understand it from cornering quite a few people at Airbus who know about it, the 340-500/600 did indeed meet its fuel burn guarantees. On the other hand, the EIS issues (covered well in the FI article noted above) were mainly dispatch reliability of which I have heard gossip that approximately 40% of those issues were attributed to the powerplants (probably never formally). There were for sure maturity issues with the aircraft initially at EIS, but the type has eventually proven to be a very good aircraft indeed. I don't think it is able to compete with the excellent 777, but then again while the 777 is a superb a/c in terms of reliability and fuel burn, IMO (and quite a few others share this opinion), it is an uncomfortable pig of an aircraft for pax - airlines love it, passengers hate it. Of course that's a generalisation, but I've always found them noisy and just cramped on long haul. The 330/340 series are fantastic a/c in terms of passenger comfort IMO. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

However the 340 fuel burn 'problem' is largely an article of faith on a.net and you will read it accepted uncritically in most threads discussing the 340-500/600.
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
There was a very good article in FI about 18 months to 2 years ago on the A345/6's turbulent EIS.

All of the operators interviewed said that the fuel burn on these aircraft was within the guaranteed specification.
LH were quoted as saying there was a specific route (not named) where they sometimes struggled to meet the specified fuel burn on their A346's, and were investigating trim/c of g changes, but on all other routes it performed just fine.

There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

 checkmark  Spot on. The dispatch issues certainly have been problematic. As has been discussed previously, the issue that has hurt the 345/346s is not that they haven't done what they were supposed to do. But that they aren't as efficient as the Boeing competitor which translates to being a "gas guzzler" for some. When I look at my Honda Civic, I don't think of it as a gas guzzler even if there are more fuel efficient cars out there (I mean look at the 747 classics that the 346 replaces).

We are all subject to our own biases, without doubt (I still carry around a completely unintellectual softspot for the dc9/md80). It just irks me a bit when their is a small, but vocal following out there which would have you believe that every plane that AIrbus makes is complete crap; and the only reason that an airline would buy one is because Airbus is selling them on the cheap (or there is politics involved). And that Boeing's planes are always perfect and are bought because they are the right plane. And there are folks on the total opposite side. Human nature makes us more likely to accept statements from a given individual when they match our beliefs. Some will tell you that Leahy is full of crap and will then take Randy's statements at face value (We should all strive to have a filter that attempts to incorporate the motives of the speaker). Of course the salesmen are going to spin things in their favor. If they don't, they should be out of their job.

The other thing along thse lines is the notion that there is a perfect plane for everyone in each marketspace. What might be a good fit for LH, might not be a great fit for CO, etc. The SQ (well, as long as the LOI stands) decision to split their order between 787s and 350s is an example within the same airline. This usually goes along the lines of "airline x has to order the 789 because it is the better plane" well, it may be the better plane for 60% of the airlines, but for airline y it may not be. There are so many factors, the least of which is that very few airlines are start ups where they can start with a clean slate in terms of aircraft.

Anyway, sorry for my little soap box rant.

cheers.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:14 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
Spot on. The dispatch issues certainly have been problematic.

Its an issue that can pop up on any new aircraft. The 777 had serious issues when it was introcused with some airlines. I think all eyes will be on the A380 in its first few months of operations. Is the amount of route proving that they are doing normal? Perhaps they are being extra cautious considering how many of the flights have full passenger loads.
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
Its an issue that can pop up on any new aircraft. The 777 had serious issues when it was introcused with some airlines. I think all eyes will be on the A380 in its first few months of operations. Is the amount of route proving that they are doing normal? Perhaps they are being extra cautious considering how many of the flights have full passenger loads.

 checkmark  It seems like a lot to me. But I don't recall what things were like when other major widebodies have come on the market. Part of it, my guess, is that they are being extra cautious at this point (just as it seems like they may be ahead of the very much revised manufacturing schedule. They've got a lot (obviously) riding on the 380 at this point.

Cheers.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:40 am

I'm not looking to pin blame on any one area here, but I do have a question for the staunch A345/A346 defenders. Even if everything we on A.net about the performance disparity of the A340NGs to the 777NGs is wildly exagerated, why the order disparity over the last 2 years? There is obviously a market for planes with this kind of cabin capacity and range, as evidenced by the total number of sales over that time span...it's just that in relative proportions, it's essentially dried up for Airbus and exploded for Boeing.

I'm at a loss to find a better explanation other the 777NGs simply provide such a compelling business case that it's impossible to ignore unless you have a very specific route and cargo structure that only applies to a fraction of the industry. Not saying the A340 is junk or anything outrageous...just that I haven't seen a good explanation for why the order sheet imbalance other than it being seriously outclassed in general. I'd love to see a reasonable explanation advanced, but otherwise all this air spent on defending airplanes only a few airlines want seems like a lot of effort towards a lost cause.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:46 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
why the order disparity over the last 2 years?


Oil prices. When the bulk of A340-600 orders were made (and when the aircraft was designed), oil was considerably cheaper than it has been for the last two years. The change in prices made the 777 more attractive, as the fuel savings help offset the higher purchase price.

[Edited 2007-04-18 01:47:51]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
There were LOTS of criticisms of despatch reliability, which most certainly did not meet its specified target.

I know in our airline that has changed as well, yes we had problems at the start but then again we had problems with the 744, 330, 773, 772. Last year the 346 at our company had a higher dispatch reliability, and flew more hours per day than the 777 (in fact all airbus models did), and also had a higher dispatch reliability than the 747/744 and flew about the same number of hours per day as the 744.

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
It just irks me a bit when their is a small, but vocal following out there which would have you believe that every plane that AIrbus makes is complete crap; and the only reason that an airline would buy one is because Airbus is selling them on the cheap (or there is politics involved).

 checkmark 

Same, also I get annoyed at people who claim to be know a lot about a 340 and have never worked in a company that operates them.

Quoting Dank (Reply 20):
It seems like a lot to me. But I don't recall what things were like when other major widebodies have come on the market. Part of it, my guess, is that they are being extra cautious at this point (just as it seems like they may be ahead of the very much revised manufacturing schedule. They've got a lot (obviously) riding on the 380 at this point.

That depends on the local CAA, I know for say QF with the 330 they had to fly them domestically for some time before being let out to the big world, and CX are the same, have to operate the aircraft locally for a bit before sending it further afield. SQ seems to be the same, before doing large over sectors with the 380, it will do sectors with a lot of enroute alternates first.

Many CAAs require route proving for new types to be conducted before allowing them to be operated in commercial operations.

Sometimes operators like to get some local experience on the aircraft to get the crew up to speed, and maybe even do a couple of hundred hours then swap an engine over, so both engines are not at the same hour level as another risk mitigating procedure.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:56 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
I'm not looking to pin blame on any one area here, but I do have a question for the staunch A345/A346 defenders. Even if everything we on A.net about the performance disparity of the A340NGs to the 777NGs is wildly exagerated, why the order disparity over the last 2 years? There is obviously a market for planes with this kind of cabin capacity and range, as evidenced by the total number of sales over that time span...it's just that in relative proportions, it's essentially dried up for Airbus and exploded for Boeing.

I doubt that you would find many people who would say that the 772LR and 773ER don't, in general, outperform the 345 and 346, respectively. That is very different than saying that the 345 and 346 don't meet their performance targets. Their performance targets are under those of the 772LR and 773ER (but had the benefit of coming to market earlier; although, they came to market at a bad time as it turns out). It is also very different than saying that they are "gas guzzlers," which has a connotation of them being pieces of junk (and suggesting that their performance is completely awful and one could not make money off it). Acquisition costs of the 345 and 346 tend to be lower (that's different than saying that Airbus isn't making money off them). However, as fuel prices have increased, the total cost to operate the aircraft has swung more towards favoring the plane with the higher acquisition cost, but better fuel economy (since acquisition cost has become a smaller portion of the cost of operating the type). For a carrier like LH, the cost of switching to a new type, appears to outweigh the benefits of lower operating costs (and hence the follow-on order for 346s). Same thing with SQ, if they thought that the 772LR would be that much more profitable than the 345, it would outweigh the losses they might have in selling the planes, or relegating them to shorter routes a la EK.

The simple answer is that while the 777NGs are generally better planes than their Airbus counterparts. But that doesn't prove that the 345 and 346 are lousy planes, and certainly doesn't say that they don't perform as advertised. The other odd leap that is made, is that the 343 is obviously a crap plane as well; which it isn't.

cheers.
 
dank
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:58 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 22):
Oil prices. When the bulk of A340-600 orders were made (and when the aircraft was designed), oil was considerably cheaper than it has been for the last two years. The change in prices made the 777 more attractive, as the fuel savings help offset the higher purchase price.

 checkmark  Beat me to it!

cheers.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:06 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 22):
Oil prices. When the bulk of A340-600 orders were made (and when the aircraft was designed), oil was considerably cheaper than it has been for the last two years. The change in prices made the 777 more attractive, as the fuel savings help offset the higher purchase price.

Of course, but that was always going to be true for the airframe. I guess the sales tradeoff was more aluring when the cost distribution for operating the airplane was less heavily skewed towards the fuel. The rising fuel just changed it from a gamble into a no-brainer. Really though, the payload argument, on paper, suggests that chances are this would have happened anyway, as I have yet to see a set of numbers that suggest the 340NGs can carry anywhere near the revenue cargo on long sectors of the T7s. (Accounting for some of the operators, who could care less because of a special cargo arm or whatnot.) It just seems like it comes up short in a lot of areas, even if it's a fine airplane.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 21):
Even if everything we on A.net about the performance disparity of the A340NGs to the 777NGs is wildly exagerated, why the order disparity over the last 2 years? There is obviously a market for planes with this kind of cabin capacity and range, as evidenced by the total number of sales over that time span...it's just that in relative proportions, it's essentially dried up for Airbus and exploded for Boeing.

If you look at the 340 and 777, I think both airframes are with about 40 different operators at the moment, so both airframes have a fairly good market penetration and acceptance, some operators have elected to have neither, some have elected to have both, both types are with major and smaller operators and the geographic spread is wide.

Both the 777 and 340 are good aircraft and often what is seen on a.net as a make and break issue when comparing the types is often a very minor part in the overall decision making process. Many times it comes down to how sharp the pencil is on the day, Boeing was very aggressive with the 777, e.g. CX were offered 777 below the price of what Airbus could supply the 340, now we see 777 offered prices are increasing, it is just supply and demand.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Both the 777 and 340 are good aircraft and often what is seen on a.net as a make and break issue when comparing the types is often a very minor part in the overall decision making process. Many times it comes down to how sharp the pencil is on the day, Boeing was very aggressive with the 777, e.g. CX were offered 777 below the price of what Airbus could supply the 340, now we see 777 offered prices are increasing, it is just supply and demand

Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?
Anyway, you live in denial. The 777-200LR/-300ER trounce the A345/6 in acceptance and sales. It is the preferred type in it's category by most carriers and I would guess a few that went with the 345/6 early on wished they hadn't have. Engine performance/ reliability, despatch rate, fuel burn etc significantly favour the twin. Not to mention, Boeing delivered better than promised performance and on time. The 345/6 program is a dead duck and basically even Airbus admits to this now, even though they insist 330/340 production levels will be raised to 10/month. They may as well just say 330 levels.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:07 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?

Yes the details are confidential, but unlike yourself I know what the difference was (but not for the ILFC component or the finer points of the engine/apu deal), and no I did not reveal the price nor anything confidential.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Engine performance/ reliability, despatch rate, fuel burn etc significantly favour the twin.

Well actually operating a 333/343/346/772/773/744/747 fleet we get to see the real figures, "engine performance/ reliability" had problems with just about every engine, CFM56 is one of the better ones. Well known problems with the 744 not meeting initial performance, numerous problems with the RB211 at the start (now fixed with the H/T), and we have not been immune from problems with the Trents on the 330 and 777, ADs, service bulletins etc have fixed many issues, but it has not been plain sailing as your trying to portray.

No aircraft type ever introduced has been free form initial acceptance issues.

"Despatch rate", our internal dispatch rate last year showed the airbus fleet (330 & 340) had a higher dispatch rate than the 777 or 744 or 747, the 330 being the most reliable aircraft in the fleet.

"Fuel burns" : what we expected, the 340 seat mile costs are the same as our 744 if not a little better depending on the route, and they fly similar routes. The 330 from what I know does a little better seat mile than the 772, the 773 beats the 744 but has no range. Our 777s really only do regional sectors lengths, the 330s get to stretch their legs going down to Australia.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Not to mention, Boeing delivered better than promised performance and on time.

I think you will find a lot of 777s are being delayed at the moment as they cannot get "buyer furnished equipment" for them, "better than promised performance" I guess that is relative, that was not the case on the 744 or initial problems on the 773, or the number of 777s we had on the ground last year getting fixed. Eithad I recall also had to get a double engine change on a 773ER not long after delivery. In terms of delays, we have not been hit by any significant delay from either A or B for some time.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
If you look at the 340 and 777, I think both airframes are with about 40 different operators at the moment, so both airframes have a fairly good market penetration and acceptance, some operators have elected to have neither, some have elected to have both, both types are with major and smaller operators and the geographic spread is wide.

Yes, but this is a question of the refresh here, not the entire life of the airframe. The comparable NG offerings. The 343 is still responsible for the vast majority of fleets and total sales for the 340 family, and I don't think anyone would argue that it's not an excellent airframe for many airlines and routes. Through the A343E and 772ER, both competed fairly evenly, but those two frames have only sold in small numbers since the new offerings came online...mostly to airlines operating the type already. That's why I was focusing on NG.

The refresh to the respective families seems to have gone awry for Airbus, and that's specifically what I was talking about. I don't think it's a stretch to call the A340NG series a disappointment for Airbus. Not a failure mind you, since they sold a respectable number...but certainly a disappointment. I don't care what industry you're in, having your top of the line product conceed that much market share to a competitor hurts, even if you still turn a profit.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:08 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?

Yes the details are confidential, but unlike yourself I know what the difference was (but not for the ILFC component or the finer points of the engine/apu deal), and no I did not reveal the price nor anything confidential.

Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it. Simple as that.
Without knowing the finer points of the engine/apu deal, how can you accurately comment anyway?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Engine performance/ reliability, despatch rate, fuel burn etc significantly favour the twin.

Well actually operating a 333/343/346/772/773/744/747 fleet we get to see the real figures, "engine performance/ reliability" had problems with just about every engine, CFM56 is one of the better ones. Well known problems with the 744 not meeting initial performance, numerous problems with the RB211 at the start (now fixed with the H/T), and we have not been immune from problems with the Trents on the 330 and 777, ADs, service bulletins etc have fixed many issues, but it has not been plain sailing as your trying to portray.

No aircraft type ever introduced has been free form initial acceptance issues.

There you go again, you have no idea what I was trying to portray, which in very simple terms is comparing the 345/6 to the 772LR/773ER on the above parameters. I fully understand that no aircraft is introduced without teething issues. However, you fail to explain how the 345/6 market has evaporated, or are you telling us that Boeing undercuts Airbus on all these deals, or that rising oil costs has crippled the 345/6? I'm not talking about CX's 333/343/772/744 fleets. I'm talking about the 777-200LR/-300ER v A345/6 with all carriers.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
"Despatch rate", our internal dispatch rate last year showed the airbus fleet (330 & 340) had a higher dispatch rate than the 777 or 744 or 747, the 330 being the most reliable aircraft in the fleet.

"Fuel burns" : what we expected, the 340 seat mile costs are the same as our 744 if not a little better depending on the route, and they fly similar routes. The 330 from what I know does a little better seat mile than the 772, the 773 beats the 744 but has no range. Our 777s really only do regional sectors lengths, the 330s get to stretch their legs going down to Australia.

Gee that's wonderful. But I'm talking specifically about 345/6 v 772LR/773ER, again, just to reiterate that to you. Are you going to deny that the 345/6 have had far more problems/issues than the 772LR/773ER? Please come up with a plausible reason why the world's airlines are shying away from the 345/6. I think GF announced yesterday their whole 340 fleet is being replaced by 330s.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
I think you will find a lot of 777s are being delayed at the moment

Are they? That's news.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
"better than promised performance" I guess that is relative, that was not the case on the 744 or initial problems on the 773, or the number of 777s we had on the ground last year getting fixed.

I'm talking about the 773ER specifically, not your 744s or 773s. The 773ER was produced on time with lower than anticipated fuel burn and greater than anticipated range. Ask EK how much they enjoy their 773ER fleet and why they dumped the 346HGW order like a hot potato.
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:35 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 31):
Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it. Simple as that.

Why? Is it because you worry about hurting CX or just because they are uncomfortable for "Boeingland"?
Let Zeke's bosses (and Zeke) worry about this confidentiality issue. Why don't you just try to counter it
with some hard evidence? You can give confidential info, too, I don't mind  Smile.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:57 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 31):
Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it. Simple as that. Without knowing the finer points of the engine/apu deal, how can you accurately comment anyway?

It would have been improper for me to say publicly that Boeing offered the 773ER for US$1.10, and Airbus offered the A346 for US$1.20, but I didn't, I made no mention of the actual price which you quite correctly point out is confidential (and no the price was not US$1.10).

Airbus and Boeing do not build engines or APUs. It is common for Airlines to enter into separate deals with engine manufacturers, or other specialist powerplant leasing companies for those arrangements. As you may or may not have seen in the press, CX did such as deal with GE.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 31):
But I'm talking specifically about 345/6 v 772LR/773ER, again, just to reiterate that to you.

What was this thread about again ?

Quoting Magyar (Reply 32):

Why? Is it because you worry about hurting CX or just because they are uncomfortable for "Boeingland"?
Let Zeke's bosses (and Zeke) worry about this confidentiality issue. Why don't you just try to counter it
with some hard evidence? You can give confidential info, too, I don't mind

He has been very abrasive to me over a number of threads, he has no interest in discussing the topic, just denigrating the discussion into a AvB flamefest. If you look at his posts to me over a number of threads, they are just direct personal attacks in a very unfriendly tone.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:33 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
One thing is for sure Boeing is laughing because they can afford to price low having captured 540+ orders and are in an enviable business position of being able to force Airbus so low in pricing that they will struggle to get the 300 or 400 oders they need to get to recover investment in the XWB program.

Why would they price low? The large backlog and high customer demand gives them more pricing power, i.e. less discounting. That would be a better reason why Boeing is "laughing".

As for the A350 market, perhaps a little perspective is in order. Recall that the total market for mid-size twins is on the order of 6000 units over the next 20 years. That's nearly one per day.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 2):
The Paris Air Show will be very interesting thats for sure......

 checkmark 
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:40 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
He has been very abrasive to me over a number of threads, he has no interest in discussing the topic, just denigrating the discussion into a AvB flamefest. If you look at his posts to me over a number of threads, they are just direct personal attacks in a very unfriendly tone.

And yours aren't?

You are the one that mentioned that Boeing was offering large 748I discounts, when it is clear 40% is standard for many large deals.
You are the one who has put confidential CX/Boeing info on this site. Please show me the disclosure where CX has admitted this. I am very wary of your claim, as well.
You are the one who incessantly asks others for "evidence" and then makes outrageous statements yourself and can't back them up.
However, I quite enjoy the verbal sparring and it doesn't bother me one little bit.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 32):
Why? Is it because you worry about hurting CX or just because they are uncomfortable for "Boeingland"?

Simply because he shouldn't do it. He's trying to wriggle out of it and he always does but I don't think he's fooled too many.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 32):
Why don't you just try to counter it
with some hard evidence? You can give confidential info, too, I don't mind .

That's not the point at all, and if I did have confidential info, it would remain so. What hard evidence do you want? I don't know what the offers to CX were and I seriously doubt he does as well.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
What was this thread about again ?

Certainly not the essay you gave us on the ins and outs of the entire CX fleet.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:47 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 31):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?

Yes the details are confidential, but unlike yourself I know what the difference was (but not for the ILFC component or the finer points of the engine/apu deal), and no I did not reveal the price nor anything confidential.

Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it.

How do you know this? How do you know for certain it was confidential?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
he has no interest in discussing the topic, just denigrating the discussion into a AvB flamefest.

You could wave a black flag infront of some people and they will try to tell you its white.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:15 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 36):
How do you know this?

What was reported in the "Seattle Times" at the time ... "This year's breakthrough sales wins clearly depended also on pricing. Boeing sales chief Scott Carson has led a series of decisive campaigns offering big discounts and closing deals against Airbus supersalesman John Leahy."

Buy hey, that is basically what I said...some people cannot even see the flag.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:50 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 36):
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 31):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 28):
Evidence? You, as a pilot, know what the 777-300ER deal was between CX and Boeing? Isn't that confidential? Should you be revealing this information?

Yes the details are confidential, but unlike yourself I know what the difference was (but not for the ILFC component or the finer points of the engine/apu deal), and no I did not reveal the price nor anything confidential.

Mentioning that the Boeing price was cheaper is absolutely confidential and you shouldn't have done it.

How do you know this? How do you know for certain it was confidential?

Well you tell me where CX has disclosed this information? It is rare for this information to be publicly disclosed and Zeke appears unable to see his sin, which could be construed as very serious by some.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 36):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
he has no interest in discussing the topic, just denigrating the discussion into a AvB flamefest.

You could wave a black flag infront of some people and they will try to tell you its white.

I have an interest in pointing out the reality of the situation and outing users such as Zeke that pretend they are something they are clearly not. He's preaching it and a lot of you are accepting it.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
What was reported in the "Seattle Times" at the time ... "This year's breakthrough sales wins clearly depended also on pricing. Boeing sales chief Scott Carson has led a series of decisive campaigns offering big discounts and closing deals against Airbus supersalesman John Leahy."

Buy hey, that is basically what I said...some people cannot even see the flag.

Whoopee do. What sales campaign doesn't depend on price and sure LH got a great deal on the 748I, as launch customer. That is to be expected. My argument is that this is no different to many campaigns at many airlines run by both OEMs. Your language when initially talking about the 748I discount clearly insinuated a higher than normal level of discount. I believe you are patently wrong here.
I can see the flag. You run around the issues and will not argue the relevant specific point. Much like a politician, I guess.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:23 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
Your language when initially talking about the 748I discount clearly insinuated a higher than normal level of discount.

They are called launch discounts, they are given as compensation for the risk of the project, and assumed technical difficulties when introduced.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
Your language when initially talking about the 748I discount clearly insinuated a higher than normal level of discount. I believe you are patently wrong here.

Well we will have to agree to disagree, launch discounts are still available for the 748-i.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23485
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:27 pm

Heck, the Seattle Times now lists the AVITAS discount along with the list price. They didn't at the time of the CX order, but did note the discount rate would be 30% (which is indeed what my research has shown) so the order for 12 listed at $3 billion and was probably transacted around $2.1 billion.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:41 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
What was reported in the "Seattle Times" at the time ... "This year's breakthrough sales wins clearly depended also on pricing. Boeing sales chief Scott Carson has led a series of decisive campaigns offering big discounts and closing deals against Airbus supersalesman John Leahy."

Boeing used to be pretty arrogant when it came to pricing, sometimes demanding list from customers. This is why they lost customers like F9 and B6 to Airbus. They have a new sales team that isn't so arrogant and willing to make deals. However I don't think Boeing is winning orders just because of discounts like some on this forum like to insinuate. After all Tim Clark did say they only thing he didn't like about the 777 was the price tag and his airline is the largest customer for the 777. If any airline would be getting the best deal it would be EK. I guess the logical answer that the A340 is a great aircraft, but inferior to the 777 is hard to accept for some.
 
GBan
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:10 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:11 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
and Zeke appears unable to see his sin,



Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
I have an interest in pointing out the reality of the situation and outing users such as Zeke that pretend they are something they are clearly not. He's preaching it and a lot of you are accepting it.

You seem to have a huge burden on your shoulders. I wonder whether you are a priest - or do you have German ancestors?

 Wink
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:37 pm

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
He's preaching it and a lot of you are accepting it.

Preaching what?

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 38):
Your language when initially talking about the 748I discount clearly insinuated a higher than normal level of discount.

Is that the LH order? What is the normal level and what are LH paying?
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:42 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
Buy hey, that is basically what I said...some people cannot even see the flag

Fortunately for Boeing, they are in a position to afford giving discounts and are in a much better position to get into a pricing war with Airbus. This is generally what happens when a company has a $15 billion project that hasn't produced a dime of revenue after 7 years of development.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23485
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 44):
Fortunately for Boeing, they are in a position to afford giving discounts and are in a much better position to get into a pricing war with Airbus. This is generally what happens when a company has a $15 billion project that hasn't produced a dime of revenue after 7 years of development.

And it is also what generally happens when a company with a fully-amortized product faces competition from a new and more effective product that marginalizes it.

In other words, when the A350XWB does eventually firm up and start landing orders, Boeing will essentially be forced to discount the 777 family even more (and current discounts are in the 40% range) to continue to secure orders. So even if Boeing chooses not to improve the plane, I expect they will improve the production efficiencies as much as possible to maintain margins with discounts exceeding 50% off list.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9081
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 35):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
He has been very abrasive to me over a number of threads, he has no interest in discussing the topic, just denigrating the discussion into a AvB flamefest. If you look at his posts to me over a number of threads, they are just direct personal attacks in a very unfriendly tone.

And yours aren't?

You are the one that mentioned that Boeing was offering large 748I discounts, when it is clear 40% is standard for many large deals.

I could conclude you see Zeke saying Boeing was offering large 748i dsicounts as a direct personal attack in a very unfriendly tone. My advise: keep a little distance, its just aircraft & factories.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
Zeke

myth buster!
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:11 am

What is wrong here guys...... so Zeke is giving us some insight in regard of CX great, so what B offered the T7 at a better price then A............. ah that is how the game goes.... I have seen contracts in the past and yes it is part of the business can I give anyone an exact $ amount???? hell NO.

Once again Zeke thank you for the info always appreciated  Smile

Cheers,
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:26 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 41):
After all Tim Clark did say they only thing he didn't like about the 777 was the price tag and his airline is the largest customer for the 777. If any airline would be getting the best deal it would be EK. I guess the logical answer that the A340 is a great aircraft, but inferior to the 777 is hard to accept for some.

You hit the nail right on its head!!! And if Boeing is discounting aircraft, it is because they are able to afford to, whereas Airbus cannot. Those margins of Airbus keep shrinking every single day. I would hate to be the CFO of that mess.
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK A350 Audit, A350 Closes Gap On B787, Part 2

Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:28 am

Quoting Swissy (Reply 47):
What is wrong here guys...... so Zeke is giving us some insight in regard of CX great, so what B offered the T7 at a better price then A............. ah that is how the game goes.... I have seen contracts in the past and yes it is part of the business can I give anyone an exact $ amount???? hell NO.

Once again Zeke thank you for the info always appreciated

And you believe Zeke? My advice on the CX 773ER/346 competition is that he is very wrong. But that's as far as I'm prepared to go.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos