Update: Hawaiian signs 787 LOI

Polot · Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:13 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
If the price paid by HA is close to true I see a couple of issues for Boeing. If its only for 6 aircraft no big deal, but for future orders they have now set the lower floor for non launch prices for other airlines on what they are willing to sell the aircraft for. This will put pressure on their margins going forward if airlines that are more loyal to Boeing demand their bigger orders to be at the same or even lower prices.

Airlines can demand all they want from Boeing, but Boeing is not required to concede to those demands. And if $115 million a frame is the production price of an A350-900, it's not like they can say "We want $100 million or we will talk to Airbus" unless Airbus themselves are willing to sell A350's for below production cost (which will do wonders for their margins, as well).

If anything, the rumored average 787-9 sales price being only $10 million more than the rumored production cost of an A350-900 would be a worry for Airbus I would think as it gives Boeing more room to maneuver considering their production cost is rumored to be scores of millions lower than Airbus'.

I guess we will never know as we don't see the sales contracts and the prices paid and we don't know what either OEM is spending on producing a frame. It is all speculation and depends on what information people send out. But a couple of points on the rumored prices and figures.

If Boeing is selling the 787 at an average of $125m then they are offering a average discount of 55% or so per delivery. Now I may be mistaken but I am sure it has been reported that when an order is announced the the price is given for the total order value at list price it is mentioned that no-one pays list price and airlines can pay as much as 50% less. Now it seems that Boeing sells not at 50% of list but more on average.

Who knows what it costs to build a A350. Airbus want to be cash positive in early 2019. If we take the same discount that Boeing gives off list then this means that production costs could be around $120m to $140m currently (50% to 60% off list price). If Boeing sold HA the 787 for less than this its no surprise and right in the middle of the average sales price of the 787. Why would Airbus bring this up if this is what they paid? Is the cost for the A338 really that high that it would struggle to discount it to a level that would compete with this price? It doesn't seem clear to me that they sold it for less than the A350 production cost. That is as you point out slightly less than their average sales price for the 789 and would in no way be a story, other than Airbus is selling the A338 for a price that cannot compete with 789. That does not seem right to me.

As you point out as well that if Airbus can only get the A350 production cost down to $115m then they are in trouble if the 787 production is at $80m to $90m. How will they maintain margins or make profits on their programs if they will be competing against Boeing that is able to produce aircraft at 25% lower cost. Does that pass the smell test to you? What materials and or suppliers are Boeing using that is able to save them 25% of production cost of a similar sized aircraft? Or does adding 3 metres really add $25m to the production cost? I believe Airbus and Boeing uses most of the same suppliers as well so what would cause Boeing to have a 25% discount on production?

Maybe this is just where Airbus is currently with their production cost for the A350 though. Maybe it costs them $115m to produce a A359 at the moment and Boeing sold the 789 to HA for $110m. But that would mean Airbus is selling the A359 for less than this as well as they are not cash positive yet either. So is Airbus selling the A350 for less than Boeing is selling the 787? How does Airbus make profits in that case? Or is the suspicions correct that Airbus is actually nothing more than a jobs programs, but secretly it is a loss making jobs program that masquerades as a profitable business?

So what figures are we going to believe? I think it will depend on each individual poster if they never had to sign a NDA from either an airline or OEM. I am genuinely interested to know what figures could be right, is just speculation and what is made up with this story, because either way some of it doesn't make sense if you apply the same logic from one company to the other. Or is it just a case that two companies with similar profit margins and sales and production numbers and the same suppliers all over the world have such discrepancies with their figures?

I suspect that Boeing was just able to offer a good deal on the 789s on a timeframe that Airbus just wasn’t able to match with the A350, along with the other technically not related but doesn’t hurt deals like Boeing releasing the 767 leases early (doesn’t really hurt Boeing to do so, since they have a customer for the plane already lined up). Airbus was already at a disadvantage in terms of product as the 789 has HA’s desired range unlike the A339 while being closer to their desired size unlike the A359. Their advantage was that they were an incumbudent with the deal.

The “Boeing selling the planes below Airbus’s costs” sounds like spin/damage control being peddled through Leeham that some here are eating up. Remember who Mr. Hamilton spent all day with yesterday

hawaiian717 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:14 pm

BREECH wrote:
What's 787-3?

787-8 fuselage with shorter wings and the addition of blended winglets. 2,500 – 3,050 nm range. Designed as a 757-300/767-200 replacement for regional routes with limited gate space (shorter wings to fit into ICAO Code D). Designed for the Japanese market and once JAL and ANA converted their -3 orders to the -8, Boeing dropped the -3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... iner#787-3

strfyr51 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:34 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
DWC wrote:
2. one must be Yank to think Europeans would want to fly all the way to americanized & unpristine Hawaii.

Guessing you’ve never actually been to Hawaii, or at least anything beyond urbanized Honolulu.

DWC wrote:
Hawaii FIVE O is a very remote souvenir.

Not really, you can buy episodes on iTunes or Amazon for $1-2.

But Hawaii itself is a closer reach to Europe than either Australia or New Zealand.

Yeah, He Definitely has never been to hawaii!!

enzo011 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:04 pm

Polot wrote:
I suspect that Boeing was just able to offer a good deal on the 789s on a timeframe that Airbus just wasn’t able to match with the A350, along with the other technically not related but doesn’t hurt deals like Boeing releasing the 767 leases early (doesn’t really hurt Boeing to do so, since they have a customer for the plane already lined up). Airbus was already at a disadvantage in terms of product as the 789 has HA’s desired range unlike the A339 while being closer to their desired size unlike the A359. Their advantage was that they were an incumbudent with the deal.

The “Boeing selling the planes below Airbus’s costs” sounds like spin/damage control being peddled through Leeham that some here are eating up. Remember who Mr. Hamilton spent all day with yesterday

That could well be, but why were they looking for new aircraft at the time? Was it because of the performance of the aircraft they had on order not being up to their requirements? Surely then we have to question Airbus and the A338 and whether they sold HA a dud. Then you have to question HA management for buying the A338 when they didn't need to. They had the A358 on order, if the A338 didn't meet specifications then there was no reason to buy it.

Or did Boeing come to them with an offer they couldn't refuse and let them give up the order for 6 aircraft they had on order. I know Planesmart posted that Boeing management has been risk averse, but evidence lately point to a very aggressive approach from Boeing. This is from offering the 737-7 to UA for a reported $22m per aircraft to trying to stop DL from buying the C-series. Now we have reports they want to stop the A330neo in its tracks as well.

I think we are starting to see evidence that, while Boeing is still making profits, the myth that only Airbus has razor thin margins to win market share is not true. It seems just as likely to me that Boeing sold the 787 at a very cheap price as it is that this is nothing more than a normal deal where Boeing offered the better package but didn't sell close to cost price.

bx737 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:05 pm

Here is a quick thought I’d like to put into the mix:

Is there a market for the MOM?
Airbus and Boeing appear to be having difficulty selling their smallest wide bodied aircraft. This article is about the A330-800 losing its sole customer, a poster above referred to the 787-8 as “dying” and the A350-800 was taken off the drawing board. There seems to be difficulty in selling aircraft of this size. The A330-800 has a capacity of approximately 275 in a two class configuration, similar to the 787-8. Whereas the A321LR can carry about 190 (two class) and the 737 MAX10 about the same, are airlines prepared to buy a new aircraft that is between the two of these. Personally I can’t see it.

enzo011 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:09 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Seems counter-intuitive for Boeing to offer any airline a deep discount on a mature model, unless there is a strong, secondary motive. Boeing is so risk averse, strategic thinking that sees deep discounts offered to protect a yet to be launched model is way too far fetched.

The Boeing board approves discounts outside the respective airline Tier rating. HA would not be Tier 1.

More likely, is Airbus are playing some cards here.

Boeing 787 customers who do not have firm price options, looking for top-up orders, are unhappy with the unit prices now being quoted, as are top-up customers with no options. The suggestion a small player is being offered deeply discounted 787's, will lower price expectations from those repeat customers.

If the average sales price of the 789 is $125m this is about 55% off list price. We are not talking about launch prices for the 789 any longer as well, would this be considered normal pricing discounts on average? Seeing that Boeing made a deal with UA on the 737-7 to keep the C-series out and then the whole price dumping saga with DL, surely it is time to re-think the notion that Boeing is being risk averse and they have actually switched to a very aggressive model to win and maintain market share?

Polot · Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:17 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I suspect that Boeing was just able to offer a good deal on the 789s on a timeframe that Airbus just wasn’t able to match with the A350, along with the other technically not related but doesn’t hurt deals like Boeing releasing the 767 leases early (doesn’t really hurt Boeing to do so, since they have a customer for the plane already lined up). Airbus was already at a disadvantage in terms of product as the 789 has HA’s desired range unlike the A339 while being closer to their desired size unlike the A359. Their advantage was that they were an incumbudent with the deal.

The “Boeing selling the planes below Airbus’s costs” sounds like spin/damage control being peddled through Leeham that some here are eating up. Remember who Mr. Hamilton spent all day with yesterday

That could well be, but why were they looking for new aircraft at the time? Was it because of the performance of the aircraft they had on order not being up to their requirements? Surely then we have to question Airbus and the A338 and whether they sold HA a dud. Then you have to question HA management for buying the A338 when they didn't need to. They had the A358 on order, if the A338 didn't meet specifications then there was no reason to buy it.

Or did Boeing come to them with an offer they couldn't refuse and let them give up the order for 6 aircraft they had on order. I know Planesmart posted that Boeing management has been risk averse, but evidence lately point to a very aggressive approach from Boeing. This is from offering the 737-7 to UA for a reported $22m per aircraft to trying to stop DL from buying the C-series. Now we have reports they want to stop the A330neo in its tracks as well.

I think we are starting to see evidence that, while Boeing is still making profits, the myth that only Airbus has razor thin margins to win market share is not true. It seems just as likely to me that Boeing sold the 787 at a very cheap price as it is that this is nothing more than a normal deal where Boeing offered the better package but didn't sell close to cost price.

Hawaiian couldn’t stick with their preferred A358. Although Airbus has not, as far as I know, officially cancelled the plane they have suspended development of the variant which is all but cancelling it. What is the point of sticking with an aircraft that will never be built? So HA moved over to the A338 fairly soon after the A330neo programmed was launched. At the time I doubt HA thought they would be the only customer for the A338 (Transasia had an order for 4). So HA was stuck being the sole operator of an aircraft that may also not have the range desired (251t variant might have solved that, but how long would HA have to wait for Airbus to certify and deliver 251t A338s? The A339 will always be the priority).

As to why now? HA has fulfilled their A330ceo orders and needs to start looking at and securing their expansion in the future while the 787 and A350 still remain popular aircraft with long backlogs. They might have been hoping that Airbus could secure more A338s orders but at some point if they don’t want to be the sole operator they have to pull the trigger on moving to something else.

WIederling · Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:20 pm

enzo011 wrote:
If the average sales price of the 789 is $125m this is about 55% off list price. We are not talking about launch prices for the 789 any longer as well, would this be considered normal pricing discounts on average? Seeing that Boeing made a deal with UA on the 737-7 to keep the C-series out and then the whole price dumping saga with DL, surely it is time to re-think the notion that Boeing is being risk averse and they have actually switched to a very aggressive model to win and maintain market share?

Estimation is that Boeing allowed ~52% rebates last year.
https://theblogbyjavier.com/2018/02/13/ ... -for-2017/
~~4% more than earlier.

JetBuddy · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:15 pm

It's interesting that a swap of half a dozen long haul airplanes from one manufacturer to another can generate page after page full of posts in this forum, while some other aircraft orders barely get a mention. It's clear this is a very special situation, but still.

I find Jon Ostrower's tweet about this order interesting:

"Clear prelude to an NMA launch. Kill a direct competitor before it leaves the ground to preserve 797 pricing as Boeing heads to make deals. Any extreme 787-9 discounts would be recoverable on 797 with a dead A330-800. Don’t be surprised if these below-cost 787-9s become NMA-7Xs."

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 1013099520

By "NMA-7Xs", he means the "MoM" right?

DWC · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:19 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
DWC wrote:
2. one must be Yank to think Europeans would want to fly all the way to americanized & unpristine Hawaii.

Guessing you’ve never actually been to Hawaii, or at least anything beyond urbanized Honolulu.

DWC wrote:
Hawaii FIVE O is a very remote souvenir.

Not really, you can buy episodes on iTunes or Amazon for $1-2.

But Hawaii itself is a closer reach to Europe than either Australia or New Zealand.

Yeah, He Definitely has never been to hawaii!!

As a matter of fact I have, and even studied the ecological disturbances induced by animals introduced by Europeans. The ecological balance was heavily disrupted by alien species, rodents & birds in particular, so that the islands are not considered pristine, save in the heights.
More importantly perhaps on the human level, the Maori way of life is totally gone, contrary to you perhaps I have read captain Cook's & La Pérouse accounts when they got there, that in the 1760s & 1780s only, and all the scientific academic literature point to what is lost. HNL is of course a warp on it all.

On a sidenote as my posts keep getting deleted : Europeans will probably not fly all the way to Hawaii. Other than the umpteen Mediterranean islands ( and the Canaries, and the Maghreb, and Turkey, and the Seychelles & SE Asia ), it is cheaper for Germans in particular to fly to SE Asia & the Caribbean ( of which St Maartens ), the French themselves have enough tropical territories in the Caribbean ( Guadeloupe, Martinique ), in the Indian Ocean ( Reunion & Mayotte ) & in the southern Pacific ( Tahiti & Nouvelle Calédonie ) to have the remotest drive to go to Hawaii, Plus with the M3 fares to Oz & NZ, they'd rather fly there to HNL, so I don't quite HA's case to fly to Europe, they will be more expensive than any ME3 flight. But happy to be proven wrong.

Revelation · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:30 pm

DWC wrote:
Europeans will probably not fly all the way to Hawaii. Other than the umpteen Mediterranean islands ( and the Canaries, and the Maghreb, and Turkey, and the Seychelles & SE Asia ), it is cheaper for Germans in particular to fly to SE Asia & the Caribbean ( of which St Maartens ), the French themselves have enough tropical territories in the Caribbean ( Guadeloupe, Martinique ), in the Indian Ocean ( Reunion & Mayotte ) & in the southern Pacific ( Tahiti & Nouvelle Calédonie ) to have the remotest drive to go to Hawaii, Plus with the M3 fares to Oz & NZ, they'd rather fly there to HNL, so I don't quite HA's case to fly to Europe, they will be more expensive than any ME3 flight. But happy to be proven wrong.

I think your point, that Europeans have a lot of choices already, stands.

I don't know why this bothers some people so much, as if that is an insult to Hawaii.

On the other hand, I'm a bit pissy because you left St. Pierre et Miquelon off your list of great French travel destinations! :biggrin:

( Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon )

DWC · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
On the other hand, I'm a bit pissy because you left St. Pierre et Miquelon off your list of great French travel destinations!
( Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon )

Man, it's cool up there, even the Eskimau find it far...
For half the price, I can easily fly to YUL or YYZ...
And if we are at getting to French barren lands, Kerguelen, Crozet or Wallis & Futuna islands look much sexier ( no scheduled flights though, I checked

)

Revelation · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:55 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
By "NMA-7Xs", he means the "MoM" right?

Yes, Jon has been using "NMA-7X" to indicate the smaller body longer range "MoM" and "NMA-8X" for the larger body shorter range "MOM".

DWC wrote:
Revelation wrote:
On the other hand, I'm a bit pissy because you left St. Pierre et Miquelon off your list of great French travel destinations!
( Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon )

Man, it's cool up there, even the Eskimau find it far...
For half the price, I can easily fly to YUL or YYZ...
And if we are at getting to French barren lands, Kerguelen, Crozet or Wallis & Futuna islands look much sexier ( no scheduled flights though, I checked )

Now you have me looking too!

Elementalism · Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:56 pm

bx737 wrote:
Here is a quick thought I’d like to put into the mix:

Is there a market for the MOM?
Airbus and Boeing appear to be having difficulty selling their smallest wide bodied aircraft. This article is about the A330-800 losing its sole customer, a poster above referred to the 787-8 as “dying” and the A350-800 was taken off the drawing board. There seems to be difficulty in selling aircraft of this size. The A330-800 has a capacity of approximately 275 in a two class configuration, similar to the 787-8. Whereas the A321LR can carry about 190 (two class) and the 737 MAX10 about the same, are airlines prepared to buy a new aircraft that is between the two of these. Personally I can’t see it.

It could be a plane of this size and capacity is not what the market is looking for. The 787-8 and A330-800 are twice the MTOW weight of a 757 and nearly 80 tons heavier than the 767-200.
It could very well be the 787-3 sees a comeback in some carnation with the MOM. It weighed a little more than the 767-200ER. Or maybe they slimline(narrow body) a 787 design into a 757-200\300 sized plane with 4500-5000nm range. Time will tell.

Geoff1947 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:25 am

Revelation wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
By "NMA-7Xs", he means the "MoM" right?

Yes, Jon has been using "NMA-7X" to indicate the smaller body longer range "MoM" and "NMA-8X" for the larger body shorter range "MOM".

DWC wrote:
Revelation wrote:
On the other hand, I'm a bit pissy because you left St. Pierre et Miquelon off your list of great French travel destinations!
( Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon )

Man, it's cool up there, even the Eskimau find it far...
For half the price, I can easily fly to YUL or YYZ...
And if we are at getting to French barren lands, Kerguelen, Crozet or Wallis & Futuna islands look much sexier ( no scheduled flights though, I checked )

Now you have me looking too!

Please the MOM is the market the NMA is the airplane which Boeing hopes to introduce. Just expand the acronym.

Geoff

lightsaber · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:13 am

bigjku wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
bigjku wrote:

Programs go in phases. People are right that deferred cost mean Boeing needed to and wanted to keep 787 prices high as long as possible. But at some point the 787 is in the same place as older programs and the buildup is paid for. As of now Boeing says that happens at 1,400 units. They are about there. Once you hit that your options open up a lot.

What will tell us a ton is if the 797 is launched and it uses barrel construction. If so Boeing clearly believes that it produces cost savings as it thought it would before they botched the management of the start of the program. Part of the 787 was that it was supposed to be cheaper to build than existing production methods. Poor initial execution doesn’t mean that was necessarily incorrect.
I am pretty sure they want to keep prices as high as possible for as long possible for every aircraft they sell. Boeing should not be pricing airplanes based on their accounting methods. Prices should really only be determined by the market and Boeings production costs.

Also, I believe Boeing says program breakeven is projected to be somewhere in that 1,400 units not necessarily right at 1,400. The 1,400 accounting block is likely to go up again at some point just as it has done before.

Sure, you should sell everything for as much as you can get for it. But the point overall it it seems likely given everything we know that the 787 and A330neo production prices may be converging to a point that the 787 undermines the A330 business case and is an impediment to the A350.

Pricing on the vast majority of 787’s until 2015-2016 would have been fairly projection driven. That was when they clearly established a hold on driving down 787 cost. Boeing may view themselves as earning more overall profit by pushing higher volumes at this point.

I think that reduced production price of the 789 is a huge issue for Airbus. From my own observation, it appears Boeing has reduced 789 production costs by 20 to 25 million per airframe over the last 4 or so years. Boeing has been more agressive cutting costs than Airbus...

To others:
Boeing is increasing production to go on volume. That means aggressive pricing to win market share.

Boeing is very cost driven. If it does produce a 789 for $10 million less than HA paid, that is $60 million in out the door profit and then ancillary sales.

The industry is going to a service model. A service model requires volume. Google used to do everything possible to be the only vendor of a service (this year has been different). Why shouldn't Boeing go for the market share?

Lightsaber

Channex757 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:53 am

Airbus has operated using the service model for years. John Leahy occasionally spoke of averaging a deal out over the expected operating life at an airline, to justify the plane going out the door at a hefty discount. It's also apparently how Boeing allowed itself to be "raped" (O'Leary direct quote) by Ryanair.

It's all about the aftermarket of overpriced spares and services.

Stitch · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:08 am

enzo011 wrote:
If Boeing is selling the 787 at an average of $125m then they are offering a average discount of 55% or so per delivery. Now I may be mistaken but I am sure it has been reported that when an order is announced the the price is given for the total order value at list price it is mentioned that no-one pays list price and airlines can pay as much as 50% less. Now it seems that Boeing sells not at 50% of list but more on average.

Average discounts off list on popular widebodies are around 50% and popular narrowbodies are around 60% at both OEMs thanks to a mix of both OEMs raising their list prices 3-5% every year even as record production rates driving down the production costs by an even greater amount. Both Airbus and Boeing have strong cash flow and margins so it's clear these "historic" discounts are not really hurting their bottom line because they're bringing in just as much profit per frame.

enzo011 wrote:
So is Airbus selling the A350 for less than Boeing is selling the 787?

Early on in the A350XWB sales campaigns, Airbus did match Boeing's prices on the 787-8 and 787-9 to try and win RFPs with the A350-800 and A350-900 (with mixed success), but they almost certainly now are able to successfully recover a premium with customers who prefer the A350-900 or are not totally agnostic about either plane and will just pick the cheapest.

enzo011 wrote:
(B)ut why were (HA) looking for new aircraft at the time? Was it because of the performance of the aircraft they had on order not being up to their requirements? Surely then we have to question Airbus and the A338 and whether they sold HA a dud. Then you have to question HA management for buying the A338 when they didn't need to. They had the A358 on order, if the A338 didn't meet specifications then there was no reason to buy it.

We know HA did an original RFP in 2007 between the A350/A330 and 787/767 and chose the former (6 x A350-800 and 6x A330-200). Per Airbus, in OEM spec for both the A350-800 burned 23% less fuel per seat per seat than the A330-200, flew almost 1500nm farther and carried 30 more passengers. By 2010, Airbus had informed HA that they would have to wait another two years for their A350-800s (and they would be heavier direct shrinks, now) so HA increased their A330-200 fleet via both purchase and lease as well as extending leases on 767-300ERs that were originally planned to be replaced by A330-200s as the A350-800s arrived.

Between 2011 and 2014 Airbus was actively lobbying customers to move from the A350-800 to the A350-900 (reducing the A358 order book by over half) and was considering pushing the A350-800's EIS back even farther to allow the A350-1000 to precede it into service as Airbus wanted to use all of the production slots they had for the A350-900 and A350-1000 as they made more money. When the A330neo program launched in 2014, I would not at all be surprised if Airbus privately told Hawaiian (and other A350-800 customers) that they could possibly have to wait until next decade for their A350-800s and if they were not going to upgrade to the A350-900, lobbied them towards the A330neo. For HA, the A330-800 was the only real option left for them in the Airbus portfolio since it at least leveraged a fair bit of their existing A330-200 investment even if it offered them no growth (as the A350-800 would have).

HA has had four more years to evaluate the A330-800 against the competition (Airbus and Boeing) and according to Scott Hamilton, had concerns so they launched another RFP between the 787 and A350 of which this time HA went with Boeing.

enzo011 wrote:
Or did Boeing come to them with an offer they couldn't refuse and let them give up the order for 6 aircraft they had on order. I know Planesmart posted that Boeing management has been risk averse, but evidence lately point to a very aggressive approach from Boeing. This is from offering the 737-7 to UA for a reported $22m per aircraft to trying to stop DL from buying the C-series. Now we have reports they want to stop the A330neo in its tracks as well.

I think we are starting to see evidence that, while Boeing is still making profits, the myth that only Airbus has razor thin margins to win market share is not true. It seems just as likely to me that Boeing sold the 787 at a very cheap price as it is that this is nothing more than a normal deal where Boeing offered the better package but didn't sell close to cost price.

Well anyone who has any common sense knows that Airbus is enough of an established player that they don't need to lowball to win orders as a general practice. But there will always be strategic deals where one OEM or the other will "hone their knives" that little bit sharper and HA may very well have been one of them. HA is eventually going to be looking at 717 replacements and while the CSeries will be a natural option, so could a Boeing-Embrarer tie-up. And MoM could be of interest to them, as well, down the road as it will EIS some years after the A321neo fleet is delivered.

obelau24 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:36 am

DWC wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:

Guessing you’ve never actually been to Hawaii, or at least anything beyond urbanized Honolulu.

Not really, you can buy episodes on iTunes or Amazon for $1-2.

But Hawaii itself is a closer reach to Europe than either Australia or New Zealand.

Yeah, He Definitely has never been to hawaii!!

Europeans will probably not fly all the way to Hawaii. Other than the umpteen Mediterranean islands ( and the Canaries, and the Maghreb, and Turkey, and the Seychelles & SE Asia ), it is cheaper for Germans in particular to fly to SE Asia & the Caribbean ( of which St Maartens ), the French themselves have enough tropical territories in the Caribbean ( Guadeloupe, Martinique ), in the Indian Ocean ( Reunion & Mayotte ) & in the southern Pacific ( Tahiti & Nouvelle Calédonie ) to have the remotest drive to go to Hawaii, Plus with the M3 fares to Oz & NZ, they'd rather fly there to HNL, so I don't quite HA's case to fly to Europe, they will be more expensive than any ME3 flight. But happy to be proven wrong.

There is a market for Hawaii in Europe, albeit small. It’s anectodal but every time I fly LAX/SFO (seasonally) to HNL on DL, there are a fair number of pax connecting from VS and AF. I don’t know how many and how often but obviously some Europeans are coming and it’s a market that could be stimulated with nonstop, affordable flights. Plus, not to mention locals do travel too. It’s a small market at present but the same argument applies that with nonstop flights on HA (everyone and their baby has a HA FQTV account) demand could be stimulated for locals going to Europe.

Point being:
small market of Europeans
+
small market of locals to Europe
+
small market of connections with PPT/AUS/NZ

= possible successful business case.

travaz · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:51 am

I would like to think that any Airline does not wake up one morning and decide "hey lets fly to Europe" There are exhaustive studies done and the number of passengers that currently make the trip are known. They also do market surveys and gauge what the potential market is going to be. From what I have read HA has never said "we are going to Europe" but they must have an idea of what that potential is. I think they are really thinking more towards Perth and BKK and other Asian destinations. Europe is on their mind. I think that the 789 gives them quicker delivery dates which played into the decision. The 767 lease also solved a problem by Boeing taking them for United.

lightsaber · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:37 am

Bricktop wrote:
^ Good analysis. Yes, all signs point to Airbus as the one whispering in Leeham's ear, which he's quick to parrot. Interesting though how Airbus didn't fight tooth an nail to keep HA. Changing of the guards?

It definitely has been defensive... Order switches are a big deal.

But I think the news is how the A321 will play more of a role.

I've seen the WSJ picked up the rumor, but is there any fact?

I'm still wondering about the wording, of course a B789 sells for less than an A359. The only question in the production cost difference. Boeing has cut costs

In the contract for Mitsubishi wings:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1CS0HD

assembly:
On the 787 line, where wings, fuselage and other major pieces are shipped from suppliers and simply assembled at Boeing, the savings options are fewer.

But teams are still taking out costs. They have slashed production time by more than two-thirds in four years through such changes as organizing kits so mechanics have all parts on hand and putting interiors into planes earlier on the assembly line, said Bob Manelski, director of 787 business operations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN18Z131

I missed this from above link Boeing’s goal is to build the largest 787 version, the 787-10, in the same amount of time as the two smaller versions - and for the same cost as the 787-9.
:scratchchin:

It looks like the 787 achieved maintenance savings goals. That will make competing tougher for the A330:
http://www.mro-network.com/maintenance- ... ose-target

Boeing has also worked to reduce part costs, but there should be little advantage there over the A350 except as by part count and somewhat by weight (in aerospace, part count drives cost more than material costs).

Lightsaber

airzona11 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:44 am

Maybe HA has been so thrilled with the A321NEO that they are rolling that deposit money into more A321s?

ikolkyo · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:50 am

airzona11 wrote:
Maybe HA has been so thrilled with the A321NEO that they are rolling that deposit money into more A321s?

Can't be too thrilled since their aircraft are already getting affected by bad PW engines.

LAXLHR · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:14 am

TWA1985 wrote:
I don’t get people on this forum, not only do you guys have some kind of an aversion to Chicago (O’Hare), but to Boeing as well ... which ironically is Chicago based. Smh.

Good for HA! I do enjoy the 787, and feel it would be a better aircraft for them.

IF people on here strongly dislike Boeing and ORD, that's their choice, no? Many hate LAX, LHR and the list goes on...

ORD is an awful neglected airport. The AA terminal looks like its happy to reside in the early 1990s, overcrowded and feels sad. UA not far behind...something icky about it all.

As for Chicago - FANTASTIC CITY!!

Boeing - Meh! (I like the 787). Prefer Airbus overall, but nothing against Boeing. Fan boys are dumb!...just see the misguided over the top love for DL on this site. I'd understand if it was SQ or EK (worldwide quality airlines) but DL? LOL! A better carrier than before, yes, world leader. NO!

LawAndOrder · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:27 am

LAXLHR wrote:
TWA1985 wrote:
I don’t get people on this forum, not only do you guys have some kind of an aversion to Chicago (O’Hare), but to Boeing as well ... which ironically is Chicago based. Smh.

Good for HA! I do enjoy the 787, and feel it would be a better aircraft for them.

IF people on here strongly dislike Boeing and ORD, that's their choice, no? Many hate LAX, LHR and the list goes on...

ORD is an awful neglected airport. The AA terminal looks like its happy to reside in the early 1990s, overcrowded and feels sad. UA not far behind...something icky about it all.

As for Chicago - FANTASTIC CITY!!

Boeing - Meh! (I like the 787). Prefer Airbus overall, but nothing against Boeing. Fan boys are dumb!...just see the misguided over the top love for DL on this site. I'd understand if it was SQ or EK (worldwide quality airlines) but DL? LOL! A better carrier than before, yes, world leader. NO!

What does this have to do with DL. The fact that you went out your way to compare people liking Boeing and airbus to DL means there is some truth to what the DL fanboys say. World quality isn't just about hard or soft product it's about a consistent brand that delivers on the brand promise which is what delta does very well. Delta is a quality world carrier as is UA and AA. Now back to the topic

767333ER · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:46 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Austin787 wrote:
787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.

The 787-8 is an all but dead product. The logic seems to be the lack of good reason why would anyone want a plane that costs the same to operate as its larger counterpart, but holds less people/cargo, has no range advantage, and probably would cost more to maintain. Plus the 787-8 costs more to build so Boeing would have to either lose more money or charge more.

I recognize the 787-8 market has dried up, but not for the reasons you give.

The 787-8 OEW is 20K lbs lower than the 787-9, so it does not cost the same to operate. The OEW difference will result in lower fuel burn. The reason for the OEW difference is that Boeing wanted to make the 787-8 as efficient as they could originally so that there would be a market for both the 788 and 789. The OEW difference between the A332 and A333 is closer to 10K lbs for reference and shares many more common components.

On what basis would a brand new 787-8 cost more to maintain than a 787-9?

I have read a.net myths that the 787-8 costs more to build due to unique parts, but I don’t know if that is actually correct.

The reason that I have heard is that production costs are sufficiently similar to the 787-9 that the sales price for the 787-8 and 787-9 have to be very similar to earn a profit. However airlines typically will pay less for lower capacity airplanes since it has less revenue potential. For the same price, the 787-9 is more attractive to Airlines since it flies further with more payload and passengers for the same purchase price. This may be why Hawaiian would want the 787-9 over the 787-8.

The 787 isn’t a brand new plane anymore and has gone though many engine improvements already and typically the stretched variants of an aircraft benefit more from these improvements than the shorter variants do to the point where there is neglegabe risk flying an A321 for example over an A320 so if the A321 only gets A320 loads and operator would still have similar profit margins on that flight. The same would be the case for the 787 at this point especially considering the other aerodynamic improvements the 787-9 and -10 have received that the 787-8 has not. Maintainence cost my inference based off of the amount of difference between the 787-8 and the other variants. They took the 787-8 and simply made it cheaper to build and a better product when they did the -9 stretch which means a lot of changes likely some of which coming with different spare parts or other differences in maintenance which will be cheaper in the more common of two configurations.

Production costs ar an interesting one. Typically I would think the costs between any two variants of the same family would be similar with the smaller generally being a bit cheaper due to the reduced material and time required to build, but otherwise the rest of the aircraft is rather similar. The 787-8’s construction is different and some of the suppliers are different likely making it more costly than it could be if constructed like a 787-9 minus frames so if a customer has to pay the same for a 787-9 as they would for a 787-8, why would they pay the same price for a lesser product? It’s like paying $5 for a foot long or 6 inch sandwich from subway.

N14AZ · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:11 am

Bricktop wrote:
Interesting though how Airbus didn't fight tooth an nail to keep HA. Changing guards?

In deed interesting. Then again, Airbus, knowing that there won’t be additional orders for the A338, maybe wasn’t that desperate to fight for six airframes. I guess they weren’t happy to have just one customer either. As the saying goes “better a terrible end than unending terror” ...

enzo011 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:20 am

Stitch wrote:
Average discounts off list on popular widebodies are around 50% and popular narrowbodies are around 60% at both OEMs thanks to a mix of both OEMs raising their list prices 3-5% every year even as record production rates driving down the production costs by an even greater amount. Both Airbus and Boeing have strong cash flow and margins so it's clear these "historic" discounts are not really hurting their bottom line because they're bringing in just as much profit per frame.

Seems like this is the case, or we will see some interesting financials if they have chosen to cut too much on their margins to keep market share and there is a bump in the road they will be more exposed than before.

Stitch wrote:
Early on in the A350XWB sales campaigns, Airbus did match Boeing's prices on the 787-8 and 787-9 to try and win RFPs with the A350-800 and A350-900 (with mixed success), but they almost certainly now are able to successfully recover a premium with customers who prefer the A350-900 or are not totally agnostic about either plane and will just pick the cheapest.

This information probably comes from the same sources that Leeham got theirs from on the price HA paid, right? Someone said that this is what was paid, unless someone violated a NDA or confidentiality agreement to get official confirmation. I find it could well be the case, just like HA paid close to or even less than $100m per 787 for this order.

Stitch wrote:
Well anyone who has any common sense knows that Airbus is enough of an established player that they don't need to lowball to win orders as a general practice. But there will always be strategic deals where one OEM or the other will "hone their knives" that little bit sharper and HA may very well have been one of them. HA is eventually going to be looking at 717 replacements and while the CSeries will be a natural option, so could a Boeing-Embrarer tie-up. And MoM could be of interest to them, as well, down the road as it will EIS some years after the A321neo fleet is delivered.

Seems to me that all of us play a game of selective amnesia on here. Sometimes there is a cost to introducing a new model to a fleet, sometimes it is forgotten or not that much. From what you post here it leads more credence to the fact that Boeing went very low on the price to HA, in an effort to keep themselves in the airline for, as you post, there is another RFP for the 717 replacement or when the MOM is on the market. It will be easier to sell a MOM to HA if they have the 787 in the fleet as I am sure there will be cockpit commonality in some way. What price was Boeing willing to pay for this. I have seen some posts trying to assert that the price may not have been as low as people think and yet there is just as much evidence that points to a cracking deal for HA and a strategic deal for Boeing in this case. The last time this happened UA paid $22m for a 737-7 or around 70% off list.

I am not sure if you answered, but you commented that Airbus will be in trouble if the 789 sales price is only $10m more than the cost for Airbus to produce a A350. Do you think, with what you know, it is unrealistic for Airbus to reach production costs of the 787 with the A350? Or is it a case that Airbus has a 20% premium on production costs compared to Boeing?

seahawk · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:22 am

The more modern design that can be produced at lower costs will always be limited only by the numbers of frames that can be produced

mjoelnir · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:34 am

I will believe in low cost 787 production when we see the deferred cost decreasing rapidly, up to that point I believe in Boeing being prepared to take losses on frames, to keep Airbus at bay.

MrBren · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:39 am

Selling off your products is panic rather than serenity.

JerseyFlyer · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:49 am

lightsaber wrote:
I think that reduced production price of the 789 is a huge issue for Airbus. From my own observation, it appears Boeing has reduced 789 production costs by 20 to 25 million per airframe over the last 4 or so years. Boeing has been more agressive cutting costs than Airbus...

To others:
Boeing is increasing production to go on volume. That means aggressive pricing to win market share.

Boeing is very cost driven. If it does produce a 789 for $10 million less than HA paid, that is $60 million in out the door profit and then ancillary sales.

The industry is going to a service model. A service model requires volume. Google used to do everything possible to be the only vendor of a service (this year has been different). Why shouldn't Boeing go for the market share?

Lightsaber

Boeing cannot be too aggressive on price until the massive deferred costs of the early stages of the 787 programme are recovered.

Airbus will reduce A350 production costs as the production ramp-up of that frame matures - it is lagging the 787 due to its later EIS. I would think there is less potential cost for Airbus to squeeze out of A330 production, given the maturity of that process, although an increase from the current 6 per month to rates that they achieved a few years ago would surely help.

BREECH · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:43 am

Polot wrote:
BREECH wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I'll agree with others the A321NEO is replacing many potential A330 missions.

How in the name of everything that's holy can it do that!? Half the range, 2/3 of the passengers, 1/3 of the payload. What am I missing?

Because not everyone uses the A330 to it’s full capability. Airlines like EI, TAP, etc who have committed to the A321LR are fractioning their traffic and may not require as many A330s in the future than if the A321 was not available. The 797 and Airbus’s response is just going to continue that.

That's really bad for passengers. :-(

Replacing the quietest and most comfortable wide-body with a pencil-flyer, even as good as A321, is not a good idea. I wonder if body-width competition will be a thing in future. After all you can't compete with the comfort of the wide-body.

BREECH · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:45 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Where is the evidence that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss? If you can’t back up that comment, then why should anyone believe the rest of what you wrote? Repeating a myth again and again won’t make it true

Aren't I not the one who keeps saying it over and over again - Leeham is the aviation tabloid! And everyone keeps telling me how long they've been doing what they're doing. Now I suddenly decide to believe them for once, and, even suddenlier, I'm the one being accused of believing in myths! Quelle surprise! :-D

WIederling · Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:00 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I think that reduced production price of the 789 is a huge issue for Airbus. From my own observation, it appears Boeing has reduced 789 production costs by 20 to 25 million per airframe over the last 4 or so years. Boeing has been more agressive cutting costs than Airbus...

$20..25m over 4 years in a ~~$100+m/ environment would be equivalent 94.5... 92.5% learning curve.

IMU the reduction of deferred cost was about constant over the 4 quarters of 2017?
3..4 years ago the 787 crossed production break even ( per unit, no programm accounting ).

No idea how much learning curve the A330 production shows after running for 25 years. should be more or less "ausgeknautscht" ?

Newbiepilot · Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:47 pm

BREECH wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Where is the evidence that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss? If you can’t back up that comment, then why should anyone believe the rest of what you wrote? Repeating a myth again and again won’t make it true

Aren't I not the one who keeps saying it over and over again - Leeham is the aviation tabloid! And everyone keeps telling me how long they've been doing what they're doing. Now I suddenly decide to believe them for once, and, even suddenlier, I'm the one being accused of believing in myths! Quelle surprise!

Did you read what was posted on Leeham by Scott Hamilton? It does not say anywhere that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss. Can you quote for us where you think he said that? He said it was sold for less than Airbus’ (most likely A350) production cost. All that means is that a 787 costs less to build than an A350.

If you are basing all your comments on your belief that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss, then all of what you say may be wrong because as far as I can tell no one (including Leeham) except people on this forum are saying the 787 was sold at a loss. This forum is losing credibility.

Newbiepilot · Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:57 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I will believe in low cost 787 production when we see the deferred cost decreasing rapidly, up to that point I believe in Boeing being prepared to take losses on frames, to keep Airbus at bay.

787 deferred production costs shrunk by $591 Million in the 4th quarter, which is over $16 Million per plane. While not enough to make all the costs go away within the current accounting block, there has been significant cost reductions that are likely allowing 787s to be priced lower. This can help them compete against the A330neo

nicode · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
DWC wrote:
And if we are at getting to French barren lands, Kerguelen, Crozet or Wallis & Futuna islands look much sexier ( no scheduled flights though, I checked )

Now you have me looking too!

You can go to Wallis on scheduled flights (only from Noumea NOU, one direct flight a week and another weekly via Nadi NAN with AirCalin).

For Hawaii, last year, I went there with DL (stayed 3 weeks), all the way from CDG. I went to Oahu, Kauai, Maui and Big Island. It was wonderful.

HA direct flight to Europe, why not, but I think only a 3 or 4x weekly to London would be viable.

WIederling · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:16 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Did you read what was posted on Leeham by Scott Hamilton? It does not say anywhere that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss. Can you quote for us where you think he said that? He said it was sold for less than Airbus’ (most likely A350) production cost. All that means is that a 787 costs less to build than an A350.
.

HA never wanted the A359. Afaics this is all between A338 and 789. ( 788 neither, no legs. )
The original HA order was A358 which was more a size match to A333/9 and 789.

Ziyulu · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:20 pm

2-4-2 seating to 3-3-3 seating. I feel sorry for those in economy.

cledaybuck · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:23 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
Boeing cannot be too aggressive on price until the massive deferred costs of the early stages of the 787 programme are recovered.

No. Boeing should not be letting their accounting methods determine the sales price of their aircraft.

cledaybuck · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:40 pm

WIederling wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
If the average sales price of the 789 is $125m this is about 55% off list price. We are not talking about launch prices for the 789 any longer as well, would this be considered normal pricing discounts on average? Seeing that Boeing made a deal with UA on the 737-7 to keep the C-series out and then the whole price dumping saga with DL, surely it is time to re-think the notion that Boeing is being risk averse and they have actually switched to a very aggressive model to win and maintain market share?

Estimation is that Boeing allowed ~52% rebates last year.
https://theblogbyjavier.com/2018/02/13/ ... -for-2017/
~~4% more than earlier.

Actually, it is more like ~50% (50.4%). Of course, list prices have gone up quite a bit too.

viewtopic.php?t=561643
http://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/

WIederling · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:40 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
(50.4%). Of course, list prices have gone up quite a bit too.

I had this comment stored in my mind:
https://theblogbyjavier.com/2018/01/27/ ... ment-38937

JetBuddy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:48 pm

obelau24 wrote:
There is a market for Hawaii in Europe, albeit small. It’s anectodal but every time I fly LAX/SFO (seasonally) to HNL on DL, there are a fair number of pax connecting from VS and AF. I don’t know how many and how often but obviously some Europeans are coming and it’s a market that could be stimulated with nonstop, affordable flights. Plus, not to mention locals do travel too. It’s a small market at present but the same argument applies that with nonstop flights on HA (everyone and their baby has a HA FQTV account) demand could be stimulated for locals going to Europe.

Point being:
small market of Europeans
+
small market of locals to Europe
+
small market of connections with PPT/AUS/NZ

= possible successful business case.

I agree with you. Hawaii is one of the typical honeymoon destinations, even for Europeans. I know several people who went.

The Great Circle route from LHR to HNL is about 6300nm across the North Pole. Direct routes from HNL to Europe would be great for the local population.

cledaybuck · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:59 pm

WIederling wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
(50.4%). Of course, list prices have gone up quite a bit too.

I had this comment stored in my mind:
https://theblogbyjavier.com/2018/01/27/ ... ment-38937

Gotcha. Although, I think it is a little more complicated than this blogger is making it. Airplanes delivered in 2017 obviously were not ordered in 2017 at 2017 list prices. Not all revenue in 2017 was from deliveries either (initial deposits, progress payments, etc.). It probably gives a decent approximation of the general trend though.

william · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:04 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
^ Good analysis. Yes, all signs point to Airbus as the one whispering in Leeham's ear, which he's quick to parrot. Interesting though how Airbus didn't fight tooth an nail to keep HA. Changing of the guards?

It definitely has been defensive... Order switches are a big deal.

But I think the news is how the A321 will play more of a role.

I've seen the WSJ picked up the rumor, but is there any fact?

I'm still wondering about the wording, of course a B789 sells for less than an A359. The only question in the production cost difference. Boeing has cut costs

In the contract for Mitsubishi wings:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1CS0HD

assembly:
On the 787 line, where wings, fuselage and other major pieces are shipped from suppliers and simply assembled at Boeing, the savings options are fewer.

But teams are still taking out costs. They have slashed production time by more than two-thirds in four years through such changes as organizing kits so mechanics have all parts on hand and putting interiors into planes earlier on the assembly line, said Bob Manelski, director of 787 business operations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN18Z131

I missed this from above link Boeing’s goal is to build the largest 787 version, the 787-10, in the same amount of time as the two smaller versions - and for the same cost as the 787-9.

It looks like the 787 achieved maintenance savings goals. That will make competing tougher for the A330:
http://www.mro-network.com/maintenance- ... ose-target

Boeing has also worked to reduce part costs, but there should be little advantage there over the A350 except as by part count and somewhat by weight (in aerospace, part count drives cost more than material costs).

Lightsaber

I read that elsewhere too about the maintenance being lower on the 787. Many here forget going CF wasn't only about weight but also lower maintenance and now its being seen by the airlines in their operating costs. That's better marketing than all the glossy brochures.

EPA001 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:13 pm

william wrote:
I read that elsewhere too about the maintenance being lower on the 787. Many here forget going CF wasn't only about weight but also lower maintenance and now its being seen by the airlines in their operating costs. That's better marketing than all the glossy brochures.

This presumes that the difference is made by the use of CF alone. The A359 is also made from CF, the A330-800neo is mostly not. But that frame is virtually fully matured and I can't see the maintenance costs of the fuselage being that much different. My take on that is that it is more speculative than that is a deal maker or breaker.

marcelh · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:27 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
Boeing cannot be too aggressive on price until the massive deferred costs of the early stages of the 787 programme are recovered.
No. Boeing should not be letting their accounting methods determine the sales price of their aircraft.

Those deferred costs can't be pushed into the future eternally. With the current rate (just over $ 16 Million per plane) thy need to build another 1,700-ish 787s.

william · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:27 pm

EPA001 wrote:
william wrote:
I read that elsewhere too about the maintenance being lower on the 787. Many here forget going CF wasn't only about weight but also lower maintenance and now its being seen by the airlines in their operating costs. That's better marketing than all the glossy brochures.

This presumes that the difference is made by the use of CF alone. The A359 is also made from CF, the A330-800neo is mostly not. But that frame is virtually fully matured and I can't see the maintenance costs of the fuselage being that much different. My take on that is that it is more speculative than that is a deal maker or breaker.

Doesn't anyone remember one of the ideas behind the barrel roll was lower maintenance. Again, I don't remember the "link" but airlines are starting to see the benefits behind lower mx costs on the accounts sheet. Is it because of the CF only , probably not, but the cost savings are real.

Will A350's CF panel approach yield savings, yes. But I am talking about the 787, and it beginning to live up to "some" of the hype.

godsbeloved · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:32 pm

Savings on maintenance are real. Non flying dreamliners require extremely low amounts of maintenance. The costs are so low that airlines can now afford to fly leased A330's and A340's instead...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net