• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:27 pm

bigjku wrote:
Continuing to deny the A330 is under pressure is silly at this point but more importantly my question would be where are Delta and Air Asia X in this? By themselves they would fill a ton of production slots. If they truly have empty slots in 2019 then it almost seems as if the airlines with orders aren’t yet eager to actually get them going.


The biggest player for the A330 going forward will be Chinese short to medium haul demand, both for additional services and replacing old aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:38 pm

zeke wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Continuing to deny the A330 is under pressure is silly at this point but more importantly my question would be where are Delta and Air Asia X in this? By themselves they would fill a ton of production slots. If they truly have empty slots in 2019 then it almost seems as if the airlines with orders aren’t yet eager to actually get them going.


The biggest player for the A330 going forward will be Chinese short to medium haul demand, both for additional services and replacing old aircraft.


Being a bit flippant is this before or after Chinese demand gets done saving the A380 as was often stated in the past?

I think the CEO may well continue to be in demand in China. And I expect them to order some NEO’s. But if China knows it’s keeping a program afloat I wouldn’t expect to make much money on it. They aren’t in the business of charity after all. Their demands given that they appear to be working on a direct A330/787 competitor will likely get pretty draconian in the end.

They have had lots of chances to order the A330neo already and haven’t. Despite taking plenty of 787 and A350. Maybe it’s coming in huge numbers. Who really knows. But right now things don’t look great.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:16 pm

Doesn’t mean they won’t, the whole idea of the Chinese partnership with the A330 finishing centre was to deliver at least two aircraft a month for domestic demand.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
trex8
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:02 pm

zeke wrote:
Doesn’t mean they won’t, the whole idea of the Chinese partnership with the A330 finishing centre was to deliver at least two aircraft a month for domestic demand.

I vaguely recall another thread a year or two back where it was said the A350/330 completion lines in TLS use the same space, Sending work to China also improves A350 production constraints if the do increase the A350 rate.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:06 pm

2175301 wrote:
You are incorrect on your assumption on what I would pay. In many cases there are no large premium seats to be had - sold out - or they don't exist on aircraft that is even close to an acceptable schedule (I cannot add days to a trip to get wider seats).

Sorry, I don't accept the concept that because we are forced to do something that we accept it. What other industry claims that?

Have a great day,

Edited to add: A reality is when looking at potential schedules and available aircraft seats... That Southwest ends up getting the majority of my air travel at this time. I see no reason to fly 2 of 3 legs in commuter aircraft even if there is a wide seat available on the middle leg; when I can often do at most a single connection with Southwest and get there a lot faster. Also, I just drove 14 hours each way because by the time you did the early check in, the connections, debord, get luggage, rent a car, etc it would be a minimum of 13 hours travel anyway.


Your own behaviour supports the reasoning.
You say WN gets the majority of your air travel. They have all 17" - 17.5" (however we want to count this) wide seats, and you've "accepted" it, by buying the tickets... repeatedly. That you choose it over flying commuter connections or that you just drove 14 hours instead, is all irrelevant.

Do you call your patronage of WN seats and fares "forced" ? doesn't really matter to me. I too, am "forced" in various ways to choose a very small menu of realistic flight options, but its still my choice, in the end - and thus, my acceptance if I buy.

Just as you did not accept your option to spend 13 hours on a flying travel day in favour of a 14 hour driving day, I've rejected a planned trip to NZ in years past due to the requirement to fly 10ab 777 . Yes, J was available, but not in my personal comfort/cost acceptance curve. Someday, I likely will take that trip to NZ, and I may well need to accept that same seat I previously rejected. Maybe I should take that sooner than later, just in case I'm "forced" to fly a 9ab A330 on AirAsiaX ? (that's a joke)

Cheers!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:59 pm

Polot wrote:
You guys are over thinking the graph and RJMAZ’s responses. He is saying that most people do not have problem with 17.5” seats and would view that as “baseline” width (common for years in narrow bodies and the 747), and would see 18” seats as an improvement and possible justification for a higher ticket price, and a 16.5” seat as a downgrade which may require a cheaper ticket price to be seen as acceptable to the consumer.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing Much more, nothing less.

Everybody agrees with what you are saying. It does not cover more than 5% of RJMAZs elaborations however and also does miss his core claim(s).

Therefore let me dissect his baseless "study" once more. I will be very precise.

First the theory:
The bell curve (Gauss function) is a continues function, that is commonly (but not exclusively) used to describe the probability distribution of a variable. It is called the normal distribution. On the horizontal axis it has always the variable, on the vertical axis it has always the probability.

Now RJMAZ choose seat width as variable (-> that can make sense, see cases below) and pax acceptance on y-axis (-> pax acceptance is not a probability, he did not understand the concept of bell curves or normal distributions from the beginning). The presented "facts" are simply pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Now, are there things RJMAZ could have meant, that actually make sense? Next I will provide a number of different functions, that are mathematically correct and possibly even meaningful for the disucssion:

A. Seat width distribution
This is what someone means, who puts a bell curve over a variable (-> fail, RJMAZ not one time explained his curve in that way).

In theory, you can do that, though it means not a whole lot in the context of this thread. You get the probability distribution of the variable seatwidth. It is important, that you only can expect to get a bell curve distribution, if you have a sufficiantly large number of samples. A condition which is violated because seatwidth gives not enough samples. There exist maybe 10-20 discrete seat widths out there -> so another fail: RJMAZ failed to comprehend that seat widths give not enough samples in order to draw a continuous distribution curve.

So the correct seatwidth distribution is a bar diagram, that could look like this:
Image

The diagram does nothing more, than tell us how probable you will encounter a specific seat width on the world market. It tells us nothing about acceptance. -> RJMAZ failed to comprehend by wrongly mixing acceptance with seatwidth probability.


B. Acceptance vs. seat width
In theory, you can draw acceptance vs seat width. By definition this function excludes all other factors (= they are assumed to be equal). So Acceptance vs. seat width requires the seat-price to be equal.

Another hurdle is how to define pax acceptance (another RJMAZ fail -> he never defined pax acceptance in a mathematical and unambiguous way). One satisfying (correct) approach would be: ask 100 people: "is a seat <this> wide acceptable for you all other things being equal?" the acceptance would be the number of yes-replies divided by 100. Let <this> sweep over a range of 16" and 20" and ask a large number of people.

The resulting curve would look more or less like this:
Image

Acceptance vs. seat width is how RJMAZ has labeled his initial chart. The glaring discrepance between his artefact and the thruth does not need more words -> total fail

His response, that the existing Boeing configs would define the acceptance peak at about 17.5 only shows that he did not understand the difference between seat width distribution and acceptance vs. seatwidth. The number of flying 737s only influences the former but not the later.


C. Acceptance vs seat width per ticket price point

This probably is the function RJMAZ has meant from the beginning (though wrongly labeled and differently explained, only towards the his last posts he started reasoning along this line -> failed to consistently and clearly declare what he is talking about).

Bringing the ticket price into the picture adds a third dimension. You cant easily draw such a function anymore as there are three dimensions. The diagram would basically be one layer of the "Acceptance vs. seat width"-curve per ticket price point.

Drawing these curves correctly is highly complex and exceeds the capabilities of us hobby analysts by far. You would have to run a huge poll among airline customers to get it empirically or have access to the most secret airline databases to get it analytically.

Still, if somebody would be capable to draw these functions, they would bear no similarity to RJMAZs single bell curve.


You see, our dear friend RJMAZ used curve A., wrongly drawn as continuous function, labeled as curve B. and garnished with explanations that wildly jump between A., B. and C. He claims to win arguments that way. I simply ask, which argument? A., B. or C.?

All in all I would wish RJMAZ would present his creative math a bit more precise. Less changing of parameters on the fly. Less mistakes. Less insulting.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:30 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
Polot wrote:
You guys are over thinking the graph and RJMAZ’s responses. He is saying that most people do not have problem with 17.5” seats and would view that as “baseline” width (common for years in narrow bodies and the 747), and would see 18” seats as an improvement and possible justification for a higher ticket price, and a 16.5” seat as a downgrade which may require a cheaper ticket price to be seen as acceptable to the consumer.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing Much more, nothing less.

Everybody agrees with what you are saying. It does not cover more than 5% of RJMAZs elaborations however and also does miss his core claim(s).

Therefore let me dissect his baseless "study" once more. I will be very precise.

First the theory:
The bell curve (Gauss function) is a continues function, that is commonly (but not exclusively) used to describe the probability distribution of a variable. It is called the normal distribution. On the horizontal axis it has always the variable, on the vertical axis it has always the probability.

Now RJMAZ choose seat width as variable (-> that can make sense, see cases below) and pax acceptance on y-axis (-> pax acceptance is not a probability, he did not understand the concept of bell curves or normal distributions from the beginning). The presented "facts" are simply pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Now, are there things RJMAZ could have meant, that actually make sense? Next I will provide a number of different functions, that are mathematically correct and possibly even meaningful for the disucssion:

A. Seat width distribution
This is what someone means, who puts a bell curve over a variable (-> fail, RJMAZ not one time explained his curve in that way).

In theory, you can do that, though it means not a whole lot in the context of this thread. You get the probability distribution of the variable seatwidth. It is important, that you only can expect to get a bell curve distribution, if you have a sufficiantly large number of samples. A condition which is violated because seatwidth gives not enough samples. There exist maybe 10-20 discrete seat widths out there -> so another fail: RJMAZ failed to comprehend that seat widths give not enough samples in order to draw a continuous distribution curve.

So the correct seatwidth distribution is a bar diagram, that could look like this:
Image

The diagram does nothing more, than tell us how probable you will encounter a specific seat width on the world market. It tells us nothing about acceptance. -> RJMAZ failed to comprehend by wrongly mixing acceptance with seatwidth probability.


B. Acceptance vs. seat width
In theory, you can draw acceptance vs seat width. By definition this function excludes all other factors (= they are assumed to be equal). So Acceptance vs. seat width requires the seat-price to be equal.

Another hurdle is how to define pax acceptance (another RJMAZ fail -> he never defined pax acceptance in a mathematical and unambiguous way). One satisfying (correct) approach would be: ask 100 people: "is a seat <this> wide acceptable for you all other things being equal?" the acceptance would be the number of yes-replies divided by 100. Let <this> sweep over a range of 16" and 20" and ask a large number of people.

The resulting curve would look more or less like this:
Image

Acceptance vs. seat width is how RJMAZ has labeled his initial chart. The glaring discrepance between his artefact and the thruth does not need more words -> total fail

His response, that the existing Boeing configs would define the acceptance peak at about 17.5 only shows that he did not understand the difference between seat width distribution and acceptance vs. seatwidth. The number of flying 737s only influences the former but not the later.


C. Acceptance vs seat width per ticket price point

This probably is the function RJMAZ has meant from the beginning (though wrongly labeled and differently explained, only towards the his last posts he started reasoning along this line -> failed to consistently and clearly declare what he is talking about).

Bringing the ticket price into the picture adds a third dimension. You cant easily draw such a function anymore as there are three dimensions. The diagram would basically be one layer of the "Acceptance vs. seat width"-curve per ticket price point.

Drawing these curves correctly is highly complex and exceeds the capabilities of us hobby analysts by far. You would have to run a huge poll among airline customers to get it empirically or have access to the most secret airline databases to get it analytically.

Still, if somebody would be capable to draw these functions, they would bear no similarity to RJMAZs single bell curve.


You see, our dear friend RJMAZ used curve A., wrongly drawn as continuous function, labeled as curve B. and garnished with explanations that wildly jump between A., B. and C. He claims to win arguments that way. I simply ask, which argument? A., B. or C.?

All in all I would wish RJMAZ would present his creative math a bit more precise. Less changing of parameters on the fly. Less mistakes. Less insulting.


Great job, thanks for the effort you put into that. I do love a good graph (or is it a chart?).
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:49 am

bigjku wrote:
With the Iran order at risk, they just ordered Russian planes today, you need Delta and Air Asia X to take planes relatively quickly but I don’t see them being willing to do so. You have a theoretical delivery rate of 72 a year and a backlog 303 in theory if you include Iran. There are 60-65 more planes to be delivered this year so going into 2019 you will have 240 or so left, again including Iran.

Airasia X's delivery plan for the A339 is about 7 aircraft p.a. for the first two years and around 8 aircraft thereafter. With the loss of the HA and AA orders, it is no wonder that Airbus has just announced a production cut to around 50 p.a.
 
FatCat
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:57 pm

I see a wide market for the A330, and also for A350 in the next 10 years. Why should Airbus widebody's days be numbered?
There are routes that require planes bigger than an A321 and smaller than an A380. I think 80% of the long range routes necessities can be covered with a 250 / 300 seats plane.
I'd like to learn more, and read more opinions, but from shrinking a production forecast to saying that the entire range of Airbus's widebodies has numbered days...
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:09 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
So the correct seatwidth distribution is a bar diagram, that could look like this:
Image

The diagram does nothing more, than tell us how probable you will encounter a specific seat width on the world market. It tells us nothing about acceptance. -> RJMAZ failed to comprehend by wrongly mixing acceptance with seatwidth probability.

Nuce graph but it doesn't really doesnt show much.

This all stemmed from someone asking why is it OK for Boeing to reduce seat size on the 787 below 18" but it's not OK for Airbus to reduce seat size even further down to 16.5". There's no double standards. My graph explained this perfectly where most people understood.

A others have pointed out. If a seat gets filled then it is accepted. So the seat acceptance would closely match the seat width distribution. One reason why it might not match perfectly would be due to slightly different yields. If the 19" seats had 90% yield and the 17" seats 80% yield then it would mean the larger seats have a slightly higher deamand or acceptance as I have already pointed out many posts ago. However airlines would notice the better yields in the larger seats and would fit more larger seats.

You can also easily place a line of best fit over your bar graph joining the point together. Add a high amount of smoothing to the line and it would form a bell curve. This shows my bell curve is actually the best way to plot acceptance.

rheinwaldner wrote:
One satisfying (correct) approach would be: ask 100 people: "is a seat <this> wide acceptable for you all other things being equal?" the acceptance would be the number of yes-replies divided by 100. Let <this> sweep over a range of 16" and 20" and ask a large number of people.

The resulting curve would look more or less like this:
Image

This is not how you would calculate acceptance.

Based on your graph the 100% acceptance would continue to 22inch seats, 26inch seats, private first class cabin and then right up to your own G650 private jet.

Passengers do not have the ability to accept flying alone on a G650 private jet due to the $100,000+ ticket price. The acceptance would be zero.

You correct approach would be to ask the same 100 people "What seat they would fly on with a 4 class cabin aircraft with the following average industry prices.
A) Budget economy 17" - $500
B) Standard economy 18" - $800
C) Premium economy 19" - $1500
D) Business class 22" beds - $3500"

Now this is how you would get acceptance.

My graph includes price so it the best and most easy to understand form to use.

My graph answers the original question. Why you would lose customers from reducing your seat width from 17" down to 16.5" but you would not lose customers from reducing seat width from 18" seats down to 17" seats.













Another hurdle is how to define pax acceptance (another RJMAZ fail -> he never defined pax acceptance in a mathematical and unambiguous way). One satisfying (correct) approach would be: ask 100 people: "is a seat <this> wide acceptable for you all other things being equal?" the acceptance would be the number of yes-replies divided by 100. Let <this> sweep over a range of 16" and 20" and ask a large number of people.

The resulting curve would look more or less like this:
Image

Acceptance vs. seat width is how RJMAZ has labeled his initial chart. The glaring discrepance between his artefact and the thruth does not need more words -> total fail

His response, that the existing Boeing configs would define the acceptance peak at about 17.5 only shows that he did not understand the difference between seat width distribution and acceptance vs. seatwidth. The number of flying 737s only influences the former but not the later.


C. Acceptance vs seat width per ticket price point

This probably is the function RJMAZ has meant from the beginning (though wrongly labeled and differently explained, only towards the his last posts he started reasoning along this line -> failed to consistently and clearly declare what he is talking about).

Bringing the ticket price into the picture adds a third dimension. You cant easily draw such a function anymore as there are three dimensions. The diagram would basically be one layer of the "Acceptance vs. seat width"-curve per ticket price point.

Drawing these curves correctly is highly complex and exceeds the capabilities of us hobby analysts by far. You would have to run a huge poll among airline customers to get it empirically or have access to the most secret airline databases to get it analytically.

Still, if somebody would be capable to draw these functions, they would bear no similarity to RJMAZs single bell curve.


You see, our dear friend RJMAZ used curve A., wrongly drawn as continuous function, labeled as curve B. and garnished with explanations that wildly jump between A., B. and C. He claims to win arguments that way. I simply ask, which argument? A., B. or C.?

All in all I would wish RJMAZ would present his creative math a bit more precise. Less changing of parameters on the fly. Less mistakes. Less insulting.[/quote]
 
RalXWB
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:20 pm

You are so wrong...Bigly.

masA380 wrote:
Airbus widebody’s days are numbered.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:22 pm

FatCat wrote:
I see a wide market for the A330, and also for A350 in the next 10 years. Why should Airbus widebody's days be numbered?
There are routes that require planes bigger than an A321 and smaller than an A380. I think 80% of the long range routes necessities can be covered with a 250 / 300 seats plane.
I'd like to learn more, and read more opinions, but from shrinking a production forecast to saying that the entire range of Airbus's widebodies has numbered days...

Yes, I do see a good market too - and airlines like to have choices. They would not want one manufacturer dictating the market with a take it or leave it attitude.

Aircraft design and manufacturing lead times are usually very long - it can take about 10 years from first mooting an idea to production and delivery. In that period, the airline industry could have changed shape and size several times! So manufacturers have to take long term views and positions and hope that they guessed the market correctly!

The subject of this thread, Airasia X, has changed its mind about their A330 and A350 orders several times. No doubt, they will change their minds again between now and the delivery of all their ordered aircraft. They are agile and need to respond to market demands and challenges - they also need a good OEM to help them achieve their objectives. So buying aircraft is not strictly about the aircraft itself - it is also about how well the OEM can support their customers' business plans.

Widebody replacement cycles will not take place until past 2020 - so orders would be slow until then. Saying that Airbus' widebody days are numbered without presenting any justification is shortsighted and ill considered.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:36 pm

TheFlyingRaven wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


I think the A350 is just too much plane at any price. Norwegian are losing their shirt filling B789s with a vaguely similar business case, so imaging filling something even bigger, as undoubtable AirAsia would do 10 abreast on the A350.


I am not sure I entirely believe that the A350 is too much plane at any price. If Air Asia wants to fly to the United States, it may be a good option. I just haven’t seen much discussion on getting A350 production costs down. The 787 has gone through massive cost cutting. The A330neo is built from an existing platform to keep costs down.

What is going on with the A350 to ensure its purchase price is competitive with the 787? The only big orders recently have been China Southern and Iran Air.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2746
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:43 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
What is going on with the A350 to ensure its purchase price is competitive with the 787? The only big orders recently have been China Southern and Iran Air.


The A350 is still ramping up production - a little early for speculation on cost reductions perhaps?

For orders, I very much suspect that for both A & B we are in the pre Farnborough low order announcement phase..!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:07 pm

[quote="RJMAZ"][/quote]

The main problem I have with your data is that is is entirely theoretical and not based on real world numbers. Highlighting costs for 2 flights on 2 days tells us virtually nothing. I think for your points to have traction you would need access to data that I don't believe anyone could realistically access and process. And then you would need to factor in what cost differences are caused by the lower amount of space, as well as taxes, labour costs, landing costs etc. Your example of Scoot could quite easily be skewed by Singapore's higher cost base compared to Malaysia's (and you could include Thailand and Indonesia as well).

You've set the bar at 17.5in being the most 'accepted' but that is simply because you have deemed it so and not because the market says so. Actual 17.5in seats are not that common anyway, it may be an average but it isn't really the standard, 18in and 17in seats are far more common. I fail to see how something could have '100% acceptance' if it's far from the most common seat width.

Anyway, the bottom line is that AirAsia has enough passengers who will accept the small space but lower prices. By your own admission the cost of operating the A330neo may be so slightly lower, but well within the realms of AirAsia to accept and take advantage of the A330's strengths.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:34 pm

To get back on topic a bit...

If it cost roughly the same to purchase up front what advantages does the A339neo offer over the 789 let alone a 789/10 combination?

Fleet commonality and training is only thing I can think of. But it terms of operating cost once you convert over the 789 is going to be about a wash on CASM and the 787-10 will be better if you can fill it.

Plus I have to suspect lease/finance cost a a comparably priced 787 will be cheaper than a NEO right now don’t you think?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:01 pm

bigjku wrote:
To get back on topic a bit...

If it cost roughly the same to purchase up front what advantages does the A339neo offer over the 789 let alone a 789/10 combination?

Fleet commonality and training is only thing I can think of. But it terms of operating cost once you convert over the 789 is going to be about a wash on CASM and the 787-10 will be better if you can fill it.

Plus I have to suspect lease/finance cost a a comparably priced 787 will be cheaper than a NEO right now don’t you think?


*If* it cost the same to purchase up front then no, not too many advantages, but we don't know how much Airbus offered the A330neo for, only that they weren't willing to go as low as necessary to win the 2 specific orders (unless someone has a source for how much was paid?). We also don't know if Boeing has dropped prices on the 78X yet: the 78X has not too many orders recently for us to compare. Do we know if the 787 is priced cheaper in terms of lessors? Surely if the 787 is popular then there is demand, and demand means a premium for it? It was suggested on a thread a while back that some A330s were going for near narrowbody prices as the narrowbodies are in demand and the A330s aren't as desperately needed (although they do tend to find homes quickly). If true then it's the complete opposite of what you suggest, but I admit that is speculation on my part.

Availability will still not be perfect for the 787 as it's popular, so Airbus can sneak in some early slots for some deals.

If you want an aircraft for the short term that also shifts the balance more towards the A330. A fair few airlines have lease orders for A330neos.

I suspect a lot of A330neo orders will be from small airlines for whom the A330ceo is already present, as it was the best choice for them then and changing type is relatively troublesome. The A330ceo does have a big foothold in this type of market, the 787 hasn't made much imprint yet and airbus can simply transition onto the neo. The big white hope is that the trade war between Trumpy Wumpy and China doesn't cool, in which case a lot of A330neos could head that way. Since it's China Airbus could play some politics to squirm their way in. Other than that, we may see some LCCs like Indigo pick it up.

I don't know why, but I have a hunch we will see some orders at Farnborough this year for the A330neo, maybe 50-100. I hope I'm right.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:30 pm

I have a hunch we'll only see around 200 passenger A330NEO built in total for the life of the program.

A big part of the 787's success is from its high production rate to help bring costs down. This drives further sales through better pricing. These sales then allows another increase in production rate and the loop continues.

The A350 needs to copy the 787 in this regard. The only way it can get a backlog large enough is to push any potential A330 customers towards the A350.

I predict the A330NEO in 10 years time will be freighter only just like the 767.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I have a hunch we'll only see around 200 passenger A330NEO built in total for the life of the program.

A big part of the 787's success is from its high production rate to help bring costs down. This drives further sales through better pricing. These sales then allows another increase in production rate and the loop continues.

The A350 needs to copy the 787 in this regard. The only way it can get a backlog large enough is to push any potential A330 customers towards the A350.

I predict the A330NEO in 10 years time will be freighter only just like the 767.


So you believe that Airbus will not get any more orders going forward at all? Before the plane has even entered into service?
 
trex8
Posts: 5350
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:38 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I predict the A330NEO in 10 years time will be freighter only just like the 767.

Wasnt that the original Airbus plan? Extend the A330 line for a few years at minimal cost while just nibbling at the lower end of the A350 market till the ceo freighters/tankers need replacing. IIRC the pundits said A had a business case selling 400 or so but A came out when they launched with a prediction for double that.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:42 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This all stemmed from someone asking why is it OK for Boeing to reduce seat size on the 787 below 18" but it's not OK for Airbus to reduce seat size even further down to 16.5". There's no double standards. My graph explained this perfectly where most people understood.

Your curve does not answer that question. It is nonsense. It is labelled incorrectly and has the completely wrong shape to have any meaning (have you noticed, that the correct curve would be equally suitable for your purpose?). You can only use it to jerk around those, who want to hear your message and who lack the knowledge in statistic even more than you do. Others wont be convinced by your diagram. Better try to explain you argument in words. It looks a lot less dilettantish than spreading fantasy curves.

As long as your reply categorically is, that the 16.5" seat is not OK, you are wrong anyway. Because the evidence, that it can be OK is flying around each day. It is obviously OK under certain conditions and in an admittedly rather small niche of the market.

As you say, the price must be considered. So no "seat width distribution"-curve and no "acceptance vs seat-width"-curve will prove anything. The correct function, to find out whether 16.5" is OK or not, is the 3D function "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". But you are not able to determine this function in a useful way. Me neither. So better forget all the graphs and try to bring up good reasons, why you think you are right.

My reasons, why it is OK for airlines to operate 16.5" seats:
- Mostly the same reasons, why Boeing operators recklessly get away with 17" mainline services: only geeks care, the general public is not aware, the majority simply will pick the lowest fare, the flying public is spoiled so nobody simply expects any comfort anymore....
- In the low-cost/low comfort business it matches expectation

RJMAZ wrote:
If a seat gets filled then it is accepted. So the seat acceptance would closely match the seat width distribution.

First issue with this: the decision to book a seat with an airline in the most cases is driven by other factors long before seat width is considered. Therefore there is no causality between these two things (the booking and the seat width). Seat width is insignificant even in the worst case. Therefore the argument is nonsense.

Second issue with this: it is entirely evidence based. You need first the seat width available on the market to draw conclusions. You violate basic scientific principles, if you go and make claims about the future or not existing (or rare) seat widths using this argument.

RJMAZ wrote:
You can also easily place a line of best fit over your bar graph joining the point together. Add a high amount of smoothing to the line and it would form a bell curve. This shows my bell curve is actually the best way to plot acceptance.

Do you still not understand, that you should not do that having only so few samples? If you do that, the resulting curve is affected by so large inaccuracies, that any conclusion tells more about your agenda than anything else. The meaning of the standard distribution is, that if you only add enough samples, the resulting distribution will match the curve more and more and after infinite samples it will match it exactly. How do you want to accomplish that with seat widths?

You also still fail to comprehend that acceptance is not following the seat width distribution. That is like saying, a fuselage length of about 52m has the largest acceptance for pax because this length by accident is the mean of all fuselage lengths.

RJMAZ wrote:
Based on your graph the 100% acceptance would continue to 22inch seats, 26inch seats, private first class cabin and then right up to your own G650 private jet.

The graph is labelled with "acceptance vs seats with", right? Nowhere it mentions ticket price or any other variable. You need really more discipline when discussing these things.

Acceptance will never decrease going to wider seats. Even not extremely wide seats. As an engineer I am used to check the validity of such functions at the extremes. And I have to say, even a seat with 1 or 2 meters width would be as acceptable as an 18" or 19" seat (in fact, acceptance should even be higher, because for 19" you can expect to still get some no-responses). The curve is perfectly valid at the extremes too.

RJMAZ wrote:
Passengers do not have the ability to accept flying alone on a G650 private jet due to the $100,000+ ticket price. The acceptance would be zero.

Ok, no the price comes into the picture. That is moving goal-posts when we discussed "acceptance vs. seat-width" just before.

But, ok, your argument, is "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". See above, how we should deal with that function. You and I will not be able to come up with a meaningful graph for that, that proves anything.

RJMAZ wrote:
You correct approach would be to ask the same 100 people "What seat they would fly on with a 4 class cabin aircraft with the following average industry prices.
A) Budget economy 17" - $500
B) Standard economy 18" - $800
C) Premium economy 19" - $1500
D) Business class 22" beds - $3500"

Now this is how you would get acceptance.

Wrong, that way you would get "acceptance vs seat width vs ticket price". You need to be precise, otherwise you are fooling yourself and others. But, understood, you wanted to argue about "acceptance vs seat width vs ticket price" anyway from the beginning, so this is one of your better proposals.

The strength of this proposal is, that you introduce price sensitivity without going to a 3D function, by simply assuming a correlation between seat width and ticket price. The disadvantage is, that you only consider one of many possible correlation functions between seat width and ticket price. For the first added inch, the price increase is $300, for the second $700, for the next ones $667 per inch. Why the peak at the 18" to 19" transition? One would expect, that a proportional or maybe a exponential correlation curve would fit better. Anyway, you see, it is very hard just to model the truth using this approach.

Small things to improve the accuracy of your poll:
- Leave away not relevant information: the 4-class cabin information does not add anything and also mentioning the seat class would only detract from only judging the seat width and nothing else.

So, fine, assume we exercise your proposal. Do we know the outcome? Can we draw any conclusion and contribute anything meaningful to this thread? No, because we cant actually run the poll. So we are back to the normal discussion with as good as possible arguments. But leave away this pseudo scientific number crunching.


RJMAZ wrote:
My graph includes price so it the best and most easy to understand form to use.

I got that meanwhile. Why not label it correctly? And use a more realistic shape for it? The bell curve is in no way the correct function to describe that.

RJMAZ wrote:
My graph answers the original question. Why you would lose customers from reducing your seat width from 17" down to 16.5" but you would not lose customers from reducing seat width from 18" seats down to 17" seats.

The last thing, your graph does is providing this answer. It is wrong in any aspect and you terribly failed to provide opposite evidence.

Even if we would run the poll, create a correct graph for "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". It would still be meaningless and academic only because 95% of all passengers don't have the information about seat width available at the time of booking. So a guy could say, "I would never pay <so much> for a seat <this> wide!". But as the airlines don't show the seat width when the booking is done, the same guy will book, travel and curse about the seat anyway the next time he flies! In the large majority of all cases....
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:00 pm

FatCat wrote:
I see a wide market for the A330, and also for A350 in the next 10 years. Why should Airbus widebody's days be numbered?
There are routes that require planes bigger than an A321 and smaller than an A380. I think 80% of the long range routes necessities can be covered with a 250 / 300 seats plane.
I'd like to learn more, and read more opinions, but from shrinking a production forecast to saying that the entire range of Airbus's widebodies has numbered days...


Between 2005 and 2010 we had a poster on here called NAV20 who predicted the demise of Airbus widebody production, and it should have happened long before now according to him.
Instead, Airbus today deliver far more widebodys now than they ever did when he made his prediction a decade ago.

Those making the same predictions today will endure the same humiliation.
The "testosterone" which is fuelling these preditions has got WAY out of hand on this forum recently.
We have lost the balance somewhere recently as a community.

The A330NEO will be fine. Just watch. The A350 will be in production for decades.

Newbiepilot wrote:
TheFlyingRaven wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


I think the A350 is just too much plane at any price. Norwegian are losing their shirt filling B789s with a vaguely similar business case, so imaging filling something even bigger, as undoubtable AirAsia would do 10 abreast on the A350.


I am not sure I entirely believe that the A350 is too much plane at any price. If Air Asia wants to fly to the United States, it may be a good option. I just haven’t seen much discussion on getting A350 production costs down. The 787 has gone through massive cost cutting. The A330neo is built from an existing platform to keep costs down.

What is going on with the A350 to ensure its purchase price is competitive with the 787? The only big orders recently have been China Southern and Iran Air.


It is getting somewhat irritating (not aimed at you) to hear so many gloomy predictions that are being made about Airbus, especially widebodys, in this latest "drug-like rush" phase that we appear to be in.
I don't hear ANYTHING about what Boeing are doing to reduce the costs of the 737 MAX, but I'll bet my house that they are.
I'm just not cynical enough to play the "if I can't see it it's not there" card.
Shame others are too ignorant to recognise that there's more out there than what meets the eye.

There is nothing that we have discussed with regards to cost reduction on the 787 that isn't equally available to Airbus on the A350.
And please don't anyone pipe up with the "CFRP barrels" red herring.

What is not available to either OEM is the ability to "prioritise" everything across the range.

It is clear to anyone that is actually looking that both OEM's are playing into their strengths.
Hence Boeing are working hard to get, and keep, the 787 into a dominant position. We hear lots about this. Less so on the MAX

Airbus meanwhile are focussing on the A320 NEO family to do the same thing, are there is just as much information in the public domain on that as there is on the 787 if anyone is bothered to look. Way more than there is on the 737. More also than we hear from the A350

The A350 is still struggling to ramp up to its planned production rate.
Boeing rightly haven't really put the pedal to metal on the 787 cost reduction until the line was running smoothly at full output. And yes, during that time there were a lot of years when the sales were pretty slim. Boeing had patience and have done it right, and we can see the results.

But I'm not sure why, other than pure bigotry, we shouldn't expect the A350 to follow a similar lifecycle.
There is no logical, valid reason.
In my opinion :)

Rgds
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:44 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:

I am not sure I entirely believe that the A350 is too much plane at any price. If Air Asia wants to fly to the United States, it may be a good option. I just haven’t seen much discussion on getting A350 production costs down. The 787 has gone through massive cost cutting. The A330neo is built from an existing platform to keep costs down.


You might be right, but presumably Air Asia will get close to the 440 exit limit: could a maximum capacity A359 fly KUL to LAX? SQ fly their A359s on SIN-SFO, but these are presumably lighter.

I also just can't see at a very price-critical part of the market how Air Asia could make their direct flight cheaper than the plethora of Chinese airlines. Anyone wanting to travel as cheaply as possible will accept a stop somewhere.

If they do want to start such flights, I just see a smaller plane being a bit less of a risk. Either a 787 or, if Airbus can do it, a performance enhanced 338neo.

Newbiepilot wrote:
I just haven’t seen much discussion on getting A350 production costs down. The 787 has gone through massive cost cutting.


You should be comparing where the A350 is now with the B787 of 2/3 years ago: were they still try to get rid of the terrible teens?

Newbiepilot wrote:
What is going on with the A350 to ensure its purchase price is competitive with the 787? The only big orders recently have been China Southern and Iran Air.


They don't need to, yet, with the size of their backlog. They, literally, can't build them fast enough. Why flog a mid-2020s production slot at a bargain price, when they could sell it in a few years' time for more? Boeing can, now, build their 787s fast enough so can be assertive on pricing, especially as they're trying to poach A330neo customers like, err, Air Asia...

My apologies for actually discussing the topic of the thread!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9251
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:21 pm

TheFlyingRaven wrote:
My apologies for actually discussing the topic of the thread!

No need to apologize, I am still confused as to why Boeing and Airbus are pumping out a/c where the majority of the seats are 18" or less.....
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:57 pm

par13del wrote:
TheFlyingRaven wrote:
My apologies for actually discussing the topic of the thread!

No need to apologize, I am still confused as to why Boeing and Airbus are pumping out a/c where the majority of the seats are 18" or less.....


Especially as almost everywhere in the world (where people are flying) people are getting taller, wider and richer we're seeing narrower, reduced pitch and cheaper seats.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:18 pm

bigjku wrote:
If it cost roughly the same to purchase up front what advantages does the A339neo offer over the 789 let alone a 789/10 combination?

The old A330, at 8 abreast, sold as good or better than the 787 for many years. The reasons for that success did not change. The 787 did not get better. The A330NEO did significantly. The purchase price of the 787 is no longer as low as it was for the first hundred orders.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:20 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
bigjku wrote:
If it cost roughly the same to purchase up front what advantages does the A339neo offer over the 789 let alone a 789/10 combination?

The old A330, at 8 abreast, sold as good or better than the 787 for many years. The reasons for that success did not change. The 787 did not get better. The A330NEO did significantly. The purchase price of the 787 is no longer as low as it was for the first hundred orders.

Many of those A330s were sold on its availability due to 787/A350 delays and large backlogs though. That reason is quickly going away. Same way Boeing has been selling 77Ws the past couple of years.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:36 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
So you believe that Airbus will not get any more orders going forward at all? Before the plane has even entered into service?

If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.

trex8 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I predict the A330NEO in 10 years time will be freighter only just like the 767.

Wasnt that the original Airbus plan? Extend the A330 line for a few years at minimal cost while just nibbling at the lower end of the A350 market till the ceo freighters/tankers need replacing. IIRC the pundits said A had a business case selling 400 or so but A came out when they launched with a prediction for double that.

This will end up being less than half of the original plan which is why we've had two production rate drops in two years.

Passenger to freight conversions fill most of the demand for freighters. There will be a huge supply of used A330's to convert for nearly 20 years. The A330NEO line will limp along at a low rate.

Orders for the 767 freighter have increased in the last couple years as they have run out of used 767's to convert to freighters. Without a big military contract I doubt the A330NEO production backlog can be extended to when these new orders would appear.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3264
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:55 pm

The golden age of Y flying (comfort not price) featured 17 inch wide seats at 35 inch pitch. Likely newer seat technology could do the same at 17 and 33 or so.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18419
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
So you believe that Airbus will not get any more orders going forward at all? Before the plane has even entered into service?

If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.

trex8 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I predict the A330NEO in 10 years time will be freighter only just like the 767.

Wasnt that the original Airbus plan? Extend the A330 line for a few years at minimal cost while just nibbling at the lower end of the A350 market till the ceo freighters/tankers need replacing. IIRC the pundits said A had a business case selling 400 or so but A came out when they launched with a prediction for double that.

This will end up being less than half of the original plan which is why we've had two production rate drops in two years.

Passenger to freight conversions fill most of the demand for freighters. There will be a huge supply of used A330's to convert for nearly 20 years. The A330NEO line will limp along at a low rate.

Orders for the 767 freighter have increased in the last couple years as they have run out of used 767's to convert to freighters. Without a big military contract I doubt the A330NEO production backlog can be extended to when these new orders would appear.

I agree with your assessment of the A330NEO.

My only question is how many AirAsiaX takes. I believe the answer is above zero. I also believe the financing terms will be horrible for non-freighters.

Airbus must accelerate the freighter to sustain production.

It is a shame, but with the issues, no one will want to hold the financing.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:20 am

lightsaber wrote:

It is a shame, but with the issues, no one will want to hold the financing.

Lightsaber


Yes this is an often underestimated factor in aircraft sales and currently Airbus has at least two other problems in this regard.

One is that their is a general tightening up of credit starting and it will get worse, but this will effect all manufacturers and
Two, Airbus have serious restrictions imposed on some types of aircraft financing as the result of the corruption scandel.

Cheers

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.


The real fact of the matter is you do not have access to the exact numbers, just like the farcical seat width and passenger acceptance numbers you have provided in this thread. Totally made up without factual basis.

Air Asia last quarter revenue was over US$300 million, they will have no difficulty getting finance as they have the cash flow, and that cash flow number is only getting bigger.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:46 am

zeke wrote:
Air Asia last quarter revenue was over US$300 million, they will have no difficulty getting finance as they have the cash flow, and that cash flow number is only getting bigger.


Yes, Airasia Group also seems to be leasing more aircraft from BoC Aviation - they could be getting favourable terms from them. AirAsia X and AirAsia reported good traffic statistics in 1Q 2018.

AirAsia X Q1 2018 preliminary operating statistics:
https://newsroom.airasia.com/news/2018/ ... statistics

AirAsia Group Berhad Q1 2018 preliminary operating statistics:
https://newsroom.airasia.com/news/2018/ ... statistics
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.



I think that's very, very pessimistic. Indigo alone look like they'll order 50 aircraft (maybe 25 firm plus 25 options?) in June, and there will be plenty of small airlines for whom the A330neo makes more sense. Like I said before, we don't know if the AA and HA deals are representative going forward, the 787 had a lot more leverage than in many of the future deals.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:54 am

MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.



I think that's very, very pessimistic. Indigo alone look like they'll order 50 aircraft (maybe 25 firm plus 25 options?) in June, and there will be plenty of small airlines for whom the A330neo makes more sense. Like I said before, we don't know if the AA and HA deals are representative going forward, the 787 had a lot more leverage than in many of the future deals.


Small airlines, the ones most likely to lease their planes and therefore most affected by financing issues, are going to line up and pay what are likely unfavorable lease rates for 330neos because..?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:54 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.



I think that's very, very pessimistic. Indigo alone look like they'll order 50 aircraft (maybe 25 firm plus 25 options?) in June, and there will be plenty of small airlines for whom the A330neo makes more sense. Like I said before, we don't know if the AA and HA deals are representative going forward, the 787 had a lot more leverage than in many of the future deals.


Small airlines, the ones most likely to lease their planes and therefore most affected by financing issues, are going to line up and pay what are likely unfavorable lease rates for 330neos because..?


I don't work for the airlines so I don't know. Let's ask Azul, AirCalin, Wow Air, Air Senegal, Air Mauritius, Arkia Israel and HiFly. There must be some reason they've all ordered them directly or through lessors. In this situation it's unlikely that anyone would 'line up', they would be short term, short notice deals based on opportunism.

'Likely unfavourable'. Do we know this for certain?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:24 am

MrHMSH wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
If I was forced to put exact numbers on it I believe we will get only 20-30 more passenger A330NEO sales total.

Over the next 2-3 years time we will see around 50 orders get outright cancelled or deferred and swapped to A359's. The production rate will then drop down to around 30 aircraft per year to extend the backlog. This brings the total number of passenger aircraft produced to around 200.

There will be continual freighter orders long into the future like the 767. So in 5 years time the rate will drop again to whatever the demand is for freighters.



I think that's very, very pessimistic. Indigo alone look like they'll order 50 aircraft (maybe 25 firm plus 25 options?) in June, and there will be plenty of small airlines for whom the A330neo makes more sense. Like I said before, we don't know if the AA and HA deals are representative going forward, the 787 had a lot more leverage than in many of the future deals.


"Air Asia will take "more than 0", "there willonly be 20-30 more NEO orders", "there will be 50 cancellations".
Pessimistic?
I think we have veered into the realms of fantasyland on the forum recently.
Remember the original 787 drug-like rush?
It's back, and it's bad.

Rgds
 
RalXWB
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:55 am

The obvious bias on this thread is unbearable, but it corresponds to the trend in 2018 on Anet: "Airbus is doomed".
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:17 am

The A330NEO is much more capable than the CEO it is replacing.

Let's say a hypothetical airline was operating routes that only used up to 80% of the range capability of the A330-300. That is 5080nm of the 6,350nm Wikipedia range. What will they replace it with?

The A330-900NEO is a direct replacement capacity wise but not range wise. The NEO is just carrying dead weight for this particular airline.

As engine technology improved we saw the A321 grow to match the larger and heavier 757-200. When carrying a particular payload over a certain distance the aircraft are getting lighter and burning less fuel.

With this hypothetical airline the long range version of Boeing NMA at 100% of its range capability would be able to do this route with higher frequency and yield. The larger capacity but shorter ranged NMA can then do the shorter routes. The mixed fleet would add negligible extra cost providing commonality is extremely high.

This is most likely one of the reasons why China is not ordering the A330NEO. The NEO offers no advantage on short domestic routes. As the CEO is slightly lighter and cheaper it should completely offset the improved fuel burn of the NEO on a 1 hour flight.

Airbus should have used the improved fuel burn of the new engines to reduce empty weight and reduce maximum takeoff weight not to add range. If it meant another billion in development knocking off even 5T of empty weight would have improved short haul performance.
 
brindabella
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:30 am

astuteman wrote:

It is getting somewhat irritating (not aimed at you) to hear so many gloomy predictions that are being made about Airbus, especially widebodys, in this latest "drug-like rush" phase that we appear to be in.
I don't hear ANYTHING about what Boeing are doing to reduce the costs of the 737 MAX, but I'll bet my house that they are.
I'm just not cynical enough to play the "if I can't see it it's not there" card.
Shame others are too ignorant to recognise that there's more out there than what meets the eye.

There is nothing that we have discussed with regards to cost reduction on the 787 that isn't equally available to Airbus on the A350.
And please don't anyone pipe up with the "CFRP barrels" red herring.

What is not available to either OEM is the ability to "prioritise" everything across the range.

It is clear to anyone that is actually looking that both OEM's are playing into their strengths.
Hence Boeing are working hard to get, and keep, the 787 into a dominant position. We hear lots about this. Less so on the MAX

Airbus meanwhile are focussing on the A320 NEO family to do the same thing, are there is just as much information in the public domain on that as there is on the 787 if anyone is bothered to look. Way more than there is on the 737. More also than we hear from the A350

The A350 is still struggling to ramp up to its planned production rate.
Boeing rightly haven't really put the pedal to metal on the 787 cost reduction until the line was running smoothly at full output. And yes, during that time there were a lot of years when the sales were pretty slim. Boeing had patience and have done it right, and we can see the results.

But I'm not sure why, other than pure bigotry, we shouldn't expect the A350 to follow a similar lifecycle.
There is no logical, valid reason.
In my opinion :)

Rgds

Verily a stout defence Astuteman.

However I believe your "fall of shot" is way off - IMO the great bulk of the doubts are NOT being cast on the A350 - indeed
the majority judgement is that the A350-900 is already excellent and the -1000 has a good chance to prove itself.
(I heartily concur). :)

The concern is rather about the future of the 330neo.

And the rate reduction is not a good sign.

cheers
Billy
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:29 pm

brindabella wrote:
astuteman wrote:

It is getting somewhat irritating (not aimed at you) to hear so many gloomy predictions that are being made about Airbus, especially widebodys, in this latest "drug-like rush" phase that we appear to be in.
I don't hear ANYTHING about what Boeing are doing to reduce the costs of the 737 MAX, but I'll bet my house that they are.
I'm just not cynical enough to play the "if I can't see it it's not there" card.
Shame others are too ignorant to recognise that there's more out there than what meets the eye.

There is nothing that we have discussed with regards to cost reduction on the 787 that isn't equally available to Airbus on the A350.
And please don't anyone pipe up with the "CFRP barrels" red herring.

What is not available to either OEM is the ability to "prioritise" everything across the range.

It is clear to anyone that is actually looking that both OEM's are playing into their strengths.
Hence Boeing are working hard to get, and keep, the 787 into a dominant position. We hear lots about this. Less so on the MAX

Airbus meanwhile are focussing on the A320 NEO family to do the same thing, are there is just as much information in the public domain on that as there is on the 787 if anyone is bothered to look. Way more than there is on the 737. More also than we hear from the A350

The A350 is still struggling to ramp up to its planned production rate.
Boeing rightly haven't really put the pedal to metal on the 787 cost reduction until the line was running smoothly at full output. And yes, during that time there were a lot of years when the sales were pretty slim. Boeing had patience and have done it right, and we can see the results.

But I'm not sure why, other than pure bigotry, we shouldn't expect the A350 to follow a similar lifecycle.
There is no logical, valid reason.
In my opinion :)

Rgds

Verily a stout defence Astuteman.

However I believe your "fall of shot" is way off - IMO the great bulk of the doubts are NOT being cast on the A350 - indeed
the majority judgement is that the A350-900 is already excellent and the -1000 has a good chance to prove itself.
(I heartily concur). :)

The concern is rather about the future of the 330neo.

And the rate reduction is not a good sign.

cheers


I think that is pretty on point. The A350 will come down the cost curve. It may not do so as much as the 787 depending on how high they can push volume but that’s more a market placement issue than anything. It’s a bigger more capable plane. It may simply just not be in as much demand given the area of the market it occupies but it should see good demand for those airlines that need it.
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The A330-900NEO is a direct replacement capacity wise but not range wise. The NEO is just carrying dead weight for this particular airline.

NEO's range will be shorter than CEO's for the same amount of payload?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:51 pm

bigjku wrote:
The A350 will come down the cost curve. It may not do so as much as the 787 depending on how high they can push volume but that’s more a market placement issue than anything.


The A350 will never come down as much as the 787 as it just was not as bad at EIS. Airbus received their fair share of complaints during the initial manufacturing stage like when the basically stopped production to get the wing drilling fixed. Boeing on the other hand just kept manufacturing and produced aircraft and parking them out front with known defects that required expensive post production travel work done to make them fit for purpose.

Airbus also has a lot more experience with the distributed manufacturing process, which it did with existing suppliers. Boeing never did on this scale until the 787, and the they decided to do so, even with some unknown suppliers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Swadian
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:10 pm

flee wrote:
bigjku wrote:
With the Iran order at risk, they just ordered Russian planes today, you need Delta and Air Asia X to take planes relatively quickly but I don’t see them being willing to do so. You have a theoretical delivery rate of 72 a year and a backlog 303 in theory if you include Iran. There are 60-65 more planes to be delivered this year so going into 2019 you will have 240 or so left, again including Iran.

Airasia X's delivery plan for the A339 is about 7 aircraft p.a. for the first two years and around 8 aircraft thereafter. With the loss of the HA and AA orders, it is no wonder that Airbus has just announced a production cut to around 50 p.a.


There was no "loss" of AA order. AA never ordered the A330 in the first place. They decided not to order it because they already have 787 in their fleet. The A330 was always an orphan LUS fleet anyway.

brindabella wrote:
astuteman wrote:

It is getting somewhat irritating (not aimed at you) to hear so many gloomy predictions that are being made about Airbus, especially widebodys, in this latest "drug-like rush" phase that we appear to be in.
I don't hear ANYTHING about what Boeing are doing to reduce the costs of the 737 MAX, but I'll bet my house that they are.
I'm just not cynical enough to play the "if I can't see it it's not there" card.
Shame others are too ignorant to recognise that there's more out there than what meets the eye.

There is nothing that we have discussed with regards to cost reduction on the 787 that isn't equally available to Airbus on the A350.
And please don't anyone pipe up with the "CFRP barrels" red herring.

What is not available to either OEM is the ability to "prioritise" everything across the range.

It is clear to anyone that is actually looking that both OEM's are playing into their strengths.
Hence Boeing are working hard to get, and keep, the 787 into a dominant position. We hear lots about this. Less so on the MAX

Airbus meanwhile are focussing on the A320 NEO family to do the same thing, are there is just as much information in the public domain on that as there is on the 787 if anyone is bothered to look. Way more than there is on the 737. More also than we hear from the A350

The A350 is still struggling to ramp up to its planned production rate.
Boeing rightly haven't really put the pedal to metal on the 787 cost reduction until the line was running smoothly at full output. And yes, during that time there were a lot of years when the sales were pretty slim. Boeing had patience and have done it right, and we can see the results.

But I'm not sure why, other than pure bigotry, we shouldn't expect the A350 to follow a similar lifecycle.
There is no logical, valid reason.
In my opinion :)

Rgds

Verily a stout defence Astuteman.

However I believe your "fall of shot" is way off - IMO the great bulk of the doubts are NOT being cast on the A350 - indeed
the majority judgement is that the A350-900 is already excellent and the -1000 has a good chance to prove itself.
(I heartily concur). :)

The concern is rather about the future of the 330neo.

And the rate reduction is not a good sign.

cheers


I agree the A350 will do fine, the A359 is a bigger and better 789 albeit slightly costlier to operate and with higher CASM then 78X which may hurt sales for regional applications and the A35K may be more of a large niche aircraft like the 778 or 779.

bigjku wrote:
To get back on topic a bit...

If it cost roughly the same to purchase up front what advantages does the A339neo offer over the 789 let alone a 789/10 combination?

Fleet commonality and training is only thing I can think of. But it terms of operating cost once you convert over the 789 is going to be about a wash on CASM and the 787-10 will be better if you can fill it.

Plus I have to suspect lease/finance cost a a comparably priced 787 will be cheaper than a NEO right now don’t you think?


Not much, if anything at all. That's why the A339 has not won orders over the 789 and 78X. We have yet to see what the Chinese do but if they order the A339 it would be for political more than operational reasons as the A333 actually has lower CASM on domestic China flights.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:39 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The A330NEO is much more capable than the CEO it is replacing.

Let's say a hypothetical airline was operating routes that only used up to 80% of the range capability of the A330-300. That is 5080nm of the 6,350nm Wikipedia range. What will they replace it with?

The A330-900NEO is a direct replacement capacity wise but not range wise. The NEO is just carrying dead weight for this particular airline.

As engine technology improved we saw the A321 grow to match the larger and heavier 757-200. When carrying a particular payload over a certain distance the aircraft are getting lighter and burning less fuel.

With this hypothetical airline the long range version of Boeing NMA at 100% of its range capability would be able to do this route with higher frequency and yield. The larger capacity but shorter ranged NMA can then do the shorter routes. The mixed fleet would add negligible extra cost providing commonality is extremely high.

This is most likely one of the reasons why China is not ordering the A330NEO. The NEO offers no advantage on short domestic routes. As the CEO is slightly lighter and cheaper it should completely offset the improved fuel burn of the NEO on a 1 hour flight.

Airbus should have used the improved fuel burn of the new engines to reduce empty weight and reduce maximum takeoff weight not to add range. If it meant another billion in development knocking off even 5T of empty weight would have improved short haul performance.


Well put.
the A330ceo has been a brilliant performer for EU/US carriers, and in retrospect, its mostly because they've matched the range/capacity of the aircraft to their routes very nicely.
given the changes in markets, technology and competition, it is hard to understand AB's direction with the A330neo - why make it so closely range competitive with its own A350 big brother? why ignore the obviously massive short-haul future needs of India and China?

I think you're right - a lightened A330 is what would really serve Airbus well now, instead of this range monster it has created. Hard to not imagine how there isn't bound to be some cannibalization of sales from A350 and vice versa.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:25 pm

RalXWB wrote:
The obvious bias on this thread is unbearable, but it corresponds to the trend in 2018 on Anet: "Airbus is doomed".


I'm sorry, but you're going to rattle on about bias? lol

And no, Airbus is not "doomed". However, these OEM's go through ups and downs - sticking our head in the ground while donning our "I <3 Airbus/Boeing" t-shirts doesn't change anything. A year from now - or even after Farnborough, as I mentioned above - a lot can change.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:43 am

FlyHappy wrote:
Well put.
the A330ceo has been a brilliant performer for EU/US carriers, and in retrospect, its mostly because they've matched the range/capacity of the aircraft to their routes very nicely.
given the changes in markets, technology and competition, it is hard to understand AB's direction with the A330neo - why make it so closely range competitive with its own A350 big brother? why ignore the obviously massive short-haul future needs of India and China?

I think you're right - a lightened A330 is what would really serve Airbus well now, instead of this range monster it has created. Hard to not imagine how there isn't bound to be some cannibalization of sales from A350 and vice versa.

We might see a lightweight A330 as a response to the NMA but it would probably be too little too late.

Short haul efficiency is strongly connected to empty weight per passenger. This reduces airport fees and overall fuel burn on short routes. The problem is when you add more range you need fuel the empty weight per passenger increases.

The A330NEO, 787 and A350 are all very close in payload range and fuel burn. The A330NEO will beyond doubt cannibilze A350 sales into the future and reduce the profit margin on both.

Airbus had the perfect opportunity to tag team and beat the 787. A 5T empty weight reduction on the A330NEO would have put it clearly below the 787 family in empty weight per passenger and would give it a short haul advantage. Big sales from China and India.

It is extremely easy to reduce the empty weight of an aircraft. It is extremely hard to reduce the empty weight of an aircraft and still maintain range and maximum takeoff weight. The more you are willing to sacrifice maximum takeoff weight and range the easier it is to reduce empty weight.

Airbus put in a lot of effort giving maximum takeoff increases. Optimizing and modifying the structure to handle higher takeoff weights. The inner wing and wingbox were both revised in the A330NEO as they removed the A340 specific parts. The exact same team could have been optimising and modifying the structure to reduce empty weight at the existing takeoff weight.

This is not like lowering the maximum takeoff weight by reducing it on paper as we seen with the A330regional.

200T Maximum takeoff weight.
Centre fuel tank removed
Wing strengthening removed
Centre wingbox strengthening removed
New engines 80% in physical size and weight.
Landing gear struts and tyres reduced like how the 787-8 has smaller landing gear than the heavier 9/10.

This would have reduced the empty weight by 5T or 4% comfortably. But the maximum range would be reduced by a much greater 20-25%. This weight reduction would have allowed the A330NEO to go from parity with the 787 on short haul to having a 2-3% advantage.

I have posted a few times that Airbus should have also done a carbon wing on the A330NEO in combination with the weight reductions. Empty weight would have been a full 10T or 8% lighter with the same 20-25% range reduction. Giving a 4-6% advantage on short haul over the 787. This would have delayed the entry to service date but cheap CEO's would have filled the gap.

Airbus need to put more effort into strategic planning and future market analysis.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14153
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:31 am

RJMAZ

You continue to demonstrate time and time again you just make stuff up without know what you are talking about.

Airport fees are based upon MTOW not empty weight, we already operate A330 at multiple MTOWs, sure other airlines do as well.
The A330 has no centre fuel tank to remove, the centre fuel tank is simply the wing box that connects the two wings, you cannot remove that as that is how the wings are attached to the aircraft.
The A330 did not go through major strengthening to increase MTOW over the years, a lot of it was achieved through software changes that reduced the loads on the wings.
The major inefficiency in medium haul flying in Asia is not the aircraft, it is ATC and airspace related.

There is never anything easy about dropping 5 tonnes of weight from any aircraft, again demonstrating a total lack of understanding.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Siddar
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The A330NEO is much more capable than the CEO it is replacing.

Let's say a hypothetical airline was operating routes that only used up to 80% of the range capability of the A330-300. That is 5080nm of the 6,350nm Wikipedia range. What will they replace it with?

The A330-900NEO is a direct replacement capacity wise but not range wise. The NEO is just carrying dead weight for this particular airline.

As engine technology improved we saw the A321 grow to match the larger and heavier 757-200. When carrying a particular payload over a certain distance the aircraft are getting lighter and burning less fuel.

With this hypothetical airline the long range version of Boeing NMA at 100% of its range capability would be able to do this route with higher frequency and yield. The larger capacity but shorter ranged NMA can then do the shorter routes. The mixed fleet would add negligible extra cost providing commonality is extremely high.

This is most likely one of the reasons why China is not ordering the A330NEO. The NEO offers no advantage on short domestic routes. As the CEO is slightly lighter and cheaper it should completely offset the improved fuel burn of the NEO on a 1 hour flight.

Airbus should have used the improved fuel burn of the new engines to reduce empty weight and reduce maximum takeoff weight not to add range. If it meant another billion in development knocking off even 5T of empty weight would have improved short haul performance.


I tried to say something like this awhile ago. Airbus fans weren't impressed with my argument. Maybe they will consider yours better.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:10 am

Just seems too easy to take 5t out of an AC so we’ll refined.

I suppose composite wings would be one way but that’s not cheap.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos