zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The sentence right before it says "It is well-known that Hawaiian Air has been negotiating with both Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet.", so HA is admitting they are in the market. HA tells us they have not cancelled A338, but aren't willing to answer more questions until "the conclusion of those negotiations".

The simple fact of the matter is the three players here, Hawaiian, Boeing, and Airbus are all public companies. If any material change to an existing or new order had actually transpired they each have fiduciary duty to make such material changes public.

Fact that we do not have any public statement means at this time there is no material change, the OEMs continue to pitch to airlines all the time.

There's lots of ways to fudge that. For instance, both VS and QF have A380 orders no one expects them to take. QF's CEO has even said publicly they don't intend to take them. At some point in time the orders will disappear.

mjoelnir wrote:

I will stop talking about the difference between program for cost accounting and normal accounting, when giddy Boeing fanboys stop boasting about huge profits at Boeing while talking over low profits at Airbus, while forgetting to deduct the deferred cost from Boeing's profits to compare.

What about giddy Airbus fans who say Boeing won't be able to competitively price 787s due to program accounting, yet we see the 787 orders and backlog growing and the production rate increasing?

WIederling wrote:

IMU the story after much back and forth has been reduced
to Boeing trying to foist some frames on HA in a MAGA context.
( like some other "sales" to airlines abroad during Trumped Up visits there. )

Seems your reporting is about as accurate as Hamilton's.

hinckley wrote:

zeke wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is the three players here, Hawaiian, Boeing, and Airbus are all public companies. If any material change to an existing or new order had actually transpired they each have fiduciary duty to make such material changes public. Fact that we do not have any public statement means at this time there is no material change, the OEMs continue to pitch to airlines all the time.

Changes which have a material financial impact a company's operations need to be publicy disclosed.
Changes which have a material financial impact an "order" do not need to be publicly disclosed.
Changes which may occur from ongoing, non-finalized negotiations would never be publicly disclosed.

The cancellation of an order has material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.
A firm order of airplains have material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.

mjoelnir wrote:

hinckley wrote:

Changes which have a material financial impact a company's operations need to be publicy disclosed.
Changes which have a material financial impact an "order" do not need to be publicly disclosed.
Changes which may occur from ongoing, non-finalized negotiations would never be publicly disclosed.

The cancellation of an order has material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.
A firm order of airplains have material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.

If paperwork is signed. i.e. the deal is comsumated. But I've seen announcement of "intention to buy" resp. "intention to sell or cancel"

Like many 787 related threads, this one sadly headed down the ugly path of program accounting debates, but if anyone would like to talk about Hawaiian or the A330neo, here is an article talking about positives and negatives of the move.


On the bright side, this move should push back some capital spending. Hawaiian's A330-800neo deliveries were scheduled to begin next year, whereas the 787-9 probably isn't available until at least 2020. This will free up some cash for Hawaiian Holdings' share-buyback program.

From Boeing's perspective, getting a Dreamliner order from Hawaiian Airlines is a solid win, even though the initial order is only for six aircraft and the price was low. First, the 787-9 is set to be Hawaiian's growth platform for long-haul routes, which could lead to further orders down the road. Second, if Boeing eventually upgrades the Dreamliner with new engines, it will be in good position to win a replacement order for Hawaiian's fleet of 24 A330s in the 2030s.

Meanwhile, Airbus is the clear loser here. Hawaiian's decision to abandon its A330neo order puts further pressure on an aircraft program that hasn't gotten much support from airlines. Lining up more A330neo customers should be the top priority for Airbus' sales team in 2018.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaiian ... 00588.html

Motley Fool seems to have missed the Boeing perspective of trying to clear space for a new 797. This may be a make it or break it year for the A330neo. Getting Delta to order the airplane early in the program helped establish the program since Airbus needed at least one large financially stable airline to buy the airplane to keep residual values up. The program in my opinion needs some wins in sales campaigns this year to help it avoid being the next A340-500/600. it has been a while since the A330neo got a meaningful order. Excluding Iran Air which is a bit of an outlier, most orders have been from small airlines for only a couple planes. Even some of the larger orders like Garuda and TAP were conversions from A330ceos or A350s. Perhaps an order this year from United, American, IAG, Lufthansa Group, AF/KL, China etc could help solidify the program and let us forget Hawaiian defecting.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Meanwhile, Airbus is the clear loser here. Hawaiian's decision to abandon its A330neo order puts further pressure on an aircraft program that hasn't gotten much support from airlines.

You've missed the train.
As things stand HA seems to not cancel their A338NEO order:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

mjoelnir wrote:

The cancellation of an order has material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.
A firm order of airplains have material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.

Maybe, maybe not. If United ordered or cancelled a single E190, it likely is not an immediately reportable event on Form 8K. I'm not saying that HA's switch from an A388 order to a 789 order falls into that category. It may. It may not. btw, such an event would almost certainly be part of normal disclosures in a quarterly 10Q, or an annual 10K.

fwiw, my perspective is that of a long-time public company CFO, both pre- and post-Reg FD. Also, it should be noted, that Airbus does not necessarily need to comply with US SEC regs.

WIederling wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Meanwhile, Airbus is the clear loser here. Hawaiian's decision to abandon its A330neo order puts further pressure on an aircraft program that hasn't gotten much support from airlines.

You've missed the train.
As things stand HA seems to not cancel their A338NEO order:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

Well, if this flip doesn’t come to pass, at least a few good things came out of it:

1. Leeham earned a good bit of attention in an otherwise low aviation news cycle.

2. Critics of program accounting got a chance to shake the rust off their arguments.

3. Critics of the A330neo program had an exciting weekend.

WIederling wrote:

If paperwork is signed. i.e. the deal is comsumated. But I've seen announcement of "intention to buy" resp. "intention to sell or cancel"

Company often make disclosures that are not mandated by SEC regs. Sometimes disclosures are made for PR or other strategic reasons.

WIederling wrote:

You've missed the train.
As things stand HA seems to not cancel their A338NEO order:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

Indeed, from the horse's mouth. So Hawaiian may go for B787-9 for the next fleet addition but they are not cancelling the A339-800. After so much speculation I think that that is good news.

Very happy about this! Excited to see such a unique bird in HA's fleet! Much more comfortable ride in the 330's 2-4-2 layout than the sardine 3-3-3 experien)e.

Revelation wrote:

There's lots of ways to fudge that. For instance, both VS and QF have A380 orders no one expects them to take. QF's CEO has even said publicly they don't intend to take them. At some point in time the orders will disappear.

There is no way to fudge things, these are material changes to public companies. If they defer deliveries it requires accounting of such deferrals, if they convert models it requires accounting, if they cancel it requires accounting, and if they order it requires accounting.

You say the orders will disappear, they may or may not, personally I dont think the QF ones will. I think they will end up getting replacements down the track with new engines. AJ makes a lot of contradicting statements, he is not bound by them.

None of this changes my previous assertion, Boeing, Airbus, and Hawaiian are public companies, if there has been a material change, they cannot “fudge” it, they required to make full disclosure to the market. We have seen no such disclosure.

Scott at leehamnews has updated his comments on this matter...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/26/ponti ... more-26421

"Subsequently, the airline said the A330-800 contract is still in place. I’ll concede I should have written that Hawaiian is “to” cancel the order (future tense), not that it “cancels” (present tense)."

mjoelnir wrote:

hinckley wrote:

zeke wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is the three players here, Hawaiian, Boeing, and Airbus are all public companies. If any material change to an existing or new order had actually transpired they each have fiduciary duty to make such material changes public. Fact that we do not have any public statement means at this time there is no material change, the OEMs continue to pitch to airlines all the time.

Changes which have a material financial impact a company's operations need to be publicy disclosed.
Changes which have a material financial impact an "order" do not need to be publicly disclosed.
Changes which may occur from ongoing, non-finalized negotiations would never be publicly disclosed.

The cancellation of an order has material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.
A firm order of airplains have material financial impact on a company's operation and is usually disclosed.

Usually. But 'netting' can and is used as a justification to delay reporting, though wouldn't seem to apply in this instance, as the order is not cancelled.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

There's lots of ways to fudge that. For instance, both VS and QF have A380 orders no one expects them to take. QF's CEO has even said publicly they don't intend to take them. At some point in time the orders will disappear.

You say the orders will disappear, they may or may not, personally I dont think the QF ones will. I think they will end up getting replacements down the track with new engines. AJ makes a lot of contradicting statements, he is not bound by them.

Both airlines have previously offered these aircraft to existing A380 operators, suggesting there is still financial substance behind the orders. QF offered new or used option, perhaps partly explaining the previous A380 write down.

mffoda wrote:

Scott at leehamnews has updated his comments on this matter...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/26/ponti ... more-26421

"Subsequently, the airline said the A330-800 contract is still in place. I’ll concede I should have written that Hawaiian is “to” cancel the order (future tense), not that it “cancels” (present tense)."

That’s unfortunate. It changes the whole essence of the “report”.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

mffoda wrote:

Scott at leehamnews has updated his comments on this matter...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/26/ponti ... more-26421

"Subsequently, the airline said the A330-800 contract is still in place. I’ll concede I should have written that Hawaiian is “to” cancel the order (future tense), not that it “cancels” (present tense)."

That’s unfortunate. It changes the whole essence of the “report”.

His correction says that HA is to cancel the A338 order, instead that it has cancelled it already. He's not changing what he reported, other than changing the timing. He could have used this update to retract the whole story, or to modify it to say HA is keeping A338s and potentially adding 789s (which is how many here read HA's statement to FlightGlobal), but he didn't.

I think his credibility has taken a hit, and time will tell if he got the "essence of the report" correct or not.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

mffoda wrote:

Scott at leehamnews has updated his comments on this matter...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/26/ponti ... more-26421

"Subsequently, the airline said the A330-800 contract is still in place. I’ll concede I should have written that Hawaiian is “to” cancel the order (future tense), not that it “cancels” (present tense)."

That’s unfortunate. It changes the whole essence of the “report”.

Yeah. As the Gilda Radner character used to say on SNL, "Never mind". Way to get a.net all riled up, Scott.

Revelation wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

mffoda wrote:

Scott at leehamnews has updated his comments on this matter...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/26/ponti ... more-26421

"Subsequently, the airline said the A330-800 contract is still in place. I’ll concede I should have written that Hawaiian is “to” cancel the order (future tense), not that it “cancels” (present tense)."

That’s unfortunate. It changes the whole essence of the “report”.

His correction says that HA is to cancel the A338 order, instead that it has cancelled it already. He's not changing what he reported, other than changing the timing. He could have used this update to retract the whole story, or to modify it to say HA is keeping A338s and potentially adding 789s (which is how many here read HA's statement to FlightGlobal), but he didn't.

I think his credibility has taken a hit, and time will tell if he got the "essence of the report" correct or not.

To me, it’s the difference between being a done deal and being a deal to be done. The former is done. The latter can be undone. I agree - we’ll see how close he was to the final outcome.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

That’s unfortunate. It changes the whole essence of the “report”.

His correction says that HA is to cancel the A338 order, instead that it has cancelled it already. He's not changing what he reported, other than changing the timing. He could have used this update to retract the whole story, or to modify it to say HA is keeping A338s and potentially adding 789s (which is how many here read HA's statement to FlightGlobal), but he didn't.

I think his credibility has taken a hit, and time will tell if he got the "essence of the report" correct or not.

To me, it’s the difference between being a done deal and being a deal to be done. The former is done. The latter can be undone. I agree - we’ll see how close he was to the final outcome.

The original report said the agreements were not yet signed, even though he used the word cancelled which suggests a cancellation had happened. To me, the statement that the agreements were not yet signed meant while he was telling us what he understood would be happening, everything could be undone right up till the time the agreements were signed.

Revelation wrote:

The original report said the agreements were not yet signed, even though he used the word cancelled which suggests a cancellation had happened. To me, the statement that the agreements were not yet signed meant while he was telling us what he understood would be happening, everything could be undone right up till the time the agreements were signed.

This is what I feel Hamilton was saying - that HA had agreed to cancel the A330-800 order and place an order for 787-9 as replacement, but as HA, Airbus and Boeing have not all yet signed the paperwork, none of the three have been able to publicly announce it and HA is required under fiduciary grounds to continue to say that they have the A330-800 on order until such time as they do not (assuming that they do indeed intend to cancel).

I wonder what the financing contingencies are in HA's 338 order. It's clear that the 338 won't be a lessor or bank favorite given the extremely low volume of orders. Perhaps both Leeham and HA can be "right" if the order hasn't been cancelled yet but everyone involved can see that a financing contingency won't be met by some upcoming deadline.

In that event, I'm sure Airbus would be willing to renegotiate, but neither the 339 nor the 359 is quite as well positioned for HA as the 789, and HA's calculation of the value of offers from Airbus and Boeing will reflect that.

seabosdca wrote:

I wonder what the financing contingencies are in HA's 338 order. It's clear that the 338 won't be a lessor or bank favorite given the extremely low volume of orders. Perhaps both Leeham and HA can be "right" if the order hasn't been cancelled yet but everyone involved can see that a financing contingency won't be met by some upcoming deadline.

In that event, I'm sure Airbus would be willing to renegotiate, but neither the 339 nor the 359 is quite as well positioned for HA as the 789, and HA's calculation of the value of offers from Airbus and Boeing will reflect that.

I really doubt financing is the main issue here, if an issue at all. If HA was going to cancel the order simply because of lack of available financing, Airbus could step in and provide a simple residual value guarantee. This would then alleviate any concern that any financier/lessor has. Airbus could also step in and finance it themselves through their financing arm, much like Boeing Capital could.

Hawaiian Airlines denies A330neo order cancellation

Hawaiian Airlines (HA, Honolulu) has denied claims circulating in the international media to the effect that it has cancelled an order for six A330-800s.

Last week, reports indicated the carrier had terminated its contract with Airbus (AIB, Toulouse Blagnac) in favour of a deal with Boeing (BOE, Chicago O'Hare) for B787-9s. In October last year, CEO Mark Dunkerly said Hawaiian's interest in the B787 stemmed mainly from weak global A330-800 sales.

"The A330-800 order has not been cancelled," spokeswoman Ann Botticelli told ch-aviation in a statement. "What we have said is that it is well-known that we have been negotiating with Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet. We have not signed an agreement with either manufacturer [at this stage]."

Hawaiian Airlines is due to take delivery of its first pair of A330-800s in 2019 followed by two more in 2020 with the final two due in 2021. It also has purchase rights for a further six of the type. For its part, Airbus has already rolled out its first A330-800 test aircraft in the form of F-WTTO (msn 1888). Its first flight is scheduled for sometime in mid-2018.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

bgm wrote:

Hawaiian Airlines denies A330neo order cancellation

Hawaiian Airlines (HA, Honolulu) has denied claims circulating in the international media to the effect that it has cancelled an order for six A330-800s.

[...]

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

This doesn't tell us anything more definitive than the Leeham article.

N328KF wrote:

bgm wrote:

Hawaiian Airlines denies A330neo order cancellation

Hawaiian Airlines (HA, Honolulu) has denied claims circulating in the international media to the effect that it has cancelled an order for six A330-800s.

[...]

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

This doesn't tell us anything more definitive than the Leeham article.

I would be believe that article to be much more accurate then the the speculation by Leeham.

MIflyer12 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

There's lots of ways to fudge that. For instance, both VS and QF have A380 orders no one expects them to take. QF's CEO has even said publicly they don't intend to take them. At some point in time the orders will disappear.

There is no way to fudge things, these are material changes to public companies. If they defer deliveries it requires accounting of such deferrals, if they convert models it requires accounting, if they cancel it requires accounting, and if they order it requires accounting.

I don't believe U.S. SEC rules are so prescriptive as you describe.

Is an incremental order for six aircraft material to Boeing (or even Boeing Commercial Airplanes, with a backlog of ~6,000 aircraft)?

Is a an effective swap of 338 orders for 789 orders material for HA if it doesn't significantly change capital outlays or timing?

Are these transactions, even if material, so important as to require immediate (U.S. standard = 2 day) disclosures instead of routine quarterly filings? Boeing used a put option to require Delta to order ten more 739s. IIRC, it came out in Delta's regular 10Q four weeks after the PO documents were finalized.

Yes, orders or cancellations are that important.

mjoelnir wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is no way to fudge things, these are material changes to public companies. If they defer deliveries it requires accounting of such deferrals, if they convert models it requires accounting, if they cancel it requires accounting, and if they order it requires accounting.

I don't believe U.S. SEC rules are so prescriptive as you describe.

Is an incremental order for six aircraft material to Boeing (or even Boeing Commercial Airplanes, with a backlog of ~6,000 aircraft)?

Is a an effective swap of 338 orders for 789 orders material for HA if it doesn't significantly change capital outlays or timing?

Are these transactions, even if material, so important as to require immediate (U.S. standard = 2 day) disclosures instead of routine quarterly filings? Boeing used a put option to require Delta to order ten more 739s. IIRC, it came out in Delta's regular 10Q four weeks after the PO documents were finalized.

Yes, orders or cancellations are that important.

So important that both Airbus and Boeing can wait a month between disclosing cancellations and orders ?

There is wiggle room. HA doesn’t have to disclose anything the instant they sign a contract.

EPA001 wrote:

N328KF wrote:

bgm wrote:

Hawaiian Airlines denies A330neo order cancellation

Hawaiian Airlines (HA, Honolulu) has denied claims circulating in the international media to the effect that it has cancelled an order for six A330-800s.

[...]

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ncellation

This doesn't tell us anything more definitive than the Leeham article.

I would be believe that article to be much more accurate then the the speculation by Leeham.

I would have to assume so also but it is notable for what it does not say, and that is a statement of confidence about their arrival.

Route66 wrote:

EPA001 wrote:

N328KF wrote:

This doesn't tell us anything more definitive than the Leeham article.

I would be believe that article to be much more accurate then the the speculation by Leeham.

I would have to assume so also but it is notable for what it does not say, and that is a statement of confidence about their arrival.

It's interesting how people read "What we have said is that it is well-known that we have been negotiating with Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet." differently:

A) A338 is already in our fleet, and we might add B789.
B) A338 is not already in our fleet, and we might add either A338 or B789.

I think the ambiguity is deliberate all around. Hamilton's not changing his story other than the timing of the events, and HA is not confirming any part of his story other than the part about negotiations are on-going.

Polot wrote:

So important that both Airbus and Boeing can wait a month between disclosing cancellations and orders ?

Show an example that reporting of a firm order or a cancellation of a firm order is done a month after signing the contracts. I assume, that in some countries the buying airline does not report immediately, but than we see an unidentified order or cancellation at Airbus or Boeing.

That’s my take as well, even if Boeing does not make an announcement of an order they update their order book with the aircraft against an unidentified customer. The 787 has has no disclosed or unidentified orders this year.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

So important that both Airbus and Boeing can wait a month between disclosing cancellations and orders ?

Show an example that reporting of a firm order or a cancellation of a firm order is done a month after signing the contracts. I assume, that in some countries the buying airline does not report immediately, but than we see an unidentified order or cancellation at Airbus or Boeing.

zeke wrote:

That’s my take as well, even if Boeing does not make an announcement of an order they update their order book with the aircraft against an unidentified customer. The 787 has has no disclosed or unidentified orders this year.

Yes, and Airbus and starting this year Boeing only update their order book once a month. They don’t do so as soon as they sign an order or cancel one. HA could cancel their A338 order on Friday and Airbus will happily show it on their books until sometime in April when they release March’s numbers. Boeing and Airbus’s books are only valid through Jan 31 2018. According to my calendar it is Feb 27 2018. Who knows what orders/cancellations Airbus/Boeing have made this month unless they send out a press release (which they don’t do with every order and certainly not with every cancellation or conversion), and even then both manufacturers have been known to be occasionally misleading about the actual status of an order in their PR.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

So important that both Airbus and Boeing can wait a month between disclosing cancellations and orders ?

Show an example that reporting of a firm order or a cancellation of a firm order is done a month after signing the contracts. I assume, that in some countries the buying airline does not report immediately, but than we see an unidentified order or cancellation at Airbus or Boeing.

zeke wrote:

That’s my take as well, even if Boeing does not make an announcement of an order they update their order book with the aircraft against an unidentified customer. The 787 has has no disclosed or unidentified orders this year.

Yes, and Airbus and starting this year Boeing only update their order book once a month. They don’t do so as soon as they sign an order or cancel one. HA could cancel their A338 order on Friday and Airbus will happily show it on their books until sometime in April when they release March’s numbers. Boeing and Airbus’s books are only valid through Jan 31 2018. According to my calendar it is Feb 27 2018. Who knows what orders/cancellations Airbus/Boeing have made this month unless they send out a press release (which they don’t do with every order and certainly not with every cancellation or conversion), and even then both manufacturers have been known to be occasionally misleading about the actual status of an order in their PR.

The orderbook update has exactly nothing to do with it. The orderbook update is no official report of an order. Show me a firm order, that was not reported by a statement of either Boeing or Airbus and most often by the airline on the same day. The most often comes, because not all airlines in all countries, especially state owned ones, do need to report. In that case we usually see a statement of an unidentified order.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Show an example that reporting of a firm order or a cancellation of a firm order is done a month after signing the contracts. I assume, that in some countries the buying airline does not report immediately, but than we see an unidentified order or cancellation at Airbus or Boeing.

zeke wrote:

That’s my take as well, even if Boeing does not make an announcement of an order they update their order book with the aircraft against an unidentified customer. The 787 has has no disclosed or unidentified orders this year.

Yes, and Airbus and starting this year Boeing only update their order book once a month. They don’t do so as soon as they sign an order or cancel one. HA could cancel their A338 order on Friday and Airbus will happily show it on their books until sometime in April when they release March’s numbers. Boeing and Airbus’s books are only valid through Jan 31 2018. According to my calendar it is Feb 27 2018. Who knows what orders/cancellations Airbus/Boeing have made this month unless they send out a press release (which they don’t do with every order and certainly not with every cancellation or conversion), and even then both manufacturers have been known to be occasionally misleading about the actual status of an order in their PR.

The orderbook update has exactly nothing to do with it. The orderbook update is no official report of an order. Show me a firm order, that was not reported by a statement of either Boeing or Airbus and most often by the airline on the same day. The most often comes, because not all airlines in all countries, especially state owned ones, do need to report. In that case we usually see a statement of an unidentified order.

I’ll give you an example from this year. It’s even from the US! Spirit Airlines (NK) ordered 5 A320ceos (or converted 5 Neos, it is not entirely clear) on Jan 17, according to Airbus’s spreadsheet. I challenge you to find a press release/statement from Spirit or Airbus in regards to the order.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

Yes, and Airbus and starting this year Boeing only update their order book once a month. They don’t do so as soon as they sign an order or cancel one. HA could cancel their A338 order on Friday and Airbus will happily show it on their books until sometime in April when they release March’s numbers. Boeing and Airbus’s books are only valid through Jan 31 2018. According to my calendar it is Feb 27 2018. Who knows what orders/cancellations Airbus/Boeing have made this month unless they send out a press release (which they don’t do with every order and certainly not with every cancellation or conversion), and even then both manufacturers have been known to be occasionally misleading about the actual status of an order in their PR.

The orderbook update has exactly nothing to do with it. The orderbook update is no official report of an order. Show me a firm order, that was not reported by a statement of either Boeing or Airbus and most often by the airline on the same day. The most often comes, because not all airlines in all countries, especially state owned ones, do need to report. In that case we usually see a statement of an unidentified order.

I’ll give you an example from this year. It’s even from the US! Spirit Airlines (NK) ordered 5 A320ceos (or converted 5 Neos, it is not entirely clear) on Jan 17, according to Airbus’s spreadsheet. I challenge you to find a press release/statement from Spirit or Airbus in regards to the order.

I will have a look, as far as I remember it was a conversion 5 neo to 5 ceo.

If you want another example just consider Airbus’s infamous “5th quarter,” where they traditionally announce a bunch of new previously unknown firm orders in the mid of Jan from the previous year. Remember Airbus has to follow the disclosure rules that apply to them, not the customer. If they are required to immediately disclose a public US carrier’s order they are required to immediately disclose a government own carrier’s order too. It’s debateable whether A/B are even required to ever disclose the customer (Boeing has several deliveries to UFOs). They just choose to do so.

Polot wrote:

If you want another example just consider Airbus’s infamous “5th quarter,” where they traditionally announce a bunch of new previously unknown firm orders in the mid of Jan from the previous year. Remember Airbus has to follow the disclosure rules that apply to them, not the customer. If they are required to immediately disclose a public US carrier’s order they are required to immediately disclose a government own carrier’s order too. It’s debateable whether A/B are even required to ever disclose the customer (Boeing has several deliveries to UFOs). They just choose to do so.

The 5 Spirit is a conversion from neo to ceo, A320ceo up to 55 from 50 and A320neo down from 48 to 43. Hardly a new order. The question would be also what has Hawaiian to disclose in the USA? And I never talked about that Boeing or Airbus has to disclose the customer, but has the customer to disclose himself the order? I agreed that there are UFOs, but an UFO is also an declaration. And there is the difference between companies operating on the stock market and private hold companies. At least after the statement from Hawaiian that no A330-800 had been cancelled and no other frame ordered, the situation is quite clear, you are not aloud to lie.

Render looks nice.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJh4I6VQAAJwXp.jpg

LAXintl wrote:

Render looks nice.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJh4I6VQAAJwXp.jpg

Now that is beautiful looking aircraft.

Ostrower posted this. I'll take that.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 9227014145

In response to:

https://twitter.com/HawaiiAviation/stat ... 1737464832

Revelation wrote:

c933103 wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hawaiians-a330-800-order-remains-in-place-for-now-446147/
I didn't read the full thread which it have probably been mentioned already that HA denies the report and said the order have not been cancelled yet, but then what do they mean when they say "We have not signed an agreement with either manufacturer," ?

The sentence right before it says "It is well-known that Hawaiian Air has been negotiating with both Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet.", so HA is admitting they are in the market. HA tells us they have not cancelled A338, but aren't willing to answer more questions until "the conclusion of those negotiations".

The thing is that, if they are talking about the 338 order, then there should have been a contract/agreement being signed between HA and Airbus from long ago that say they are buying 338 instead of 358. But they say they haven't signed an agreement with either manufacturer, so what had been previously signed doesn't seem to be on the table here?

c933103 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

c933103 wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hawaiians-a330-800-order-remains-in-place-for-now-446147/
I didn't read the full thread which it have probably been mentioned already that HA denies the report and said the order have not been cancelled yet, but then what do they mean when they say "We have not signed an agreement with either manufacturer," ?

The sentence right before it says "It is well-known that Hawaiian Air has been negotiating with both Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet.", so HA is admitting they are in the market. HA tells us they have not cancelled A338, but aren't willing to answer more questions until "the conclusion of those negotiations".

The thing is that, if they are talking about the 338 order, then there should have been a contract/agreement being signed between HA and Airbus from long ago that say they are buying 338 instead of 358. But they say they haven't signed an agreement with either manufacturer, so what had been previously signed doesn't seem to be on the table here?

They are talking about their upcoming agreement for 789s or A359s which may or may not take the place of their current A338 order depending on how you interpret the article.

Revelation wrote:

Looks like http://www.boeing.com/commercial/custom ... -airlines/ existed for a while and had the image, but now it's gone "404".

Here is archive of the page double-archived via Google Webcache:
http://archive.is/A7DX5

c933103 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Looks like http://www.boeing.com/commercial/custom ... -airlines/ existed for a while and had the image, but now it's gone "404".

Here is archive of the page double-archived via Google Webcache:
http://archive.is/A7DX5

Scott's revenge!

Great detective work, c933103!

Polot wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The sentence right before it says "It is well-known that Hawaiian Air has been negotiating with both Boeing and Airbus for the next addition to our fleet.", so HA is admitting they are in the market. HA tells us they have not cancelled A338, but aren't willing to answer more questions until "the conclusion of those negotiations".

The thing is that, if they are talking about the 338 order, then there should have been a contract/agreement being signed between HA and Airbus from long ago that say they are buying 338 instead of 358. But they say they haven't signed an agreement with either manufacturer, so what had been previously signed doesn't seem to be on the table here?

W
They are talking about their upcoming agreement for 789s or A359s which may or may not take the place of their current A338 order depending on how you interpret the article.

Wow... That gets into what HA signed. Airbus cancelled with outstanding A350-800 orders. What did they contractually obligate themselves?

We could have a situation where, because of HA's tiny contract size, junior lawyers wrote for Airbus. I've seen major aerospace contracts with buyer clauses that the seller missed.

For example ANA writes in that if there are minor, but quantifiable, engine issues, they get to buy more spare engines and, they may order more spare engines at initial contract price. The contract also allows buying the spare engines later (inflation adjusted).

Then there are clauses, for cause, to buy engines discounted.
ANA didn't use the clauses forever, until they sprang them on every vendor for spare engines so cheap, they were less than an overhaul! ANA saved tens of millions with that clause.

Perhaps HA put in a clause that allows them to still buy, but doesn't obligate them anymore. All aircraft purchase contracts release the buyer if the aircraft isn't delivered by a very specific date (usually one date per aircraft and if the first say 10% all miss there date, sale is voided and refunds due)

QR has used carpet inspections to push aircraft past their due by date in my opinion.

Lightsaber

Maybe Boeing was trying to get in on the fun and stir the pot a bit.

travaz wrote:

:stirthepot: Maybe Boeing was trying to get in on the fun and stir the pot a bit.

Seriously doubt it. You don't do the rendering and web page while undertaking negotiation. That's when the deal is nearly ready, or ready but unannounced. Boeing probably took a slight hit at HA for accidentally spilling the beans, but it would be much worse if they accidentally did so before a basic deal was agreed to.

c933103 wrote:

The thing is that, if they are talking about the 338 order, then there should have been a contract/agreement being signed between HA and Airbus from long ago that say they are buying 338 instead of 358. But they say they haven't signed an agreement with either manufacturer, so what had been previously signed doesn't seem to be on the table here?

There was an agreement signed for the 338 in 2014

https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... o-aircraft