To present the core statement "We're in discussions at a very preliminary stage with Boeing and we've expressed our interest to the management team," Bastian said. "The ball really is in Boeing's court. They've heard us." as "Delta wants to be NMA launch customer" is... taking some liberties. Because really, DL's statement is pretty general...
"We've told them what we want and we're waiting for their response."
It's pretty much what DL have been saying for at least a year now.
Don't get me wrong - DL may well end up buying the NMA should it ever get launched, but I wouldn't pop the champagne just yet.
Those are my thoughts as well. Boeing would have to impose some really harsh cancellation penalties on a Delta order because of the stunts they have pulled.
If you apply the same logic, DL shouldn't even be talking to Boeing considering Boeing's actions and statements around DL's CSeries (now: A220) order.
In reality, though, this type of Trump-eque "be loyal or you get sh*t treatment at best" won't get you very far in business.
And as has been pointed out, putting steep cancellation penalties on launch customers' orders is a tough sell after what early 787 customers went through.
I think people put too much thought in so-called loyalty to Boeing or Airbus: any airline "blindly" buying from one manufacturer exclusively just for the sake of loyalty is showing poor business practice.
Some single-fleet airlines have switched, are switching or will switch from Airbus to Boeing, or vice-versa, because the other offered a better deal (although they were loyal so far to one manufacturer).
Remember that publicly traded companies have an obligation to their shareholders; not to Boeing's or Airbus'.
Yep. I can only think of a few exceptions here. For instance, all the low-cost carriers. FR, WN, B6, U2. For them, buying large quantities of the same plane type enables them to do extreme streamlining of operations at every level - and is also the only way of getting planes at the price they want. For smaller airlines - such as e.g. EI - a single-supplier strategy can also make sense to reduce the amount of complexity they have to manage with limited resources.
None of which means they wouldn't ever switch, of course.
Staying with one manufacturer doesn't mean you're not getting the best deal.
Usually provided you don't blindly
buy from one vendor exclusively, though.
Here's a quote from a former airplane salesman about how he's seen loyalty and gentlemen's agreements work:
“I did say to that executive, isn’t it interesting that [supplier A] always had your best interests at heart [with the exclusive supplier deal]? How come, when you brought us in, they gave you the best and final offer, then when we bid again, they improved their best and final, when we bid again, they improved their best and final furthermore, and when we won the deal, you called them up and they improved it a third time?
“Maybe if you had just called them and never brought us in, you might have been paying more for the airplanes,” [...]
“How any company would ever say ‘I blocked myself from competition because I got a short-term gain on this next deal is beyond me,’"
And the day that WN, B6, NK, F9, or G4 switch to another manufacturer is the day they start selling snow cones in hell.
That's what it feels like, anyway. That's what people said about AA as well before that massive NEO order. It's what people said about U2 before they switched to Airbus. It's what people said about LH before they ordered 747-8 and 777X. F9 actually did switch suppliers once. The list goes on.
Point being: All of those you list are known to have been talking to the respective non-preferred supplier as well.
Indeed, WN threatened to switch to Airbus when the NEO was announced and Boeing was dithering on whether to do a 737 re-engine.
That sort of threat - i.e. market pressure to get the best product, as WN's threat and AA "defection" were factors in launching the 737MAX - only works if you maintain working relations with all vendors.
Used A319's were plentiful for G4 to acquire so it made sense for them to move to an all A320 family. End of the line A320ceo's were also cheap.
At the time F9 needed to replace their 737 fleet they were in a very bad financial state. Airbus was still new to the US market and gave them the financing deal that Boeing wouldn't. Neelman has never liked Boeing so it's no surprise B6 went with Airbus. Same for his other airline Azul. Same with Moxie.
You're disproving your own point and instead agreeing with WayexTDI's point you originally disagreed with, though, aren't you?
Because you're basically saying that under the right circumstances any single-supplier airline may switch.
The A350 was ordered before the merger. The A319 were acquired USED since they got them dirt cheap and could quickly replace 50 seat regional jets. United has hundreds of new 737's on order. United has ordered nothing from Airbus since the merger.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong.
United originally ordered the A350 a mere 2 months before the merger was announced.
The original order was for 25 A359. They reviewed the order twice since then and now have 45 A359 on order.
Which means after
the merger they added a net total of 20 A350s to their order (i.e. almost doubled it), making them the fifth-largest A350 customer to date.
That is not
"ordering nothing from Airbus since the merger."
I know, I know, many a.netters are still in refusal about UA's commitment to the A350. A cancellation has basically been on the wishlist ever since the order happened, and instead, while getting pushed out a few years, it also only ever got bigger.
If you're wondering what on earth I'm on about:
The 350 isn't on property yet, and has been pushed back twice. Until it is, don't assume it will be.
Yes, UAL ordered both the 319 and 320 but it wasn't like they really wanted them.
Because that's just what happens... you end up increasing orders for a plane you don't want, you somehow also end up with almost 200 A319/320 that you didn't want, and you're somehow unable to get rid of more than a single one of them.¯\_(ツ)_/¯