JAL Orders 31 A350 Part 2

AngMoh · Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
This morning's Japan Times (while I'm growing to dislike their style of reporting on American related news) said that Airbus ordering the 350 threatens the myriad of suppliers in Japan who help build the Boeing planes.

This seems to be a very dangerous game to play for Boeing.

First, I always though the Japanese heavies got into the 787 because of their willingness to invest in the program, take on risk and reduce Boeings financial exposure. The Japanese government incentive probably did not any harm either.

Because so much came out of Japan, it made the sale even more straight forward, especially JAL and ANA were loyal Boeing customers and Airbus had no competitive offer. But I strongly believe there is no direct relationship between the heavies getting the work and JAL and ANA buying the 787 (indirectly there were probably a lot of relationships but I don't believe they are at the root of the deal).

So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350? In my experience with working with Japan, that can only backfire. You are threatening suppliers who have taken on lots of financial risks and probably financial hardships over the last 6 years, while you still need them for the next 20 years delivering parts for the 787? I don't understand that, especially for an order which is good but irrelevant in the light of the rise of the ME carriers. There is a lot more business to be done in Japan in the future, also military.

And if they think they can move the business to Korea or China to get a better deal, I think they are also dreaming. Korea and China drive much harder bargains than Japan.

PHX787 · Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:30 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 149):
Disregarding the rather dumb mistake here:

Before this latest setback Boeing was already running behind the European firm. Airbus has 1,112 orders in its backlog, nearly 90 more than Boeing.

Yeah I pretty much overread that.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350? In my experience with working with Japan, that can only backfire

Remember the audit thread?

Exactly.

Japan is sensitive to a lot of things. These suppliers run off of cooperation.....and yelling at Japanese people pretty much makes them want to run away from you completely.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
There is a lot more business to be done in Japan in the future, also military.

I guess my future dream job is safe thus far

Francoflier · Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:55 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
oeing should NOT have blamed the Yuasa battery outright.

Yes, that was rather daft. I'm guessing the Japanese, ever the perfectionists, didn't take that sort of unfounded criticism too well. And I mean the entire Japanese aerospace industry here, not just Yuasa.

Quoting Blueshamu330s (Reply 147):
Oh no, couldn't possibly be; Airbus "won" because of Boeing's failings.

Well, I understand your sarcasm, but to be honest, the Japanese flag carriers seem to go to great lengths to remain loyal to Boeing.
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

Motorhussy · Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:40 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 152):
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

Agreed entirely! I think the consensus here, among the neutral posters, is that Airbus won the JL order on its own merits - but only after the airline's confidence in Boeing took such a knock that they had to look objectively at all options.

Stitch · Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:27 pm

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350?

I believe it is third-party analysts suggesting Boeing do this, not that Boeing themselves are doing so.

Of course, should Boeing decide to build the wing in the US - like they do on every other commercial airplane family except the 787 - the analysts will all be writing that JL ordering the A350 played a major role in that decision and is in part a rebuke to the Japanese. Just as they all are writing that the 787's c**k-ups played a major role in JL ordering the A350 and is in part a rebuke to Boeing.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 152):
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

I sill believe that Japan Airlines ordered the A350 because it was the better plane and, more importantly, because Airbus spent years in a carefully-orchestrated mission to convince Japan Airlines management that it was the better plane. Even if the 787 had executed far better than it did in both development and deployment, I believe Airbus' concerted effort would have won them the deal, but then I'm a Boeing Apologist so...

KarelXWB · Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
I believe it is third-party analysts suggesting Boeing do this, not that Boeing themselves are doing so.

Since the JAL order, a lot of annalists are spilling their opinions out on the internet. There are so many different stories, some have good arguments while others are pretty poor.

[Edited 2013-10-13 12:34:41]

Stitch · Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 155):
Since the JAL order, a lot of annalists are spilling their opinions out on the internet. There are so many different stories, some have good arguments while others are pretty poor.

Indeed.

For those who believe the 787 played a role (minor or major) in the decision have a number of analysts who follow Airbus and Japan Airlines to quote from in support of their view. And for those who believe it did not, they have Airbus and Japan Airlines themselves to quote from to support their view. So whichever way you believe, you're covered.

[Edited 2013-10-13 12:48:16]

sweair · Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:57 pm

Would it be wrong to do the 777-X wings in Everett?

Stitch · Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:09 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 157):
Would it be wrong to do the 777-X wings in Everett?

Not at all.

Building the wings in Japan might increase confidence in potential customers as Japan already knows how to do it with the 787 and they appear to have done an excellent job with the design and manufacturing of said wings.

That being said, Boeing does have experience designing and manufacturing non-CFRP wings and they also have experience designing and manufacturing the CFRP vertical (787-8 / 787-9 / 787-10) and horizontal (787-9 / 787-10) stabilizers.

EPA001 · Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:15 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 153):
Agreed entirely! I think the consensus here, among the neutral posters, is that Airbus won the JL order on its own merits - but only after the airline's confidence in Boeing took such a knock that they had to look objectively at all options.

That sums it up quite nicely I believe.

.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
more importantly, because Airbus spent years in a carefully-orchestrated mission to convince Japan Airlines management that it was the better plane. Even if the 787 had executed far better than it did in both development and deployment, I believe Airbus' concerted effort would have won them the deal, but then I'm a Boeing Apologist so...

Yes, there continues effort were valued by the Japanese already for quite some times, and with the right product all the hard work paid off.

.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 155):
Since the JAL order, a lot of annalists are spilling their opinions out on the internet. There are so many different stories, some have good arguments while others are pretty poor.

The differences in these stories are mostly based on personal views, probably based on personal agendas. And we know that many comments made by several analysts are not always to be taken that seriously since time and the markets has proved them wrong multiple times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 157):
Would it be wrong to do the 777-X wings in Everett?

I do not see anything wrong in that. In the end Boeing will decide what choices where to build which parts will be made. They no doubt will make the right decisions here.

Stitch · Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:20 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 159):
The differences in these stories are mostly based on personal views, probably based on personal agendas. And we know that many comments made by several analysts are not always to be taken that seriously since time and the markets has proved them wrong multiple times.

We should also not forget that these analysts are putting their opinions forward in an effort to gain page hits for advertising purposes, be it in support of third party businesses (like the WSJ and Forbes) or in support of their own businesses (like Richard Aboulafia and Scott Hamilton) and that could have an influence on the analysis they're advocating.

EPA001 · Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:21 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 160):
We should also not forget that these analysts are putting their opinions forward in an effort to gain page hits for advertising purposes, be it in support of third party businesses (like the WSJ and Forbes) or in support of their own businesses (like Richard Aboulafia and Scott Hamilton) and that could have an influence on the analysis they're advocating.

Indeed. I am sure you are correct with this comment.

.

TheRedBaron · Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:25 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 153):
Agreed entirely! I think the consensus here, among the neutral posters, is that Airbus won the JL order on its own merits - but only after the airline's confidence in Boeing took such a knock that they had to look objectively at all options.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
I sill believe that Japan Airlines ordered the A350 because it was the better plane and, more importantly, because Airbus spent years in a carefully-orchestrated mission to convince Japan Airlines management that it was the better plane. Even if the 787 had executed far better than it did in both development and deployment, I believe Airbus' concerted effort would have won them the deal, but then I'm a Boeing Apologist so...

Glad to see these kind of comments! right on the bullseye!

TRB

sankaps · Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):

I sill believe that Japan Airlines ordered the A350 because it was the better plane

I think most people agree on this.

The part that some people don't see or don't want to accept may have been a contributing factor, is that Airbus was given an opening to demonstrate the superiority of the plane, and JAL was finally open and willing to select on merit, because of JAL's experience with the 787.

The 787 essentially freed them from their almost moral, historic relationship-based obligation to buy Boeing regardless of what else was on offer, better or not.

Stitch · Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Quoting sankaps (Reply 163):
The 787 essentially freed them from their almost moral, historic relationship-based obligation to buy Boeing regardless of what else was on offer, better or not.

Perhaps it did, even if Japan Airlines seems to be saying it didn't.

I guess All Nippon Airways will give us the true answer as unlike Japan Airlines, they are closely aligned with the ruling party of the Japanese Government and they had a larger 787 fleet than Japan Airlines so they not only paid a heavier price from an operational impact, but also a public relations impact since they had an emergency landing and evacuation with their battery incident.

If they choose the A350-1000 (which I believe they should), then I shall have little choice but to acknowledge the 787's issues had to play a role in both their choice and Japan Airlines.

Which means Airbus should send Boeing's 787 team a large case of fine French wine as a thank you for making it possible for them to win both orders.

sankaps · Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:02 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 164):
Perhaps it did, even if Japan Airlines seems to be saying it didn't.

In Japanese culture terms, they are almost screaming out that that is exactly what they did. Remember in Japan even a "no" is stated as "yes" and a "yes" as a "no" in order to avoid public confrontation and embarrassment.

At the joint Airbus-JAL press conference, while JAL's CEO denied the 787 had a role to play, he also went on to once again apologize (with the Airbus CEO by his side) for the troubles caused to his customers by the 787's reliability issues.

That is as close as it will get to a slap on the face in Japan in terms of long-standing business relationships.

sankaps · Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:09 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 164):
I guess All Nippon Airways will give us the true answer as unlike Japan Airlines, they are closely aligned with the ruling party of the Japanese Government

This may actually put pressure on ANA to not further rock the boat with Boeing and jeopardize the interests of Japanese manufacturing partners involved in the 787. Therefore if ANA still goes out and buys Airbus, that would really be astounding and an much bigger slap on the face to Boeing.

trex8 · Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:22 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 164):
Which means Airbus should send Boeing's 787 team a large case of fine French wine as a thank you for making it possible for them to win both orders.

Should that be champagne then for the A330s Bs problems have helped A sell?

RickNRoll · Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:45 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
Of course, should Boeing decide to build the wing in the US - like they do on every other commercial airplane family except the 787 - the analysts will all be writing that JL ordering the A350 played a major role in that decision and is in part a rebuke to the Japanese. Just as they all are writing that the 787's c**k-ups played a major role in JL ordering the A350 and is in part a rebuke to Boeing.

I read somewhere it could be built in China.

Stitch · Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:26 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 168):
I read somewhere (the wing) could be built in China.

I would put the chances of that happening as absolute zero.

PHX787 · Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:34 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 153):

Quoting francoflier (Reply 152):
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

Agreed entirely! I think the consensus here, among the neutral posters, is that Airbus won the JL order on its own merits

I'm in agreement as well. The A350 program thus far seems to be going off without a hitch. But what killed the 787 was not just the EIS delays....it was the EIS that put the nail in the coffin....Airlines were watching this, and saw that the A350 was cruising along fine, and most likely thought A over B.

Before anyone bashes me for being a Boeing basher, I am not. I'm neutral, although I want to work for Boeing when I graduate, as I've stated a few times.

Stitch · Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:19 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 167):
Should that be champagne then for the A330s Bs problems have helped A sell?

Probably, but then the 777 team should probably reciprocate with a case of Washington's finest from the vineyards for all the 777-300ER orders racked up as the A350-1000 EIS has slipped (both by design and by circumstance).

teme82 · Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:00 pm

Hey just to remind you all that with the current schedule the A350 have been service some time before JL get's theirs. So I would assume if there is any problems with service entry for A350 they would be solved before JL gets their planes. So they will get more mature plane than the 787 was when they got them.

Stitch · Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:15 am

So looking beyond the factors that led to Japan Airlines ordering the A350 family, this analysis by Chris Sloan and Vinay Bhaskara provides their insight into how the 787 and A350 will likely be deployed. I will note I agree with their views since they happen to agree with mine.

787-8 - domestic 767-300 replacement
787-9 - regional and long-haul 767-300ER replacement / long-haul 777-200ER replacement
A350-900R (10 abreast Economy) - domestic 777-200 replacement
A350-900R (9 abreast Economy) - regional 777-200ER replacement
A350-1000 - domestic 777-300 replacement and long-haul 777-300ER replacement

Both gentlemen agree with me that the 777-9 was too large as a 777-300 and 777-300ER replacement, which favored the A350-1000.

They also expect Japan Airlines to exercise all 20 787 options as a mix of 787-8 and 787-9 to complete the 767-300(ER) replacement, as well as exercise 8 of their 25 A350 options as A350--900Rs to complete the 777-200(ER) replacement.

[Edited 2013-10-15 17:16:07]

tortugamon · Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):

Quote:
"Ultimately, this order was likely a toss-up between the A350-900 and the Boeing 787-10, with the A350-900 likely getting the nod thanks to uncertainty around the 787 program, better availability, and (likely) pricing incentives from Airbus."

I agree with this from the article as well.

tortugamon

Stitch · Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:51 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 174):
I agree with this from the article as well.

Are we even sure the 787-10 was part of the RFP? Reports from earlier in the year stating JAL would likely order the A350-1000 seemed to imply the RFP was only between the A350-1000 and 777-8/777-9.

That being said, I could see Airbus being pre-emptive against a future 787-10 order and pushing a package deal with the A350-900, noting that it could go 10-abreast (necessary to directly replace the domestic 777-200 fleet) and give JAL a bit of room to expand capacity on their regional 777-200ER fleet (at 9-abreast) compared to the 787-9, which can only match the 777-200ER in capacity.

tortugamon · Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:11 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 175):
Are we even sure the 787-10 was part of the RFP?

No but its hard to envision any A359 order not going up against a 787-10 RFP. It could have filled in as a 773 replacement and, in low density seating low cargo routes, it could have filled 77W missions as well. I could see JAL not wanting to put too many eggs in one 787-basket.

I don't see JAL going 10-abreast in their A350s. I assume the 77W/773 replacement drove the order to Airbus and at that point the A359 timing/pricing/fuel burn made it a logical choice for 77E replacement. I can't see how capability or capacity as the deciding factor vs the 787-10. In my opinion if the 77X won the 77W replacement the 787-10 would have won the 773 replacement.

tortugamon

Stitch · Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:02 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 177):
No but its hard to envision any A359 order not going up against a 787-10 RFP.

I agree, which makes me wonder if Airbus "jumped the gun" on Boeing by offering the A350-900 now, instead of waiting for a future JL 777-200 family replacement RFP (where they would have had to compete against an available 787-10).

KarelXWB · Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:34 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 177):
I don't see JAL going 10-abreast in their A350s.

Why not? It's a bit tight but should work fine on short domestic flights. And the CASM will be extremely low.

tortugamon · Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:12 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 179):
Why not? It's a bit tight but should work fine on short domestic flights. And the CASM will be extremely low.

I thought it was just ANA that went 10 abreast in their 773s but I just looked and indeed JAL do have some 500 seaters (wiki is wrong again, it says 300 seats so I should have known). Seat guru says they are 17.3" seats and JAL has not made the change to 9 abreast yet on their 787s which leaves to believe they would not be interesting in a ~16.5 10 abreast A350. I have to admit that seeing that they do have 10-abreast 773s does make me second guess that assumption now but I still don't see it as very likely.

CASM would be undoubtedly phenomenal.

tortugamon

PHX787 · Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:52 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 178):
I agree, which makes me wonder if Airbus "jumped the gun" on Boeing by offering the A350-900 now, instead of waiting for a future JL 777-200 family replacement RFP (where they would have had to compete against an available 787-10).

Well I don't see why they shouldn't have jumped the gun, as you say. If the 359 makes an excellent case and works well for JL, then JL may order an equivalent frame from Airbus to replace the 772s.

Which is where B should probably focus on the most. B right now should be drawing up plans to market the crap out of the 7810 to the Japanese.

rheinwaldner · Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:36 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 176):

No but its hard to envision any A359 order not going up against a 787-10 RFP.

We ha no idea, how the RFP looked like, no? Maybe there were requirements (e.g. for range), which could not be met with the 781? RFPs are not written like "please offer what you have to replace 772ER". In a RFP usually specific payload/range figures are demanded that cover the customers future need. Which might be similar to those of the aircraft to be replaced but more probably aren't.

EPA001 · Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:14 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
I will note I agree with their views since they happen to agree with mine.

To be fair to you, you stated this long before the order ever materialised. So all credits to you!

.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 180):
If the 359 makes an excellent case and works well for JL, then JL may order an equivalent frame from Airbus to replace the 772s.

They might. But since they will have both the B787 and the A350 in their fleet neither offering has the advantage of fleet commonality. So it will be interesting to see how that would be played out by all parties involved.

Stitch · Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 181):
Maybe there were requirements (e.g. for range), which could not be met with the 781?

JL for the most part do not operate their 777-200 family planes on long-haul missions (the handful they do operate on such missions are being replaced with 787-8s now and probably 787-9s later), so the 787-10 should have been capable of the missions required.

I (and the analysts quoted) believe that JL will be taking the A350-900R regional variant and that the 787-9 and A350-1000 will be JL's long-haul platforms.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 176):
I don't see JAL going 10-abreast in their A350s.

If they do not go 10-abreast on their domestic A350-900s then either they are expecting traffic on those routes to decline (so they can meet the need with 9-abreast) or they're going to use A350-1000s as the 777-200D replacement (as an A350-1000 at 9-abreast can cover a 777-200 at 10-abreast).

PHX787 · Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:35 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 182):
They might. But since they will have both the B787 and the A350 in their fleet neither offering has the advantage of fleet commonality. So it will be interesting to see how that would be played out by all parties involved.

DO not be surprised if JL decides to retire 788s early. Especially since they learned their lessons by keeping the 744s in the fleet too late.

rheinwaldner · Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 183):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 181):Maybe there were requirements (e.g. for range), which could not be met with the 781?
JL for the most part do not operate their 777-200 family planes on long-haul missions (the handful they do operate on such missions are being replaced with 787-8s now and probably 787-9s later), so the 787-10 should have been capable of the missions required.

I can add some more maybes:
- Maybe JAL want to switch the 787 to the 777-200 role and have only one family for all the long range routes
- Maybe JAL in the future aims to have less of the 777-200-kind of traffic and more high yield long range routes

In other words: we have no idea what was demanded by the RFP.

Regarding the 781: I really hope it was not addressed by the requirements and it did not just loose because of lack of merits in some way. The JAL order would be even harder to swallow for Boeing if the 781 would have lost against the A359 an order for which it would be tailor made...

sweair · Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:31 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 184):
DO not be surprised if JL decides to retire 788s early. Especially since they learned their lessons by keeping the 744s in the fleet too late.

Maybe some other airline would love to get their hands on those frames, as the backlog is huge.. JL swapping all Boeings for Airbuses? What a change of fleet that would be, a lot of pilot re training etc.

jfk777 · Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:12 am

JAL's 77W seats 232 passengers in four classes, why would a 777-9X with say 275 seats be too big ? JAL does not seem to be adding frequencies the way ANA added a second daily flight to each Chicago and JFK. Business Class is huge as it was on the JAL 744 to JFK. JAL should bring back the monikers it used before, "Big Ben Express and Big Apple Express".

tortugamon · Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:42 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 181):
In a RFP usually specific payload/range figures are demanded that cover the customers future need.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 185):
Maybe JAL in the future aims to have less of the 777-200-kind of traffic and more high yield long range routes

On which routes would they need more capability? They were operating one of the longest 787 routes with an early production 788 that definitely had less 7,700nm 3-class range. The 789s clearly will have much more. They operate at such low densities is hard to see how a 787-10 could not do 95%+ of their current or planned routes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 183):
If they do not go 10-abreast on their domestic A350-900s then either they are expecting traffic on those routes to decline (so they can meet the need with 9-abreast) or they're going to use A350-1000s as the 777-200D replacement (as an A350-1000 at 9-abreast can cover a 777-200 at 10-abreast).

The fact that they do 10-abreast on their domestic 773s makes 10-abreast more likely but I don't see JAL being the first full service legacy airline to go 10-abreast in an A350. We will see. I think they will use the A351 in 9 abreast for a 772D replacement.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 187):
why would a 777-9X with say 275 seats be too big ?

I think the point is that if you buy a 777-9x it is only more economical than an A351 if you put it in 10 abreast in Y and 7 abreast in J does not hurt either. If you do these things it results in more seats than JAL needs (more than 275) so they will go with an A351. Either they couldn't handle sell all the seats or wanted to go 9-abreast; it doesn't matter as the A351 makes a lot of sense.

tortugamon

Stitch · Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:09 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
The fact that they do 10-abreast on their domestic 773s makes 10-abreast more likely but I don't see JAL being the first full service legacy airline to go 10-abreast in an A350.

Most Japanese domestic flights are what, 30-60 minutes? For such short stage lengths on domestic missions, I really don't see it being an issue.

I fully expect any 787 or A350 leaving the Japanese home islands (sans Okinawa, maybe) to be flown with 9-abreast in Economy.

rheinwaldner · Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:58 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
On which routes would they need more capability?

You don´t know? Me neither. Maybe the other "maybe" I have mentioned was the reason why they will have the 787 in the regional role? I would certainly not want to deploy two aircraft families on the long routes, if I could have one.

So there is too much guesswork about the future intentions of JAL on our side to claim that the 781 was in the scope of the RFP. There is simply no explanation, why the 781 would not win a RFP for which it would be tailor made.

tortugamon · Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:10 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
Most Japanese domestic flights are what, 30-60 minutes?

Well HIJ-CTS is just 1h 45 minutes but I get your point. Its hard to find one longer than an hour from NRT/HND, you are right. I don't think I would have much reservation on a 30 minute flight. Heck, I would stand the whole flight if it was cheap enough.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
I fully expect any 787 or A350 leaving the Japanese home islands (sans Okinawa, maybe) to be flown with 9-abreast in Economy.

ANA has announced the change to 9-abreast in Y but JAL has resisted as far as I have heard. In fact the JAL 'New Sky Project' seems to imply larger seat widths than the competition (ANA). I believe their current 787s are at 17.5" and they would have to go to 16.5" +/- to do 10-abreast in an A350 so not an insignificant change even on short flights.

They should be receiving about half of their ordered 787-8s by the end of the year and still no mention of 9-abreast. We will see!

tortugamon

JA743J · Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:02 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 191):
Its hard to find one longer than an hour from NRT/HND, you are right.

Almost all routes out of HND which is run by 777s are more than one hour long. HND-FUK block time is 1:50 and Okinawa flights are quite bit longer.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 191):
ANA has announced the change to 9-abreast in Y but JAL has resisted as far as I have heard.

That's because ANA uses 788 on both international and domestic routes but JAL only operates 788 on international routes only. ANA was using internationally configured 788s on domestic routes for a limited time until one equipped with domestic 3-3-3 config went online.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 191):
In fact the JAL 'New Sky Project' seems to imply larger seat widths than the competition (ANA).

I don't know. JAL needed updated hard product while ANA's "Inspiration of Japan" which was launched during the wakes of JAL's bankruptcy. So, even though it does leap ahead of "Inspiration of Japan", JAL's new SS7 product does't put them that much ahead of the competition (may be except for new C and PY seats). The problem with SS7 is that new C class seats take way more space than previous Shell Flat Neo seats. If you compare the newest W83 config and W82 config which is being transferred from, C seats decreased quite a bit while increasing Y space to make the total number of seats about the same. So, JAL definitely need more "floor space." Therefore, I think there is still a great chance that JAL orders 777x. Larger plane does not equal to more capacity, but purely brings JAL more floor space to put their products on.

tortugamon · Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:34 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 190):
There is simply no explanation, why the 781 would not win a RFP for which it would be tailor made.

The A359 clearly can win deals vs the 781 for other reasons. Timing advantage over ANA could be a significant step up. Also, I think Airbus was motivated to break into the Japanese market so I am sure they made them a good deal while Boeing is less motivated to discount the 787-10. The 787-10 advantage over the A359 is projected to be small so I could see timing and pricing meaning a lot.

Quoting JA743J (Reply 192):
HND-FUK block time is 1:50

That route looks to be 35% shorter than HIJ-CTS yet 5 minutes longer. Interesting.

Quoting JA743J (Reply 192):
ANA was using internationally configured 788s on domestic routes for a limited time until one equipped with domestic 3-3-3 config went online.

However, I think they are planning on taking all of their international 788s in that 3-3-3 configuration.

Quoting JA743J (Reply 192):
Therefore, I think there is still a great chance that JAL orders 777x.

I think the chances are low if traffic does not substantially increase in Japan. We will see!

tortugamon

KarelXWB · Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:53 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
I think the point is that if you buy a 777-9x it is only more economical than an A351 if you put it in 10 abreast in Y and 7 abreast in J does not hurt either. If you do these things it results in more seats than JAL needs (more than 275) so they will go with an A351. Either they couldn't handle sell all the seats or wanted to go 9-abreast; it doesn't matter as the A351 makes a lot of sense.

Although I still have to see how many airlines will use 7-abreast in J.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
Most Japanese domestic flights are what, 30-60 minutes? For such short stage lengths on domestic missions, I really don't see it being an issue.

sankaps · Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:56 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 193):
Also, I think Airbus was motivated to break into the Japanese market so I am sure they made them a good deal while Boeing is less motivated to discount the 787-10. The 787-10 advantage over the A359 is projected to be small so I could see timing and pricing meaning a lot.

Interesting how on a.net, JAL's EIS experience with the 787 for the past two years, which many external aviation watchers and experts have said was definitely a factor that allowed Airbus a foot in the door, is never mentioned as a possible contributing factor, and in fact continues to be either ignored or heatedly denied.

mariner · Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:58 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 193):
Also, I think Airbus was motivated to break into the Japanese market so I am sure they made them a good deal while Boeing is less motivated to discount the 787-10.

I think Boeing was extremely motivated to do a good deal, so as not to lose the order to Airbus.

Given the soul-searching that has been going on, Boeing must surely have been aware of the implications of losing the deal.

mariner

sankaps · Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:04 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 196):
I think Boeing was extremely motivated to do a good deal, so as not to lose the order to Airbus.

Exactly! Heads have rolled after this loss, which suggests just how important it was for Boeing to win this at all costs.

tortugamon · Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:36 am

Quoting sankaps (Reply 195):
Interesting how on a.net

Its interesting how individuals likes to use 'a.net' as a nameless foil for authors to make the same argument over and over in every thread they possibly can. I don't disagree with the sentiment, very few respected members do because it could clearly have had a real impact on the decision making but the incessant and pervasive badgering is boring to read so many times in so many threads so many times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 196):
I think Boeing was extremely motivated to do a good deal

Absolutely. Boeing could have assumed that they were going to get the deal and were calling JAL's bluff. Woops. We don't know. Airbus had a lot to gain and the A359 is the first variant that has low risk as it is already flying while Boeing needs to keep the 787-10 price high in order to make enough profit for the program due to early discounting with the other models. And the program has higher risk because it is still a paper airplane and a lot needs to happen before it can happen in 2018. Two different situations which I think benefit Airbus. Regardless if it was not a fantastic aircraft discounting would not have mattered.

tortugamon

sankaps · Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:09 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 198):
the incessant and pervasive badgering is boring to read so many times in so many threads so many times.

With due respect, as is the incessant and pervasive "the 787 experience did not influence the decision in any way" / "Airbus must have given away the aircraft for almost nothing" sentiment that repeats itself in so many rationalizations as to why JAL went Airbus. So as long as one continues, I suspect the other will.

[Edited 2013-10-18 02:45:43]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net