Who might fly Hawaii to Europe: (H =s Hawaii etc)

Hns wanting to tour in Europe
Europeans who want to tour in H
Hn business folks doing business in Europe
European business folks wanting to do business in H
Hn people with relatives in Europe
European people with relatives in H
Cargo going to H
less likely, cargo going to Europe

And then H is well located to serve Europeans going to much of the southwestern Pacific islands.

DaveFly wrote:

DDR wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

HA made the right choice with the 789. No “orphan” 338 that they never really wanted. The 789 will not only allow them to stretch their legs to Europe/elsewhere in Asia, but give them a proven, popular model that will not only look good in their livery, but one that they will feel totally comfortable having in their fleet. Perhaps the 797 will join the HA fleet someday as well.

Hawaii to Europe would be a sure way to lose money fast. Europeans just have a lot more choices closer to home (cheaper) than flying all the way to Hawaii. And if they do want to visit Hawaii, most will fly there after spending a few days in the continental U.S. This is just based on my more than 26 years in the industry.

I agree, and I said so abougt 400 comments ago! HA isn’t seeking European holiday-makers when they have so many closer destinations. HA had barely touched China, and I think that will be their focus.

I have to ask you though — you’ve been in the industry for 26 years? Your admittedly handsome profile photo shows a man in his 30s. I’m confused.

Was that about the same time you said that this deal would never happen?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

DDR wrote:

Hawaii to Europe would be a sure way to lose money fast. Europeans just have a lot more choices closer to home (cheaper) than flying all the way to Hawaii. And if they do want to visit Hawaii, most will fly there after spending a few days in the continental U.S. This is just based on my more than 26 years in the industry.

I agree, and I said so abougt 400 comments ago! HA isn’t seeking European holiday-makers when they have so many closer destinations. HA had barely touched China, and I think that will be their focus.

I have to ask you though — you’ve been in the industry for 26 years? Your admittedly handsome profile photo shows a man in his 30s. I’m confused.

Was that about the same time you said that this deal would never happen?

No, I don’t think I ever said anything of the sort about the deal. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. I hardly ever visit this site, and when I do visit, I don’t contradict reliable sources.

DaveFly wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

I agree, and I said so abougt 400 comments ago! HA isn’t seeking European holiday-makers when they have so many closer destinations. HA had barely touched China, and I think that will be their focus.

I have to ask you though — you’ve been in the industry for 26 years? Your admittedly handsome profile photo shows a man in his 30s. I’m confused.

Was that about the same time you said that this deal would never happen?

No, I don’t think I ever said anything of the sort about the deal. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. I hardly ever visit this site, and when I do visit, I don’t contradict reliable sources.

“

DaveFly wrote:

The 330s were acquired to replace the 767s and for expansion. The 767s will be gone soon. The 717s are strictly inter island. Apples and oranges. The HA captain also said that the certification costs would be prohibitive as well. It really doesn't matter; shoot me down all you want -- HA will never buy 787s. Ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to spin a thread about a pie in the sky idea. Completely harmless. Continue on.

”

From this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365843

But it wasn’t meant too serious. If you review my posts, you can find plenty of times where I was proven wrong. I just remembered seeing your reply in that thread when reading through it the other day.

HALFA wrote:

rlo4934 wrote:

Awesome!! Glad to see Hawaiian coming back to the Boeing fold. I wonder though, what are the chances Hawaiian will keep the 2-4-2 seating on the 787? Slim to none I imagine.

Our CEO is having a conference call as I write this. He just said that configurations for this aircraft have not been decided yet. Stay tuned!

Keep us posted on the config news please! 3-3-3 I’m all set with i can just take the UA 76 out of EWR instead. Rather fly HA for the JetBlue points and outstanding service tho.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

DaveFly wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Was that about the same time you said that this deal would never happen?

No, I don’t think I ever said anything of the sort about the deal. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. I hardly ever visit this site, and when I do visit, I don’t contradict reliable sources.

“

DaveFly wrote:

The 330s were acquired to replace the 767s and for expansion. The 767s will be gone soon. The 717s are strictly inter island. Apples and oranges. The HA captain also said that the certification costs would be prohibitive as well. It really doesn't matter; shoot me down all you want -- HA will never buy 787s. Ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to spin a thread about a pie in the sky idea. Completely harmless. Continue on.

”

From this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365843

But it wasn’t meant too serious. If you review my posts, you can find plenty of times where I was proven wrong. I just remembered seeing your reply in that thread when reading through it the other day.

That was from eight months ago!! But I marvel at your powers of recollection. I certainly didn’t think this would happen back then. But recent predictions (and my friendship with an HA flight crew member) led me to believe on this thread last week that it would indeed happen.

I have to admit that I’m creeped out that anyone would remember anything I said nearly a year ago. My children disregard anything I may have said yesterday.

brian415 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

All I know is if I'm going to Hawaii in a few years, I know I want to take a HA 787. Congrizats to Boeing.

Why is that? I would much rather be on any Airbus widebody. (Let's keep Air Asia cruel's seating layout out of scope for this discussion). The only exceptions of Boeing widebody I am happy to fly are: any 767, 777 on DL, non-retrofitted 772 on UA, or 787 on JL. Even 747s are marginally more comfortable than the nine abreast 787s.

It is unfortunate that Boeing did not "sabotage" cabin width to cause 787s to fit 8 abreast ONLY. They should have made the cabin 6 inches more narrow. Alternately, if they had certified the aircraft to DISALLOW cabin insulation removal, it may also have done the trick! Thicker insulation that doesn't make the aircraft too quiet would have been ideal, which gets me to my next point ...

An unintended problem for the 787 is they are TOO QUIET! I would much rather hear the ROAR of the engines to drown out things I don't wanna hear... I don't want to involuntarily hear conversations two rows away or hear a crying baby in another class of service. Getting a GOOD NAP is much harder on a 787! Music is not a good solution either. Why? Because music has melody that is not soothing the way background noise is!

I absolutely agree. Much rather fly the A332 in
2-4-2 extra comfort or economy than a 787 in 3-3-3 anything. Nightmare for long flights. As I said before I may just fly the UA 76 out of EWR-they’ve occasionally even got ~$1600 RT’s in F from BOS which is better than the $3-5K RT HA charges (before the hop from BOS)

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Air Canada recently sold two of its 787-9s to GECAS and leased them back, with GECAS paying $351M for two frames, netting a $8 million profit per frame in exchange for leasing them back. (Two later sale-leasebacks were later conducted also from the Air Canada order book with Air Lease Corporation, although I can't find out how much was paid for them---all of the MSNs indicate that all of the 789s were originally Air Canada's order book.) Why I bring this up: if the price being quoted to Hawaiian is in the $115M range, Hawaiian would be crazy to not negotiate some lucrative sale-leasebacks or JOLCO (Japanese operating lease with a call option) for these frames, as any lessor will be paying significantly more than what HA is being quoted for these frames in a sale-leasbeack.

I suspect any gain on sale in a sale/leaseback is deferred by the airline and remember that the higher price paid by the leasing company results in higher lease payments.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Who might fly Hawaii to Europe: (H =s Hawaii etc)

Hns wanting to tour in Europe
Europeans who want to tour in H
Hn business folks doing business in Europe
European business folks wanting to do business in H
Hn people with relatives in Europe
European people with relatives in H
Cargo going to H
less likely, cargo going to Europe

And then H is well located to serve Europeans going to much of the southwestern Pacific islands.

Yes, exactly. There is a market there - annually, thousands of Europeans visit Hawaii and hundreds, maybe thousands of locals visit Europe. I honestly think twice-weekly each to LGW and CDG would work. With through-connections to PPT, AKL, SYD, BNE and interisland there could be a successful business case. They would have codeshares with VA, expand codeshares with JQ, and maybe, just maybe could pursue codeshares with FJ and TN. If they can pursue a relationship in Europe with someone like Easyjet who has a broad network from PAR and LGW, they’d have even more of a catchment to fill planes.

As I said much earlier in this thread, individually it may be a small market share but with a strong hub-focus, collectively the planes could get filled. Not to mention the possible market stimulation for locals who do actually travel a lot, albeit to known realms like the mainland and Japan. God knows I’d be onboard once a month without a doubt - that’s how much I love Paris.

Strangely, the biggest local paper ran an AP story rather than write their own.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/03/0 ... eamliners/
"Hawaiian currently operates a fleet of 54 aircraft, including 24 Airbus A330-200s, eight Boeing 767s, two A321neos and 20 717s."

HNL as a Sixth Freedom hub... twin of DXB. errr... mini-hub, maybe, without a twin of India for O&D.

flee wrote:

The A339 does look a little limited in capacity while the A359 is not at the bargain basement price that D7 wants. That is why they are leasing used A333s with a single class configuration - they need more seats! The 787-10 looks ideal for their Asia Pacific network - more capacity and sufficient range.

Well for a single-class configuration, the A330-300, A330-900, A350-900 and 787-10 are all limited to 440 seats so they all offer AirAsia X the same capacity. And even in a two-class cabin, the A350-900 is only around meter longer than the A330-300/900 and the 787-10 three meters. So that means one exit row of Economy in the A350 and three more in the 787.

Ruscoe wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

So I was wrong HA would go for the A359.

Fundamentally IMO what won this order for the 789 over the 350 was that the 787 is competitive in the medium range area as well as long range area, because of it's lighter weight for similar performance.

Ruscoe

The A350-900 offers 10% larger cabin and according to Flightglobal, it was considered too big for HA.

Bricktop wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The silliness is with you. The 787 program has a accumulated a production loss of 25-30 Billion USD. Somewhere this money has to come from. It is either on loan, or it is provided by other programs, that turn a profit.

You keep making the same argument again and again to tedium. Can we at least stipulate that whatever the amount of money, it has been spent? That the cash has walked out the door? And I don't recall if it was from you or one of your like minded usual suspects who said that on the A320 Airbus paid back so much to the funding governments and increased shareholder value that it didn't matter that the A380 was in the red?

mjoelnir wrote:

So there is absolutely no question about there being cross subsidizing at Boeing. It is actually normal that a mature program provides the money for a new program.

So wait, is what you just went on about a normal thing or an evil thing? I can't keep it straight, unless you mean it's fine for one and yet not for the other.

mjoelnir wrote:

But there are around 650 787 delivered and no sign of the 787 turning profitable.

On a total basis, likely not. But as I have pointed out many many times to exhaustion, you mistakenly allocate deferred costs (intangible) to production costs (tangible). By that metric, you're saddling each new potential sale with the 25-30 billion, just so you can make your specious case. The standard, "yeah but". The only way that deferred cost gets reduced is by selling for greater than your tangible production costs, therefore making a profit on a per frame basis. Making money on a per frame basis is what Boeing is doing. There is nothing to whine about there though, except that it may not ever get back 30 billion.

mjoelnir wrote:

Did Boeing sell the the 787-9 to Hawaiian below production cost, or at least for a lower price than to other airlines?

Those are two entirely different things, and you're smart enough to know that. Conflating them is disingenuous.

mjoelnir wrote:

Than Boeing is doing what the accuse Bombardier off. It is only OK because an USA producer does it with an USA airline and therefore it is not defined as dumping.

If Boeing made money on the sale to HA, and the deferred goes down, then QED they didn't dump. What evidence do you have to support your case? Given that the frames won't be built until 2020 when most sensible folk would say production costs will be lower than today, I guess we can wait and see.

Using your post as a catch-all for the numerous posters on this thread, but I think at the end of the day both sides have good arguments in this debate.

To the 787 naysayers: as the 787 supporters will say, the cash spent on the 787 is long gone. The predicament they are in right now is purely accounting. The early frames in the block appeared more profitable than they actually were due to the Program Accounting, while the later frames in the block will appear less profitable than they actually are for the same reason: those costs were spread over the entire accounting block. In theory, the deferred costs should not impact how Boeing prices the aircraft, only the market should determine what the correct price is. The discussion of Boeing selling to Hawaiian below cost and comparing it to Bombardier is also nonsense. Until the US government intervenes and directly infuses cash into Boeing as a result of this "loss", like the Canadian Government did for Bombardier, the two situations really aren't comparable. Please don't bring local tax breaks and discussions into this argument as that is something jurisdictions do to win business in their region. This goes on all over the world.

All that being said, there is some level of relationship between the remaining deferred balance and how Boeing can, or is, pricing the aircraft. See below.

To the 787 supporters: you are absolutely right that the cash has been spent, and cash generation going forward is all investors care about. However, Program Accounting still has a secondary level impact here - Boeing has committed to investors that their deferred production balance will be precisely $0 (or better) by the 1,300th airplane. This explicitly means that they will sell each of the remaining deliveries in the Accounting block at around $40M+ profit on average, and this is what investors are expecting. This could be possible by further cost reductions on the production line and by a higher mix of 787-9's and 787-10's being delivered at higher sales prices. If they haven't zeroed out the balance by the 1,300th airplane, as stated above, they have two options: writeoff the remaining balance, or extend the accounting block if they are confident in forthcoming sales. A writeoff itself is not a huge issue, since it's a non-cash charge. However, it would certainly signal to the market that the 787 is not selling at the expected $40M per frame profit figure, which means investors will need to detriment their future forecast with lower profit expectations, which would almost assuredly result in a lower stock price.

It remains to be seen if they can execute on the production line and close this deferred production gap in the current accounting block. To date, it looks like they are getting there but it's still a long way to go. Leeham's latest analysis on this topics says that they believe Boeing will get there. Time will tell.

heavymetal wrote:

[Boeing has committed to investors that their deferred production balance will be precisely $0 (or better) by the 1,300th airplane.

Actually:

'Muilenburg also said Boeing has decided that 787 order prospects are sufficiently healthy that it can spread the deferred cost of the program over 1,400 planes, up from the current assumption of 1,300.'

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373721#p19813061

The accounting block size can and does get changed when Boeing feels it is confident about the number of future sales and the cost of the aircraft being sold.

This is as far as I go on this topic for now.

If you really want to knock yourself out you can do what was done in viewtopic.php?t=604137&start=100#p9604135 and look for the sizes for all the programs in the annual reports.

Also, see viewtopic.php?t=1346213&start=50#p19153755

Revelation wrote:

heavymetal wrote:

[Boeing has committed to investors that their deferred production balance will be precisely $0 (or better) by the 1,300th airplane.

Actually:

'Muilenburg also said Boeing has decided that 787 order prospects are sufficiently healthy that it can spread the deferred cost of the program over 1,400 planes, up from the current assumption of 1,300.'

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373721#p19813061

The accounting block size can and does get changed when Boeing feels it is confident about the number of future sales and the cost of the aircraft being sold.

This is as far as I go on this topic for now.

If you really want to knock yourself out you can do what was done in viewtopic.php?t=604137&start=100#p9604135 and look for the sizes for all the programs in the annual reports.

Also, see viewtopic.php?t=1346213&start=50#p19153755

Yes, I was incorrect on the 1300 aircraft. It is 1400 per the latest extension, thank you for that clarification.

As I noted, they are free to increase the accounting block as future sales become evident or imminent. Again, this implies that the end of the block is when the deferred balance will be burned down to $0, which translates to a very specific profit per aircraft above their cash production costs. If they keep extending the block and can continue decreasing production costs, this might not be a problem, especially with the larger variants being the bulk of deliveries. As we know it today, each of the remaining aircraft in the block must sell at around a $40M profit per copy, which could be a challenge, especially if these rumors of competitive pricing are true. If pricing truly is this competitive and they are not reaching these levels, then we should expect either a forward loss on the program, or continual extensions of the block if they can continue garnering orders, both of which likely signal that the aircraft is selling for less than what is expected under today's assumptions. It will still be profitable, as we know it is today on a cash basis, but perhaps not as profitable as investors are currently expecting and thus would not generate as much future cash flow as expected.

Considering on a Unit Accounting basis the 787 brought in $4.7 billion in 2017 (compared to $5.4 billion on a Program Accounting basis), Boeing clearly wasn't selling 787s at "fire sale" prices. And the 787 actually made more on a Unit Accounting Basis in 2016 because they had to write off more in 2Q under Program Accounting.

Stitch wrote:

Considering on a Unit Accounting basis the 787 brought in $4.7 billion in 2017 (compared to $5.4 billion on a Program Accounting basis), Boeing clearly wasn't selling 787s at "fire sale" prices. And the 787 actually made more on a Unit Accounting Basis in 2016 because they had to write off more in 2Q under Program Accounting.

Looking at the Boeing website, those figures appear to be for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes segment as a whole, not necessarily the 787 program alone? If it pertains to all of the programs, I would expect the 737 line and possibly 777 line to be large contributors to the Unit Accounting profits. If it pertains to the 787 family alone, at 136 total deliveries for the year, that $4.7B implies a nice profit of $34M per airplane - well on the way to the $40M figure needed.

Stitch wrote:

flee wrote:

The A339 does look a little limited in capacity while the A359 is not at the bargain basement price that D7 wants. That is why they are leasing used A333s with a single class configuration - they need more seats! The 787-10 looks ideal for their Asia Pacific network - more capacity and sufficient range.

Well for a single-class configuration, the A330-300, A330-900, A350-900 and 787-10 are all limited to 440 seats so they all offer AirAsia X the same capacity. And even in a two-class cabin, the A350-900 is only around meter longer than the A330-300/900 and the 787-10 three meters. So that means one exit row of Economy in the A350 and three more in the 787.

Yes, 440 is the maximum exit limit based on the number of doors on the aircraft. But how many airlines actually configure their aircraft to the max limit?

Airasia X has 377 seats on their A333s and that is a long way from 440. I am sure that in their standard cabin configuration, the A359 and the B78X will also not reach the max limit but will have more seats compared to the A333.

flee wrote:

Airasia X has 377 seats on their A333s and that is a long way from 440. I am sure that in their standard cabin configuration, the A359 and the B78X will also not reach the max limit but will have more seats compared to the A333.

440 will not be all that dense on the 78X—pretty comparable to the 377-seat 333 configuration, but with slightly wider seats. I could definitely imagine a LCC getting close to it. I think a 10Y 359 could get close without too much trouble as well.

KarelXWB wrote:

seahawk wrote:

VS will most likely have transferred the down payments to the A350 order. And in the end even if HA had a walk away option that they could use,

Based on interviews with airline executives over the years, and people familiar with aircraft deals, walk away clauses are pretty much the norm in the industry. Given that HA's A350 order dates back to 2007, and Airbus was the one who flipped the A350-800 to A330neo, HA would have been offered a generous deal. At least to me it sounds illogical to suggest that HA would be paying hefty cancellation fees.

they would still get compensations for the delay of the NEOs, so that the net amount of money does not change much.

Which even strengthens my point.

I think you misunderstood me.

Imho there are 2 options.

1. they have an option to cancel without penalty

Then the 787s need to be competitive in price to the price agreed for the A330NEO reduced by the delay compensations HA would get from Airbus and/or RR

2. they have to pay a cancellation penalty

Then the 787s including the penalty HA would have to pay RR and Airbus need to be competitive to the price agreed for the A330NEO

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Air Canada recently sold two of its 787-9s to GECAS and leased them back, with GECAS paying $351M for two frames, netting a $8 million profit per frame in exchange for leasing them back. (Two later sale-leasebacks were later conducted also from the Air Canada order book with Air Lease Corporation, although I can't find out how much was paid for them---all of the MSNs indicate that all of the 789s were originally Air Canada's order book.) Why I bring this up: if the price being quoted to Hawaiian is in the $115M range, Hawaiian would be crazy to not negotiate some lucrative sale-leasebacks or JOLCO (Japanese operating lease with a call option) for these frames, as any lessor will be paying significantly more than what HA is being quoted for these frames in a sale-leasbeack.

Those 787-9's were sold to GECAS for CAD 351M, not USD. In USD it was closer to $268M, or $134M per plane, which is much closer to market.

As someone else said, any gain that Air Canada would get would translate directly into higher lease rates, so it's not as appealing as it sounds.

For US carriers, as long as you have access to the debt markets like Hawaiian should, leasing doesn't make economic sense. The only reason to do it would be because you can't get funding, or to boost some other metric like free cash flow.

seabosdca wrote:

flee wrote:

Airasia X has 377 seats on their A333s and that is a long way from 440. I am sure that in their standard cabin configuration, the A359 and the B78X will also not reach the max limit but will have more seats compared to the A333.

440 will not be all that dense on the 78X—pretty comparable to the 377-seat 333 configuration, but with slightly wider seats. I could definitely imagine a LCC getting close to it. I think a 10Y 359 could get close without too much trouble as well.

Evelop will get close with a Y432 A359.

Took a while to catch up with recent developments.

Stitch wrote:

Boeing is increasing 787 production whereas Airbus is decreasing A330neo production.

Right but there is also substantially more 787-9 customers competing with HA for spots on the production line.

Stitch wrote:

The A330neo production line is also focused on the A330-900 and those frames generate more revenue for Airbus so I would expect Airbus to give priority to A330-900 deliveries when it comes to assigning new production slots.

Based on the sale price quoted, every other airline will be paying much more per 787-9 than HA will. As such, Boeing has every motivation to secure production for them, ahead of HA.

Newbiepilot wrote:

It is entirely believable that the 787 costs less to build than the A350, and therefore Boeing can sell the 787 for a profit and still price it below the cost of an A350.

The A350 doesn't have $28b of production costs that need to be made up.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Where is the evidence that Boeing sold the 787 at a loss?

No this is not evidence that Boeing is selling their plane at a loss.

Meanwhile the evidence that this story was fed to Leeham by Airbus is also entirely circumstantial, but that hasn't stopped people repeating it over and over.

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.

Thing is, why would HA take a 787-9 unless Boeing is selling them at very keen prices? If Airbus is already giving them them keen pricing on the A330-800neos, buyback/value guarantees and the planes offer better economics on long haul sectors than the airline's existing A330-200s, then the 787-9 would seem puzzling if the airline isn't getting a good deal on them. Remember that they have zero commonality with HA's existing fleet.

JetBuddy wrote:

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?

I find one of the responding tweets interesting too:

Hmmm. We agree it’s to kill the A330neo at least but, sacrificing $30 million per unit from each 787 sale, to “preserve” the $85 million price tag of a yet-to-be-offered concept aircraft is a bit of a stretch for me at this point!

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 )

Wasn't there a thread somewhere recently about an airline offering transatlantic services from CDG to St. Pierre ? I want to say it was with Europeairpost/ASLFrance, but really can't remember. Yet more choices for European holidaymakers.

DWC wrote:

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.

I think they would...though I can't see how you're going to maintain anything close to the necessary yield to make an ULH flight viable.

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".

Another pet peeve of mine; I know that this is Jon Ostrower's term, but I really hope that Boeing (and Airbus, for that matter) have learned their lesson about all the naming difficulties that result when you start naming family derivatives with -800/-8 etc I hope they start the 797 with the 797-100.

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.

I agree. Unless we see deferred costs starting to decrease quicker, the evidence would suggest that the cost savings on production are either very modest or are being eaten up by higher discounting. Maybe a mix of both.

marcelh wrote:

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.

"Hold my beer" - Boeing's CFO

Stitch wrote:

And perhaps they did. I could see Boeing offering that low a price if they also secured from HA an agreement that they will buy another two dozen 787-9 down the road as A330-200 replacements.

They would have to make such information public to their investors.

ElroyJetson wrote:

So please can someone explain how making 25-30 million profit per aircraft is bad?

Please explain how Boeing is makeing 25-30 million profit of each aircraft of the HA order.

AA737-823 wrote:

Oh sure, the news would never get something wrong, or completely make it up to garner a few clicks.
Don't get me wrong, as a Boeing fan, I certainly hope it's true. But as a realist, I'll believe it when something official is ACTUALLY announced.
Otherwise, it's just negotiation through media, a la Tim Clark, Akbar al Baker, et al.

When has Leeham ever made up a story?

juliuswong wrote:

A bit of advice too all fanboys: You can't win all RFPs. You gain some, you lose some. There is no such thing is forever glory, ups and downs are normal for businesses.

Exactly and it is critical for OEMs to "pick their battles" so to speak. Some are more strategic than others.

fcogafa wrote:

Just goes to prove you shouldn't believe 99% of what is said on Anet. Scott Hamiliton is owed an apology from many

Agree. A lot of people here were saying not very nice things about him.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I understand. He broke the news. He needed to clarify. He created a situation where the airline had to come out and deny it. I'm not bothered by that - I'm just wondering why anyone owes him an apology for tweeting what he did then having to correct it?

Because we had people like NewbiePilot saying things like this in reply #521:

I hadn’t heard that. Given this whirlwind of speculation I am having a hard time believing anything he says at this point. His credibility may be dropping

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1387017&p=20213601&hilit=newbiepilot#p20213601

An apology of some kind is definitely due. Whether or not they actually choose to do so...

JannEejit wrote:

Aren't Aer Lingus supposed to be going A330 Neo instead of A350 since IAG ownership ? Could be a future order there ? I imagine other A332 fleets could follow suit too.

In the event that there is no future for the A330-800 beyond the six frames built for HA, I suspect that Airbus will sell them on the cheap to an existing A330neo operator who has elderly A330-200s to replace (like TAP maybe).

Flyglobal wrote:

The crowd here should apologize to Scott Hamilton (at least some).
Clearly not bushit what he says.

And what's more they should treat what he says in the future with a bit more respect, less spite and stop accusing him of being a rabid Airbus shill at every given opportunity.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

aviationfan12 wrote:

And Currently, both A321neos are grounded due to the PW Engine issue which probably makes Hawaiian very frustrated with Airbus currently.

Yeah, you're right! Hawaiian is as frustrated with Airbus as Virgin Atlantic & Air New Zealand are frustrated with Boeing due to the 787 engine problems!

Don't forget ANA, BA and LATAM also.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

What does he mean by 'routes underperforming by the A330ceo'? Objectively, I'd like to know what types of issues he's talking about.

I'm not trying to dog the A330 as it is a very fine and capable aircraft. Every aircraft has its pros and cons. I'm just wondering if anyone has more specifics about the instances he's referring to.

My reading of the article was that it was the routes that were under-performing, rather than the A330s. The quote is below:

According to Ingram, the new 787-9s will replace some A330 routes that are underperforming, as well as enhancing capacity, and give Hawaiian optionality to enter markets that they don’t serve today.

Admittedly, given that I am reading this two weeks since the link was posted, the author of the article could have edited it to clarify what was meant.

lightsaber wrote:

I bet Boeing pursues AirAsia next. The A330NEO is so late customers must have cancellation rights.

Six months late?

juliuswong wrote:

For those saying Boeing will try persuading AirAsia to switch over, it ain't gonna happen in next decade or maybe even lifetime. Tony Fernandes has a very very close relationship with Airbus, especially sales team. He mentioned this several times in his autobiography. Unless Airbus management burn bridges with AirAsia, it will remain solely Airbus for now and into next decade. They weren't really impressed with Boeing last time when AirAsia issued RFP for 100 narrowbodies, that somehow 'cement' AirAsia view on Boeing.

Tony Fernandes is the guy who made John Leahy dance with him in a Paris nightclub before he would sign the order for the A320neos.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

440 will not be all that dense on the 78X—pretty comparable to the 377-seat 333 configuration, but with slightly wider seats. I could definitely imagine a LCC getting close to it. I think a 10Y 359 could get close without too much trouble as well.

Evelop will get close with a Y432 A359.[/quote]
Ouch! Who are they leasing the A350s from?

The Evelop! A359, one, is being leased from Air Lease Corporation. They also have Y388 A333s.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Evelop! A359, one, is being leased from Air Lease Corporation. They also have Y388 A333s.

Thanks mate!

Stitch wrote:

Boeing is increasing 787 production whereas Airbus is decreasing A330neo production.

zkojq wrote:

Right but there is also substantially more 787-9 customers competing with HA for spots on the production line.

That Boeing was able to assign HA production slots means they were available. Existing customers might have agreed to / requested a deferral to allow Boeing to offer those slots or they had options / purchase rights in that range that they chose not to exercise.

Stitch wrote:

The A330neo production line is also focused on the A330-900 and those frames generate more revenue for Airbus so I would expect Airbus to give priority to A330-900 deliveries when it comes to assigning new production slots.

zkojq wrote:

Based on the sale price quoted, every other airline will be paying much more per 787-9 than HA will. As such, Boeing has every motivation to secure production for them, ahead of HA.

See above.

Newbiepilot wrote:

It is entirely believable that the 787 costs less to build than the A350, and therefore Boeing can sell the 787 for a profit and still price it below the cost of an A350.

zkojq wrote:

The A350 doesn't have $28b of production costs that need to be made up.

Well neither does the 787, except for settling the accounting books. And the only way Boeing can reduce that outstanding deferred cost is by delivering 787s. So even if they only make $20 million on each HA delivery, that is $200 million chipped away at that cost. If they had held their ground on a higher price and HA had decided not to swap to the 787, Boeing would have made nothing.

Stitch wrote:

And perhaps they did. I could see Boeing offering that low a price if they also secured from HA an agreement that they will buy another two dozen 787-9 down the road as A330-200 replacements.

zkojq wrote:

They would have to make such information public to their investors.

And they did so when they announced the LoI which included 10 purchase rights on top of the 10 purchases.

Airline CEO explains why Airbus lost a major order to Boeing

.....
"Unfortunately, the A330-800 has not proved to be as popular in the marketplace," Ingram (HA CEO) said. "But for us, it doesn't make sense to remain committed to an airplane that had the risk of not being sufficiently accepted in the marketplace in the future."

He continued: "So the lack of orders for the A330-800 opened us up to having a competition to look at the wide-body platform for us going into the decade."
.....
"From a risk management perspective, it's always prudent for us to consider what happens in the future if something affects the economics (of the business) and we need to make a change," he said. "The fact that there are no other customers for that particular variant at this time put us in the position where, if we continued with the order, we would have very few options if we need to make a change."
.....

Which is inline with what Leeham.net was reporting - HA did not want to be the only operator of the type. And based on the HA CEO's comments about being the only customer gave HA "options", I wonder if HA's contract had a cancellation clause they could freely exercise if the model did not secure a specific number of firm orders as delivery approached.

The article explains why they didn’t want to stick with the A330-800, but doesn’t get in to why they went for the 787-9 over the A330-900.

hawaiian717 wrote:

The article explains why they didn’t want to stick with the A330-800, but doesn’t get in to why they went for the 787-9 over the A330-900.

Maybe because it's the better aircraft for their needs

The HA A338 deal could have been saved if Airbus has other customers (emphasis on the "s"). If I am HA I would jump ship too, as history has proven many times over having a special, once-off aircraft/ fleet doesn't help in reselling/ re-marketing value, unless it is produced in bulk and resold as one block (like B717).

HA has said in the past that they design their cabins to cater to their passengers for the Hawaii market where most travel as couples or families.
Hence the 2x2x2 first/business class in the A330 and extra Extra Comfort seats in the 2-seater sides of the A330.
So I wonder if HA will configure their 789s in the JAL 777 3-4-2 layout so more likely for couples and families to sit together?

BeachBoy wrote:

HA has said in the past that they design their cabins to cater to their passengers for the Hawaii market where most travel as couples or families.
Hence the 2x2x2 first/business class in the A330 and extra Extra Comfort seats in the 2-seater sides of the A330.
So I wonder if HA will configure their 789s in the JAL 777 3-4-2 layout so more likely for couples and families to sit together?

I'm unconvinced HA will do 3-4-2. From what we've seen, they seem reluctant to make decisions that would make then oddballs in terms of fleet planning, with the 787-9 purchase over the A330-800. This probably stems from, in some part, wanting to save money operationally. In the same vein, if you have 3-4-2, you have to stock spares for the 3-seat block, the 4-seat block, and the 2-seat block, adding complexity and cost, whereas if HA went 3-3-3, you only need to stock spares for a 3-seat block.

BeachBoy wrote:

HA has said in the past that they design their cabins to cater to their passengers for the Hawaii market where most travel as couples or families.

That is just code for “we make are cabins denser than others because most of our passengers are leisure.” HA is not going to go to a nonstandard layout to cater that specifically to them.

tvarad wrote:

Airline CEO explains why Airbus lost a major order to Boeing

.....
"Unfortunately, the A330-800 has not proved to be as popular in the marketplace," Ingram (HA CEO) said. "But for us, it doesn't make sense to remain committed to an airplane that had the risk of not being sufficiently accepted in the marketplace in the future."

He continued: "So the lack of orders for the A330-800 opened us up to having a competition to look at the wide-body platform for us going into the decade."
.....
"From a risk management perspective, it's always prudent for us to consider what happens in the future if something affects the economics (of the business) and we need to make a change," he said. "The fact that there are no other customers for that particular variant at this time put us in the position where, if we continued with the order, we would have very few options if we need to make a change."
.....

Makes sense for the airlines perspective. Being sole or near sole operator has little advantages..

hawaiian717 wrote:

The article explains why they didn’t want to stick with the A330-800, but doesn’t get in to why they went for the 787-9 over the A330-900.

That's a good one.. maybe they have their eyes on 787-10's as a future option for US mainland service

hawaiian717 wrote:

The article explains why they didn’t want to stick with the A330-800, but doesn’t get in to why they went for the 787-9 over the A330-900.

It's been said many times... the A330-800neo wasn't going to be able to offer the range that HAL wanted from the A350-800. So... the 789 was the best choice for the range, size and whatever deals they snagged from GE and Boeing.

Polot wrote:

That is just code for “we make are cabins denser than others because most of our passengers are leisure.” HA is not going to go to a nonstandard layout to cater that specifically to them.

Or... HA actually DOES do what they say and run the business catered primarily to leisure passengers. The configuration, onboard service, marketing times and so on are all aimed towards their key guests. I agree however, a weird nonstandard configuration like 2x4x3 is unlikely. But an opportunity to seat as many couples and families together will definitely be considered as they were in the 330 cabin redesign.

azjubilee wrote:

It's been said many times... the A330-800neo wasn't going to be able to offer the range that HAL wanted from the A350-800.

With the latest MTOW boost to 251,000kg, the A330-800 pretty much matches the design range of the A350-800 (which had an MTOW of 259,000kg).

Stitch wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

It's been said many times... the A330-800neo wasn't going to be able to offer the range that HAL wanted from the A350-800.

With the latest MTOW boost to 251,000kg, the A330-800 pretty much matches the design range of the A350-800 (which had an MTOW of 259,000kg).

“Pretty much” on an airplane that has yet to prove itself and was a consolation for the original order, isn’t a lot of ground to stand on. Not to mention, HAL wanted something that would allow increased capacity, which the 330-800neo wouldn’t have offered.

azjubilee wrote:

Stitch wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

It's been said many times... the A330-800neo wasn't going to be able to offer the range that HAL wanted from the A350-800.

With the latest MTOW boost to 251,000kg, the A330-800 pretty much matches the design range of the A350-800 (which had an MTOW of 259,000kg).

“Pretty much” on an airplane that has yet to prove itself and was a consolation for the original order, isn’t a lot of ground to stand on. Not to mention, HAL wanted something that would allow increased capacity, which the 330-800neo wouldn’t have offered.

If that us really a concern then Airbus can simply demonstrate it with their test aircrafts. And I don't think they were exactly looking fir larger capacity?
But all these are moot point, there are one single and most important reason why they aren't going to 338, as the article also mentioned, and that is they would be the type's sole customer

c933103 wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

Stitch wrote:

With the latest MTOW boost to 251,000kg, the A330-800 pretty much matches the design range of the A350-800 (which had an MTOW of 259,000kg).

“Pretty much” on an airplane that has yet to prove itself and was a consolation for the original order, isn’t a lot of ground to stand on. Not to mention, HAL wanted something that would allow increased capacity, which the 330-800neo wouldn’t have offered.

If that us really a concern then Airbus can simply demonstrate it with their test aircrafts. And I don't think they were exactly looking fir larger capacity?
But all these are moot point, there are one single and most important reason why they aren't going to 338, as the article also mentioned, and that is they would be the type's sole customer

Yes, HA wanted more capacity. The article recently
referenced is just part of the story. The 350-800 would have allowed that, the 330-800 not. Besides being an orphan a/c, the 330-800 wasn’t able to meet the expectations for HA.

Hawaiian's CEO confirmed one of them main reasons it cancelled the A330-800 order. It didn't like the risk of owning an aircraft that nobody else was ordering.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airline- ... 15801.html