Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:54 am

A 787 sale at zero profit margin is still bringing in quite a bit of cash flow even if the accounting methods use $30 million towards deferred production costs. If a 787 sells at only $10 million over production costs and it is not able to make up for all the current deferred production costs per plane that does not result in a forward loss. That airplane brings in positive cash flow and is one more plane sold that can be used to increase the accounting block. Forward losses are only needed for sales that are below costs at the time of production assuming the accounting block cannot be increased. The only recent airplane sales recently that had a forward loss in the industry were The Delta Cseries sales. I don't want this to go into an accounting.net discussion but the deferred production costs don't always inhibit Boeing from competing on price and making sales. Obviously Boeing wants to reduce the deferred costs as much as possible and prevent forward losses, but that does not mean "Boeing has absolutely no opportunity to fight Airbus in price regarding the 787 vs A330". The 787 doesn't have to sell for less to compete on price because it can carry more payload and has better fuel burn under many or most conditions. Lower costs and higher revenue can offset a higher purchase price since the airplane can provide more value to the airline. The 787 just has to come close to the A330neo price for it to win many sales campaigns.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:05 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
A 787 sale at zero profit margin is still bringing in quite a bit of cash flow even if the accounting methods use $30 million towards deferred production costs. If a 787 sells at only $10 million over production costs and it is not able to make up for all the current deferred production costs per plane that does not result in a forward loss. That airplane brings in positive cash flow and is one more plane sold that can be used to increase the accounting block. Forward losses are only needed for sales that are below costs at the time of production assuming the accounting block cannot be increased. The only recent airplane sales recently that had a forward loss in the industry were The Delta Cseries sales. I don't want this to go into an accounting.net discussion but the deferred production costs don't always inhibit Boeing from competing on price and making sales. Obviously Boeing wants to reduce the deferred costs as much as possible and prevent forward losses, but that does not mean "Boeing has absolutely no opportunity to fight Airbus in price regarding the 787 vs A330". The 787 doesn't have to sell for less to compete on price because it can carry more payload and has better fuel burn under many or most conditions. Lower costs and higher revenue can offset a higher purchase price since the airplane can provide more value to the airline. The 787 just has to come close to the A330neo price for it to win many sales campaigns.



Let me understand your point, if Boeing needs to sell every aircraft from here to the current sales block at a $30 million margin to make up for the deferred cost, you think its not big deal if they don't make any profit from the sale? Wouldn't the $30 million just be added to the deferred cost and the pressure be amped up for future sales, where they will have even less maneuvering space regarding the price because they haven't sold the previous planes at the expected margins?

I think what many detractors of the 787 accounting see is that the next 1000 sales will have to be sold at margins never before seen on a program. This includes the 777 which had the 77W market to itself, the A330 which had its heyday with the 787 delays. I don't expect Boeing to reach those margins if they decide to compete on price with the A330.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:00 pm

Simple answer. There is a big gap between 0 and 30 million. Not all sales have to have a difference between sale price and production cost of 30 million if the accounting block increases.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:25 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Simple answer. There is a big gap between 0 and 30 million. Not all sales have to have a difference between sale price and production cost of 30 million if the accounting block increases.


Dream on. Even program accounting has some rules.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Simple answer. There is a big gap between 0 and 30 million. Not all sales have to have a difference between sale price and production cost of 30 million if the accounting block increases.



If the accounting block increases...with all airlines seemingly talking about trying to reign in capex and the talk about more deferrals coming you have to think Boeing is hoping they will be able to raise the block before they have to declare forward losses on the program. I am sure the accounting block will be increased by many hundreds before the model is discontinued, its about when they are able to do it to help ease the burden.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:45 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Simple answer. There is a big gap between 0 and 30 million. Not all sales have to have a difference between sale price and production cost of 30 million if the accounting block increases.


to contract the deferred cost item you need much more than 30 million commanded profit per frame.
the bookkeeping is done such that with every frame delivered 1/1500th of the projected/planned profits over the whole accounting block (1500) is "booked" as profit. i.e. when the 787 managed to break even by per item accounting they still lost the commanded profit per plane.
_When_ they manage to break even on project accounting metrics they will no longer add to deferred cost.

Efficiency gains, learning curve effects are inversely exponential. they run into diminishing returns in absolute money.
This massively front loads expenditure and extends the time to recoup this outlay.
Depending on learning curve percentage the recoup time / number of frames will be a multiple of the "loading" time.
An apparent reduction in demand does not help here.

Boeing seems to have worked through 1/3 of the accounting block without even achieving break even inside their accounting method.

2016 overall report coming in the next days will show how the "deferred" position has evolved.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:20 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
A 787 sale at zero profit margin is still bringing in quite a bit of cash flow even if the accounting methods use $30 million towards deferred production costs. If a 787 sells at only $10 million over production costs and it is not able to make up for all the current deferred production costs per plane that does not result in a forward loss. That airplane brings in positive cash flow and is one more plane sold that can be used to increase the accounting block. Forward losses are only needed for sales that are below costs at the time of production assuming the accounting block cannot be increased. The only recent airplane sales recently that had a forward loss in the industry were The Delta Cseries sales. I don't want this to go into an accounting.net discussion but the deferred production costs don't always inhibit Boeing from competing on price and making sales. Obviously Boeing wants to reduce the deferred costs as much as possible and prevent forward losses, but that does not mean "Boeing has absolutely no opportunity to fight Airbus in price regarding the 787 vs A330". The 787 doesn't have to sell for less to compete on price because it can carry more payload and has better fuel burn under many or most conditions. Lower costs and higher revenue can offset a higher purchase price since the airplane can provide more value to the airline. The 787 just has to come close to the A330neo price for it to win many sales campaigns.

The new senior management team are neither as flexible or generous.

The 787 team are lobbying for past financial under-performance to be forgiven, so they can compete on a more even footing, so more write-offs to be announced in the next round of reporting?

The 777 is the last project to start under the 'old' financial rules, with 'new' imposed part way through, after virtually all X orders were secured at 'devil may care' deep discounts, and all outgoing 777 models on much the same basis. Will there be some write-offs for the X before the first aircraft is delivered?

Until Boeing financially 'sort out' these two model ranges, there will only be tinkering 737 style, no MOM, no new 787 or 777X iterations, and due to new pricing 'rules', probably negative 787 and 777X sales recorded in 2017 as model swapping and deferral penalties are applied.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:45 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.

I think Polot explained my point rather well. I have been reading this thread continuously and I have even contributed some figures.

So, I ask you again, what is your source for the A330-900 having a clear OEW advantage? It has not been mentioned in this thread before, so I'd be very interested to know.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:54 pm

sf260 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.

I think Polot explained my point rather well. I have been reading this thread continuously and I have even contributed some figures.

So, I ask you again, what is your source for the A330-900 having a clear OEW advantage? It has not been mentioned in this thread before, so I'd be very interested to know.


How about reading the first post by the thread starter? And than you can read the post from Zeke also on page one. To bad that they do not number them any longer.
And you should do your searching yourself, that is why I asked you if you read the thread.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9914
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:06 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
sf260 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.

I think Polot explained my point rather well. I have been reading this thread continuously and I have even contributed some figures.

So, I ask you again, what is your source for the A330-900 having a clear OEW advantage? It has not been mentioned in this thread before, so I'd be very interested to know.


How about reading the first post by the thread starter? And than you can read the post from Zeke also on page one. To bad that they do not number them any longer.
And you should do your searching yourself, that is why I asked you if you read the thread.

Keesje gives just a ~2t (technically he rounded up on the 787's marketing OEW) OEW advantage to the A330. Considering that is based on Boeing/Airbus marketing configurations and numbers (and estimations for the A330neo), and how widely OEW can differ between different airlines for even the same plane (as seen in this very thread), I would be hesitant to consider 2 tons a clear advantage for the A330. This isn't like the 77W/A346, where you had two planes of similar size and capability but one had a marketing OEW some 10t higher.

Zeke was talking about basic weight of 120-123t + 3-4.5t for catering on A333, and did not talk about any extra weight for the Neo. Many (Most? All?) operators would include catering in OEW. If you nice and assume 120t basic weight, 3t of catering +5t Neo penalty that is still an OEW of 128t for the NEO (0.85t less than what Boeing markets the 789), and that is also assuming those numbers are not excluding anything else that an airline might include in OEW.

PS Replies are numbered on the upper right of each post next to quote button. Sadly quotes don't include reply number anymore though.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:37 pm

Polot wrote:
Keesje gives just a ~2t (technically he rounded up on the 787's marketing OEW) OEW advantage to the A330. Considering that is based on Boeing/Airbus marketing configurations and numbers (and estimations for the A330neo), and how widely OEW can differ between different airlines for even the same plane (as seen in this very thread), I would be hesitant to consider 2 tons a clear advantage for the A330. This isn't like the 77W/A346, where you had two planes of similar size and capability but one had a marketing OEW some 10t higher.

Zeke was talking about basic weight of 120-123t + 3-4.5t for catering on A333, and did not talk about any extra weight for the Neo. Many (Most? All?) operators would include catering in OEW. If you nice and assume 120t basic weight, 3t of catering +5t Neo penalty that is still an OEW of 128t for the NEO (0.85t less than what Boeing markets the 789), and that is also assuming those numbers are not excluding anything else that an airline might include in OEW.

PS Replies are numbered on the upper right of each post next to quote button. Sadly quotes don't include reply number anymore though.


It is not that marketing numbers for Boeing are precise and Airbus numbers are wrong. It is always difficult to estimate OEW. The talk is about 6t more for the neo compared to the ceo. Zeke gives realistic numbers for the A330-300ceo, ad 6t and bingo you have a realistic estimate for the OEW of the neo. Somewhere in this thread are realistic OEW numbers for current 787-9. You again want to compare realistic A330 numbers with Boeing 787 marketing numbers.
Being slightly lighter, having the greater span and the same engines should tell you, that it is not very likely that the A330-900 burns more fuel than the 787-9 on anything but perhaps the longest trips.

Leeham calculates with a 5t difference: https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/14/airbu ... -analysis/
Furthermore Airbus has been doing a weight reduction program for the neo. The new sharklets are a CFRP structure. I would be astonished, if we will see a weight increase of more than 4t. But lets stay with the 6t and that will give a lower OEW for the A330-900 than the 787-9.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9914
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:47 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
Keesje gives just a ~2t (technically he rounded up on the 787's marketing OEW) OEW advantage to the A330. Considering that is based on Boeing/Airbus marketing configurations and numbers (and estimations for the A330neo), and how widely OEW can differ between different airlines for even the same plane (as seen in this very thread), I would be hesitant to consider 2 tons a clear advantage for the A330. This isn't like the 77W/A346, where you had two planes of similar size and capability but one had a marketing OEW some 10t higher.

Zeke was talking about basic weight of 120-123t + 3-4.5t for catering on A333, and did not talk about any extra weight for the Neo. Many (Most? All?) operators would include catering in OEW. If you nice and assume 120t basic weight, 3t of catering +5t Neo penalty that is still an OEW of 128t for the NEO (0.85t less than what Boeing markets the 789), and that is also assuming those numbers are not excluding anything else that an airline might include in OEW.

PS Replies are numbered on the upper right of each post next to quote button. Sadly quotes don't include reply number anymore though.


It is not that marketing numbers for Boeing are precise and Airbus numbers are wrong. It is always difficult to estimate OEW. The talk is about 6t more for the neo compared to the ceo. Zeke gives realistic numbers for the A330-300ceo, ad 6t and bingo you have a realistic estimate for the OEW of the neo. Somewhere in this thread are realistic OEW numbers for current 787-9. You again want to compare realistic A330 numbers with Boeing 787 marketing numbers.
Being slightly lighter, having the greater span and the same engines should tell you, that it is not very likely that the A330-900 burns more fuel than the 787-9 on anything but perhaps the longest trips.

Leeham calculates with a 5t difference: https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/14/airbu ... -analysis/
Furthermore Airbus has been doing a weight reduction program for the neo. The new sharklets are a CFRP structure. I would be astonished, if we will see a weight increase of more than 4t. But lets stay with the 6t and that will give a lower OEW for the A330-900 than the 787-9.


It is not that I think Airbus's numbers are wrong and Boeings are correct, it's that I believe there is no meaningful difference in the OEW between the planes, as they are so close that we are arguing about individual differences between airlines. For example you say let's stay with the 6t addition for the A339 and that give a lower OEW than the 789. What numbers are you using? Because if you add 6t to Airbus's A333 marketing figures you get a OEW greater than what Boeing claims for the 789. So what OEW are you using for the A333, and what are you using for the 789, and where did you get those numbers from, and how comparable are they (in configuration, mission, etc)? Again just to clarify, Zeke's 120-123t figure is not OEW.

I pointed a real world example chaostheory gave in an earlier thread on A.net. He stated their A333s averages 124.5t, their 789s 128t, and the neo was expected to gain 4-5t over the A333. Do the math, that implies a A339 OEW of ~128.5-129.5t in his airlines configuration...essentially identical to the 789's.

The fact that we have to argue down to such nitty gritty detail suggests there is no major OEW advantage for one plane over the other.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:23 am

As I pointed out earlier in a reply to Zeke, the engines alone add 7000lbs, 3.5 tons to the weight of the neo over the ceo.

With aircraft that weight as much as these do, the difference between the two, seems pretty much meaningless.

One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26632
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:13 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern.


Because the focus is to spread FUD on both programs. :banghead:
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:09 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier in a reply to Zeke, the engines alone add 7000lbs, 3.5 tons to the weight of the neo over the ceo.

With aircraft that weight as much as these do, the difference between the two, seems pretty much meaningless.

One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.


The point is that Boeing does program for cost accounting. That means the money is spent, but not accounted for. Boeing could of course make a big write down and declare a 30 billion USD loss. Than the money already spent on producing the first 450 787 frames while loosing on each one of them would not matter any longer.
Airbus of course lost on the A380, but did write that to cost at that time and lived with a lower profit for several years.

If you would read up on what program for cost accounting really means, you would not be baffled any more.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:04 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.

You are right. Past costs still on the books are meaningless to past senior management and shareholders, who have been rewarded based on inflated profits. They are a very big deal to current senior management and shareholders that still have to make them go away.

Boeing either have to write off, or recover from more sales, or a combination of the two (the latter most likely).

Unfortunately, the spin off from this position, is model pricing increases and becomes less negotiable (harming sales prospects), and senior management become increasingly risk averse, both of which is happening at Boeing right now.

So yes the costs are past, but the collateral damage will live on for more than a decade, as the 777X has repeated most of the same financial mistakes of the 787 on a smaller scale (I'm assuming design, performance and roll out will not mirror the 787), but on smaller volumes (so the impact is equally long lasting).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:13 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier in a reply to Zeke, the engines alone add 7000lbs, 3.5 tons to the weight of the neo over the ceo.

With aircraft that weight as much as these do, the difference between the two, seems pretty much meaningless.

One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.


The various interpretations of accounting and the importance of sunk costs is baffling. The development is sunk costs. Future sales are intended to maximize cash flow (as opposed to profit since accounting shifts the definition of profit). I disagree that the goal is to sell as many planes as possible. Boeing can go small on margins (despite what some here think) and maximize production rate but that won't maximize cash being brought in to pay off the deferred costs. High production numbers can allow for an increased accounting block at smaller margins or fewer but higher margin sales can also reduce deferred costs. Either way they are going to find a balance with high production with the highest margins possible. Airbus is trying to undercut on price. Boeing will lose the most price sensitive airlines, but I would argue that selling to an airline like Transasia is not the best move for the 787 program. The deferred costs are a big weight on the program, but that doesn't mean that Boeing won't negotiate on price when it makes sense to win the important sales campaign.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:34 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier in a reply to Zeke, the engines alone add 7000lbs, 3.5 tons to the weight of the neo over the ceo.

With aircraft that weight as much as these do, the difference between the two, seems pretty much meaningless.

One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.


The various interpretations of accounting and the importance of sunk costs is baffling. The development is sunk costs. Future sales are intended to maximize cash flow (as opposed to profit since accounting shifts the definition of profit). I disagree that the goal is to sell as many planes as possible. Boeing can go small on margins (despite what some here think) and maximize production rate but that won't maximize cash being brought in to pay off the deferred costs. High production numbers can allow for an increased accounting block at smaller margins or fewer but higher margin sales can also reduce deferred costs. Either way they are going to find a balance with high production with the highest margins possible. Airbus is trying to undercut on price. Boeing will lose the most price sensitive airlines, but I would argue that selling to an airline like Transasia is not the best move for the 787 program. The deferred costs are a big weight on the program, but that doesn't mean that Boeing won't negotiate on price when it makes sense to win the important sales campaign.


First, the deferred cost, the 30 billion USD, has nothing to do with development. It is the loss on the production and sales of the early frames. It does not disappear by deferring it. Airbus is not undercutting on price, they have not deferred the cost, so there is no need to put money back in the piggy bank.
If I talk about that Boeing needs to calculate 30 million USD extra on each 787 sold, that is low. It is already past the current accounting block as you would need than 1,000 frames delivered that give 30 million on average. The accounting block can only grow through sales and 787 sales numbers are not very bright as it is.

Airbus has payed for not deferring the cost with lower profits during the years. Boeing has still to pay the cost with lower profits, as they were keeping up profits and bonuses the last years by deferring production cost.

I will bring this facts again, when Boeing fan boys talk about the 787 being a cash machine and when Boeing fan boys think that the grand cost cutting on the 787 production allows Boeing now to lower prices. The grand cost cutting brought the production costs in line with sales prices and the 787 can become a cash machine when the bigger part of the deferred cost has been repaid by the 787 program. Until than Boeing Commercial has mainly to live on the proceeds of the 737, as the status of the 777 as a cash machine has taken a hit.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:59 am

The A330NEO might be a few DB quitter inside, than a 787-9. The seats / aisles probably will be a bit wider too.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/A330neo?src=hash&lang=en If that's important depends on if you are a passenger or not I guess.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:34 am

The A330NEO might be a few DB quitter inside, than a 787-9. The seats / aisles probably will be a bit wider too.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/A330neo?src=hash&lang=en If that's important depends on if you are a passenger or not I guess.

That's very interesting, I haven't flown on the 787, but I have always thought that the A330/340 seem much quieter than the 777.
I also wonder if the shaping on the 777X will effect the noise level, hopefully not as it is a noisy aircraft IMHO.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:33 am

mjoelnir wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier in a reply to Zeke, the engines alone add 7000lbs, 3.5 tons to the weight of the neo over the ceo.

With aircraft that weight as much as these do, the difference between the two, seems pretty much meaningless.

One thing that baffles me in threads like this is the focus on money already spent, with the 787 and 380 switching places for top spots of concern. It is well past time to be worrying about how much these programs cost. The money is already spent. It's not coming back. It's a dead parrot.

The only way to make the best of things is to sell as many planes as you can, for as long as you can, try to learn your lessons and make better decisions in the future.


The point is that Boeing does program for cost accounting. That means the money is spent, but not accounted for. Boeing could of course make a big write down and declare a 30 billion USD loss. Than the money already spent on producing the first 450 787 frames while loosing on each one of them would not matter any longer.
Airbus of course lost on the A380, but did write that to cost at that time and lived with a lower profit for several years.

If you would read up on what program for cost accounting really means, you would not be baffled any more.


Their accounting isn't what baffles me, (which is pretty obvious from an even casual reading of exactly what I posted); what baffles me is the obsession of some posters with it. What's the point? Will the constant fretting about it get Boeing to concede defeat and cancel the 787? Is that the dream?

Except for people who are invested in Boeing, (and maybe not even them, considering their stock is mostly doing just fine), why does anybody care? Is it taking money out of their pocket? Are all of those missing billions personally affecting posters here in some negative way?

Boeing and Airbus write down billions in different ways. Yawn. Not exactly fresh news, that.


mjoelnir wrote:
I will bring this facts again, when Boeing fan boys talk about the 787 being a cash machine and when Boeing fan boys think that the grand cost cutting on the 787 production allows Boeing now to lower prices.


Ah...I see. The high road. So why, exactly, do you feel that need? I'm curious....what do you get out of relentlessly pointing that out?

keesje wrote:
The A330NEO might be a few DB quitter inside, than a 787-9. The seats / aisles probably will be a bit wider too.


It depends, as usual, on the airline.

According to seatguru in Y, AC, for example, uses 17.8" seats on its 330's and 17.3" seats on its 787's. QR is even closer at 17.5 and 17.3. EY is 17.5 and 17.2. On LH, the standard 330 Y seat width ranges from 17-17.5.

Other airlines 330's go wider. Cathay, is shown to use 18.2" seats in Y, with China Air and AF using 18" seats.
What the...?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:10 pm

It depends, as usual, on the airline.



That's correct. But it shouldn't be used to confuse people into a perception it's all the same basically.
Unless that's the goal of course.

We could also claim cabin noise is really dependent on the cabin interior, cabin density and fellow passengers,
But it shouldn't be used to confuse people into a perception it's all the same basically.
Unless that's the goal of course.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:35 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:

Ah...I see. The high road. So why, exactly, do you feel that need? I'm curious....what do you get out of relentlessly pointing that out?


Nothing to do with any high road. But when Boeing fan boys do forget some facts and therefore come with crazy assumptions, I think that is time to remind them of some facts.

If the talk is about prices, under pricing, the possibility to give discounts and so on, it plays a role if you use program accounting and push a huge mountain of deferred cost in front of you.
 
LewisNEO
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:08 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:22 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Either way they are going to find a balance with high production with the highest margins possible. Airbus is trying to undercut on price. Boeing will lose the most price sensitive airlines, but I would argue that selling to an airline like Transasia is not the best move for the 787 program.


Who says that Airbus is trying to udnercut on price? Where can I find some reliable rescources about your statement?

Isn't it the case that due to the low margins on the 787, Boeing needs to produce them in a large volume to compensate for the deffered costs. And as I see it, and according to the GAAP, the R&D aren't included in the deffered program costs.
You are the wind beneath my wings.

Fokker 27, Bombardier Dash 8, Embraer 175 & 195, 727-200, 737-200 & -300 & -400 & -800, 747-400, 767-300, 767-400, DC 10-30, A320-200, A330-200, A330-300, A380.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9914
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:42 pm

LewisNEO wrote:
Who says that Airbus is trying to udnercut on price? Where can I find some reliable rescources about your statement?

That is one of Airbus's major selling points for the A330neo. Lower acquisition costs (because Airbus can afford to price the A330 lower because A330 development long since paid off, and Neo is relatively low investment), lower integration costs (don't need to retrain everyone assuming you already have A330s in fleet), with a slight tradeoff in range and possibly a small fuel burn penalty vs the 787.

Obviously if unnecessary Airbus won't undercut the 787 all that much, but in highly competitive situations (i.e. DL's RFP) Airbus will be far more comfortable offering a lower price for the A330neo than Boeing can with the 787.
 
olle
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:44 pm

How much has the 330neo with sharklets, new engines and other improvements cost to Airbus?
 
LewisNEO
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:08 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:16 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
First, the deferred cost, the 30 billion USD, has nothing to do with development. It is the loss on the production and sales of the early frames. It does not disappear by deferring it. Airbus is not undercutting on price, they have not deferred the cost, so there is no need to put money back in the piggy bank.
If I talk about that Boeing needs to calculate 30 million USD extra on each 787 sold, that is low. It is already past the current accounting block as you would need than 1,000 frames delivered that give 30 million on average. The accounting block can only grow through sales and 787 sales numbers are not very bright as it is.

Airbus has payed for not deferring the cost with lower profits during the years. Boeing has still to pay the cost with lower profits, as they were keeping up profits and bonuses the last years by deferring production cost.

I will bring this facts again, when Boeing fan boys talk about the 787 being a cash machine and when Boeing fan boys think that the grand cost cutting on the 787 production allows Boeing now to lower prices. The grand cost cutting brought the production costs in line with sales prices and the 787 can become a cash machine when the bigger part of the deferred cost has been repaid by the 787 program. Until than Boeing Commercial has mainly to live on the proceeds of the 737, as the status of the 777 as a cash machine has taken a hit.


I couldn't agree more.

Boeing's "program accounting method" is according to me supposed to reassure investors. Some don't like the upfront costs and others don't want to wait for profit margins. To me those expectations are a base that Boeing takes into consideration when it comes to accounting methods.

Program accounting is allowed according GAAP, but not in Europe, so Airbus must account by taking incurred costs as they come in time.

Program accounting has its advantages but also some serious disadvantages. The 787's costs went through the roof due it's delays. Boeing didnt take the incurring losses, but reported a little profit on each plane that has been sold. The remaining costs were deferred and activated on Boeing's balance sheets. This led to about $32 billion of deferred production costs.

To compensate for these costs, Boeing needs to sell enough planes of the 787 production line which accrue enough profit to compensate for these deferred costs. Luckily the 787 program sells very well. However, even firmer than firm orders can always be cancelled, as it was with Emirates' A350 order. This influences the production costs per unit sold/produced. Boeing needs to look far into the future to predict its production. In the end, afterall, those deferred costs will show up in the final P&L and need to be paid for.
You are the wind beneath my wings.

Fokker 27, Bombardier Dash 8, Embraer 175 & 195, 727-200, 737-200 & -300 & -400 & -800, 747-400, 767-300, 767-400, DC 10-30, A320-200, A330-200, A330-300, A380.
 
LewisNEO
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:08 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:24 pm

Polot wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:
Who says that Airbus is trying to udnercut on price? Where can I find some reliable rescources about your statement?

That is one of Airbus's major selling points for the A330neo. Lower acquisition costs (because Airbus can afford to price the A330 lower because A330 development long since paid off, and Neo is relatively low investment), lower integration costs (don't need to retrain everyone assuming you already have A330s in fleet), with a slight tradeoff in range and possibly a small fuel burn penalty vs the 787.

Obviously if unnecessary Airbus won't undercut the 787 all that much, but in highly competitive situations (i.e. DL's RFP) Airbus will be far more comfortable offering a lower price for the A330neo than Boeing can with the 787.


Thank you :-). That makes it a lot clearer.

But I wouldn't state it is the case in general for Aribus or Boeing to undercut on price. They both need to make enough profits and at least a supperficient return on investements.
You are the wind beneath my wings.

Fokker 27, Bombardier Dash 8, Embraer 175 & 195, 727-200, 737-200 & -300 & -400 & -800, 747-400, 767-300, 767-400, DC 10-30, A320-200, A330-200, A330-300, A380.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:39 pm

LewisNEO wrote:
the R&D aren't included in the deffered program costs.


Reason why the prototype frames were targeted for sale and the terrible teens reworked at high ( above revenue?) cost.

If a tradeable item the ( extremely to very high ) cost of the early frames goes into deferred cost and not into immediately effective R&D cost.
Another cost hit well hidden.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26632
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:41 pm

WIederling wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:
the R&D aren't included in the deffered program costs.


Reason why the prototype frames were targeted for sale and the terrible teens reworked at high ( above revenue?) cost.

If a tradeable item the ( extremely to very high ) cost of the early frames goes into deferred cost and not into immediately effective R&D cost.
Another cost hit well hidden.


And when they couldn't sell them, Boeing took billions in write-downs by moving them into R&D because that was effectively what they became - prototype R&D frames.

Of course, if Boeing had been able to sell them, that would not have been a panacea as they would have still incurred billions in deferred production costs while only bringing in hundreds of millions of revenue. So the difference either would have had to have been made up through the profits generated from later deliveries or Boeing would have had to write down the difference.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:35 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Their accounting isn't what baffles me, (which is pretty obvious from an even casual reading of exactly what I posted); what baffles me is the obsession of some posters with it. What's the point? Will the constant fretting about it get Boeing to concede defeat and cancel the 787? Is that the dream?

Except for people who are invested in Boeing, (and maybe not even them, considering their stock is mostly doing just fine), why does anybody care? Is it taking money out of their pocket? Are all of those missing billions personally affecting posters here in some negative way?

Boeing and Airbus write down billions in different ways. Yawn. Not exactly fresh news.

You are right, money spent previously at Boeing mean't diddly squat, in terms of spending on new models, financiers, shareholders and senior management, and there was no point discussing the subject.

But there is a new financial culture in Boeing, and while they cannot change the past, they have to clear the decks, AND make sure history isn't repeated.

So instead of steering the old swashbuckling course, which saw the 787 and 777X launches, with limited financial discipline, Boeing have not opted for a steady, centre course (take too long), but a more conservative course, cutting costs, write offs, firmer prices, contract term enforcement, etc.

For the forseeable future, Boeing will be much less adventurous with new model launches and enhancements. Boeing customers used to deep discounting, and the ability to switch between models and/or defer at 'no cost', will not be happy.

If projects had been treated differently in the past, none of this would be necessary. So yes, the financial treatment of past projects would be irrelevant if the status quo prevailed. It doesn't, so it really does matter.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:42 pm

keesje wrote:
It depends, as usual, on the airline.



That's correct. But it shouldn't be used to confuse people into a perception it's all the same basically.
Unless that's the goal of course.

We could also claim cabin noise is really dependent on the cabin interior, cabin density and fellow passengers,
But it shouldn't be used to confuse people into a perception it's all the same basically.
Unless that's the goal of course.



Keesje...please. "Unless that's the goal, of course...?". My goal was very clear, but in case it was a bit too subtle, you merely had to ask me to clarify and I would have been happy to oblige. No need for passive/aggressive silliness.

I'll explain. It was to offer very specific comparative seat sizes to show that a particular parameter, (one being written of in the post to which I replied), was specifically under the control of the airline, not the aircraft maker, and to illustrate that, I gave examples of some seat width ranges.

I presented a range that shows clear advantage to current 330 configurations on one end and less advantage on the other. In some cases, Qatar/EY, for instance, the Boeing and Airbus seats ARE basically the same in one parameter; width. In others, they aren't.

As for the cabin noise, I didn't even mention it, so using it in response to me merely obfuscates...unless that's the goal, of course.


mjoelnir wrote:
Nothing to do with any high road. But when Boeing fan boys do forget some facts and therefore come with crazy assumptions, I think that is time to remind them of some facts.

If the talk is about prices, under pricing, the possibility to give discounts and so on, it plays a role if you use program accounting and push a huge mountain of deferred cost in front of you.


Ahhhh....so, a public service, then....to educate, rather than deride. Excellent. So I assume you're using the term 'fanboy' in the most complimentary sense possible, right?

So, what, exactly, are airlines paying for their aircraft, specifically the 339 and the 789? How radically different are the real prices?
What the...?
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:18 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
It depends, as usual, on the airline.

According to seatguru in Y, AC, for example, uses 17.8" seats on its 330's and 17.3" seats on its 787's. QR is even closer at 17.5 and 17.3. EY is 17.5 and 17.2. On LH, the standard 330 Y seat width ranges from 17-17.5.

Other airlines 330's go wider. Cathay, is shown to use 18.2" seats in Y, with China Air and AF using 18" seats.

I would say it depends on how active the PR department is on seatguru. The difference is down to how it is measured. Seat cushion with a half an armrest included, or actual space between armrests.

The 787 has a 216 inch wide cabin. The A330 cabin is 208 inch wide. A aisle width less than 19 inch would make servicing with trolleys difficult. If you do the math, you should have the following comparable numbers.

The 787 will in a 3 x 3 x 3 configuration have 19 inch wide aisles with 17 inch wide seats. That is an absolute minimum aisle width. If you make the armrests smaller, there won't be any increased space for passengers. It is actually shoulder distance that is important from a comfort perceptive.

The A330 will in a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration have 22 inch wide aisles with 18 inch wide seats.
If the aisles were 19 inches, as on the 787, the seats could be 18.5 inch wide on the A330. A 1.5 inch difference.
If the seats were 17 inches, as on the 787, the aisle would be a whopping 25 inches on the A330.

The A330 will in a 3 x 3 x 3 configuration have 16.3 inch wide seats with 19 inch wide aisles. Note that a 9 abreast A330 is actually closer in seat width size to a 787 at 9 abreat, than a 8 abreast A330. Airbus has been experimenting with angled seat rows in order to fit in 17 inch seats at 9 abreast in the A330. I think LCC that are thinking about starting up long haul operations will consider 9 abreast A330s. Cost per seat mile at 9 abreast is highly competitive against the 787.

Here is an example between 17 inch or 18 inch seats in the A320 family. Note that a 8 abreast A330 can have even wider seats and wider aisles than the A320.

Image
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:40 pm

Planesmart wrote:
....the 777X has repeated most of the same financial mistakes of the 787 on a smaller scale (I'm assuming design, performance and roll out will not mirror the 787), but on smaller volumes (so the impact is equally long lasting).


Please explain the 777X financial mistakes that mirror the 787, I'm curious as to what you're talking about.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9595
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:02 pm

So how much wider would the 787 seats be if it were placed in a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration, I see the comparison of the A330 in the 3 x 3 x 3 config at 19" aisles.
At the end of the day, the 787 cabin is wider than the A330 cabin, which is where the OEM stands, how that is used by the airline appears to be the big issue.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:20 pm

par13del wrote:
So how much wider would the 787 seats be if it were placed in a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration, I see the comparison of the A330 in the 3 x 3 x 3 config at 19" aisles.
At the end of the day, the 787 cabin is wider than the A330 cabin, which is where the OEM stands, how that is used by the airline appears to be the big issue.

1 inch per seat at 8 abreast.
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:47 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
....the 777X has repeated most of the same financial mistakes of the 787 on a smaller scale (I'm assuming design, performance and roll out will not mirror the 787), but on smaller volumes (so the impact is equally long lasting).


Please explain the 777X financial mistakes that mirror the 787, I'm curious as to what you're talking about.



I believe, if Planesmart isn't talking about design, performance and roll out mistakes, that he is talking about launch prices offered by Boeing.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:39 am

817Dreamliiner wrote:
par13del wrote:
So how much wider would the 787 seats be if it were placed in a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration, I see the comparison of the A330 in the 3 x 3 x 3 config at 19" aisles.
At the end of the day, the 787 cabin is wider than the A330 cabin, which is where the OEM stands, how that is used by the airline appears to be the big issue.

1 inch per seat at 8 abreast.


Or 4 inch wider aisles.

With 18 inch wide seats at 8 abreast in 2 x 4 x 2 configuration:

787: 216 - 42 - 82 - 42 = 50 / 2
25 inch wide aisles with 18 inch wide seats @ 8 abreast in the 787.

A330: 208 - 42 -82 -42 = 42 / 2
21 inch wide aisles with 18 inch wide seats @ 8 abreast in the A330.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:44 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Except for people who are invested in Boeing, (and maybe not even them, considering their stock is mostly doing just fine), why does anybody care?

Those who cared so considerately fingerpointed, when Airbus profits were down, should care now as well about Boeings profits. That alone would account for a large interest group.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 1985
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:34 am

olle wrote:
How much has the 330neo with sharklets, new engines and other improvements cost to Airbus?


I don't know, but I would assume most of the engine development costs are paid for by Rolls Royce.

However WSJ claims (I have only read the headline) that the cost to develop the neo is/was about $2.7B US Dollars which is about €2.5B Euro with today's exchange rate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 1421086824

Reuters claims $2B dollars which is about €1.8B Euro with today's exchange rate.

And even after the estimated $2 billion (1.18 billion pounds) development cost for re-engining the A330 and adding new fuel-saving wingtips,
analysts say Airbus has more ammunition than Boeing for a price battle since most of the capital costs of the A330 were recouped years ago.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airbus ... R420140612
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:39 am

One question,a s I am only partly familar with the Accouinting Praxis.

Would it be a relief from Future Burden to write off all Units known as Terrible Teans, means probably all Units until sequence no 20 as a loss and hence reducing the deferred cost?

Is it possible from an accounting perspective to pickout those Loss makers? Or is it to late to do that.?

Who in the know can explain if this is an Option?

Flyglobal
 
WIederling
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:50 am

Flyglobal wrote:
One question,a s I am only partly familar with the Accouinting Praxis.

Would it be a relief from Future Burden to write off all Units known as Terrible Teans, means probably all Units until sequence no 20 as a loss and hence reducing the deferred cost?

Is it possible from an accounting perspective to pickout those Loss makers? Or is it to late to do that.?

Who in the know can explain if this is an Option?

Flyglobal


What would the share ecologies reaction beo to Boeing writing off $10..20b ?

At the moment the deferred cost item is like a gigantic stressed to breaking bungee cord.
(and the 777X will add still more, won't it.)
Snip a strand and watch the negative energy release. Zuing!

share holders are a skittery bunch. Always ready to drop and stampede leaving a trail of destruction.
( remember those structured mortgage backed securities? most of the damage was secondary domino effects.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:32 am

Flyglobal wrote:
One question,a s I am only partly familar with the Accouinting Praxis.

Would it be a relief from Future Burden to write off all Units known as Terrible Teans, means probably all Units until sequence no 20 as a loss and hence reducing the deferred cost?

Is it possible from an accounting perspective to pickout those Loss makers? Or is it to late to do that.?

Who in the know can explain if this is an Option?

Flyglobal


I would say the damage is done and Boeing is in a bad position. Write of a big amount and the share price will drop like a stone. Try to ignore the deferred cost in regards to pricing on the 787, or increasing the accounting block without heaps of new sales and you have the SEC breathing down your neck.
If I would be at Boeing I would cut bonuses, stop buying shares back and write of any possible thing to keep declared profits low. Build up capital instead of squandering it. Move down the deferred cost with putting as little production cost on the 787 as possible, write things rather to development cost than production for example. Than put on an iron discipline when starting to produce the 777-8/9. Write nothing on production that you can write to development, keep the amount of deferrals as low as possible.
It is just that the philosophy at Boeing was (is?) different. Defer everything you can defer, to keep bonuses up and shareholders happy, the future can look after itself and US-GAAP allows it.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:07 pm

LewisNEO wrote:
Polot wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:
Who says that Airbus is trying to udnercut on price? Where can I find some reliable rescources about your statement?

That is one of Airbus's major selling points for the A330neo. Lower acquisition costs (because Airbus can afford to price the A330 lower because A330 development long since paid off, and Neo is relatively low investment), lower integration costs (don't need to retrain everyone assuming you already have A330s in fleet), with a slight tradeoff in range and possibly a small fuel burn penalty vs the 787.

Obviously if unnecessary Airbus won't undercut the 787 all that much, but in highly competitive situations (i.e. DL's RFP) Airbus will be far more comfortable offering a lower price for the A330neo than Boeing can with the 787.


Thank you :-). That makes it a lot clearer.

But I wouldn't state it is the case in general for Aribus or Boeing to undercut on price. They both need to make enough profits and at least a supperficient return on investements.


Airbus has been saying that they will sell the A330neo for less than the 787 from the launch and onwards. Much of the marketing is focused on purchase price and integration costs since the 787's higher payload means more revenue generation is possible and with the 787's efficiency, Airbus needs to offset that with a lower purchase price.

https://www.ft.com/content/a999f9c4-0b7 ... 144feabdc0
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:45 pm

Who would have predicted 10 years ago that the B789 would be facing credible competition from an A330 in 2017?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22368
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:19 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Who would have predicted 10 years ago that the B789 would be facing credible competition from an A330 in 2017?


Airbus predicted exactly that, when they launched the A350 Mk I. Given they were going to redo the fuse in a lighter material, it could have been an even better 787 competitor.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
jagraham
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:01 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
sf260 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.

I think Polot explained my point rather well. I have been reading this thread continuously and I have even contributed some figures.

So, I ask you again, what is your source for the A330-900 having a clear OEW advantage? It has not been mentioned in this thread before, so I'd be very interested to know.


How about reading the first post by the thread starter? And than you can read the post from Zeke also on page one. To bad that they do not number them any longer.
And you should do your searching yourself, that is why I asked you if you read the thread.


Your post is #159. Upper left corner
 
olle
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:15 pm

And how much has RR spent for the 7000 considering it is a 1000TEN?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26632
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:07 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Except for people who are invested in Boeing, (and maybe not even them, considering their stock is mostly doing just fine), why does anybody care?

Those who cared so considerately fingerpointed, when Airbus profits were down, should care now as well about Boeings profits. That alone would account for a large interest group.


And it's the...well, pettiness of both parties, that diminishes my enjoyment and interest in participating.


WIederling wrote:
What would the share ecologies reaction beo to Boeing writing off $10..20b ?


I expect it would be rather large and rather negative.

However, it would be naive to assume that Boeing's current share price is what it is because those "share ecologies" have no idea of the amount of deferred production costs currently saddling the 787 and 737MAX programs and soon to begin saddling the 777X program. They know exactly what those costs are and the risks they bring to Boeing's financial picture. They are not, in fact, "a skittery bunch" - on an individual basis, some may be "skittery", but as an aggregate (especially at the Institutional level where most of the stock is held), they are a prudent bunch.

They also know that Boeing is hardening their terms with existing and new customers. This may lose them some orders, but it also improves the revenues and return of others. Over the long haul, this may mean that write-downs will occur and when that becomes apparent, the stock will adjust itself downward. But in the near term, it means each 787 and 737MAX (and quite possibly 777X as perhaps the deals are not so loss-leading as some might wish to believe they were) delivered will be brining in more money to continue to chip away at that deferred cost.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:48 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Who would have predicted 10 years ago that the B789 would be facing credible competition from an A330 in 2017?


Yes, but the 787 Boeing marketed 10 years ago was a substantially lighter, more efficient aircraft.

I am looking forward to the next 787 NG / MAX / Evolution model. It will probably be than that we will see the real potential of composites for air frame manufacture.

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