Willie Walsh is hedging his airplane portfolio recently, except for the 787 fleet at BA, every new plane at BA, Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus has been an Airbus. Iberia and Aer Lingus are Airbus exclusive airlines for both short & long haul with the exception of a few 757 at the Irish airline.

RexBanner wrote:

Landing performance in Jersey with the Max 8 is going to be a bit of an issue. In theory it’s doable but factor in a wet runway and/or a couple of knots tailwind (ie quartering tailwind across 26 utilizing the lower minima in fog on that runway) and there’s go oning to be problems. That one will be very interesting as it’s BA’s most frequent route out of Gatwick (outside of Malaga in the summer).

I should imagine that Jersey will eventually be transferred from LGW to LHR especially once the British Airways shorthaul fleet at LGW is completely Boeing. The Airbus is more suitable for Jersey and for that reason I can see it moving from LGW to LHR at some point.

Cunard wrote:

RexBanner wrote:

Landing performance in Jersey with the Max 8 is going to be a bit of an issue. In theory it’s doable but factor in a wet runway and/or a couple of knots tailwind (ie quartering tailwind across 26 utilizing the lower minima in fog on that runway) and there’s go oning to be problems. That one will be very interesting as it’s BA’s most frequent route out of Gatwick (outside of Malaga in the summer).

I should imagine that Jersey will eventually be transferred from LGW to LHR especially once the British Airways shorthaul fleet at LGW is completely Boeing. The Airbus is more suitable for Jersey and for that reason I can see it moving from LGW to LHR at some point.

I think that's unlikely until a 3rd runway at LHR opens. It's a slot issue. A 737 Max can cope with Jersey just fine to and from LGW on a 30 minute sector. The 737-400s had steel brakes rather than carbon ones and it was never an issue stopping it. It was tight on a wet runway with little headwind, but no real issue. Takeoff performance was usually with a hefty de-rate too.

I think it'd be a perfect swap to coincide with a 3rd runway but until then 5 slot pairs for Jersey are better used by 787s, A350s and 77Ws etc on longhaul.

jfk777 wrote:

Willie Walsh is hedging his airplane portfolio recently, except for the 787 fleet at BA, every new plane at BA, Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus has been an Airbus. Iberia and Aer Lingus are Airbus exclusive airlines for both short & long haul with the exception of a few 757 at the Irish airline.

You appear to have forgotten BA's 779s.

Wow.... 7 pages of anti Boeing rhetoric, in the main. Airlines don’t just sign LOI for nothing. It must have met a requirement on price, use, cost and mission for it to get to this stage. IAG explained where the aircraft was going to be used when and if the order is firmed then they will be operating where they need them, not where a.net believes they can and can’t. I feel sure they done some analysis on the type. Really can’t imagine them just turning up on Boeing’s door and signing a form of contract and then say we don’t where we are going to use them or on what missions, but we got them cheap and we will worry about that later.
Whatever, it is a good sign that at least one group see the potential in the MAX which will probably be renamed by the time deliveries begin and come on, both manufacturers need a shot in the arm this year, so this is Boeing’s and fair plays to them. Even if they don’t take all on the LOI at first it has still helped them out of a pit and given a good news feel. I think we may be all surprised of the amount IAG may actually take and this could be the start and don’t think this will be the last major European order for the type I am sorry to say for all the haters.

N1KE wrote:

...
Airlines don’t just sign LOI for nothing. It must have met a requirement on price, use, cost and mission for it to get to this stage. IAG explained where the aircraft was going to be used when and if the order is firmed then they will be operating where they need them, not where a.net believes they can and can’t. I feel sure they done some analysis on the type. Really can’t imagine them just turning up on Boeing’s door and signing a form of contract and then say we don’t where we are going to use them or on what missions, but we got them cheap and we will worry about that later.
...

Yes. They have in hands in depth analysis of A320neo and A321neo because they already had an order on those. They just need to obtain the analysis for 737 MAX.

I guess that's what they did without re-doing everything on A320neo and A321neo. It looks like they have been pleased by what 737 MAX offers and fits the expected operation where they want to operate the aircraft.

Case closed.

VV wrote:

N1KE wrote:

...

...
containers closed.

Fixed that for you

musman9853 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Not sure which shares you're talking about; but Airbus is slightly up right now, so I guess investors are not too worried about losing this potential order...

IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.

As it's turning out there wasn't a competitive process involved in the planned order, then it is unsurprising that a lot of investors and traders are bearish on IAG.

But that being said, I'm hearing a lot of views that this isn't a real order to be taken seriously at this point, and that the competitive process with Airbus hasn't yet begun. If so, interesting positioning by IAG - it puts them in a very strong negotiating position. 'Beat these terms or we'll convert the LOI'.

sorry, what are you talking about? IAG stock is up a few percent since the beginning of PAS

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

PlymSpotter wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.

As it's turning out there wasn't a competitive process involved in the planned order, then it is unsurprising that a lot of investors and traders are bearish on IAG.

But that being said, I'm hearing a lot of views that this isn't a real order to be taken seriously at this point, and that the competitive process with Airbus hasn't yet begun. If so, interesting positioning by IAG - it puts them in a very strong negotiating position. 'Beat these terms or we'll convert the LOI'.

sorry, what are you talking about? IAG stock is up a few percent since the beginning of PAS

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

The sudden drop in share price is less about the MAX, but more a function of the markets displeasure with surprises. I think the share price performance would have been similar if IAG ordered 200 A220s.

And I bet that Airbus went public to let know the IAG shareholders and make them think.

sxf24 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

sorry, what are you talking about? IAG stock is up a few percent since the beginning of PAS

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

The sudden drop in share price is less about the MAX, but more a function of the markets displeasure with surprises. I think the share price performance would have been similar if IAG ordered 200 A220s.

The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

bgm wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

The sudden drop in share price is less about the MAX, but more a function of the markets displeasure with surprises. I think the share price performance would have been similar if IAG ordered 200 A220s.

The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

@ bgm - exactly, this order caused nerves.

Markets encounter surprises every day, however they can be categorised into positive and negative. Typically traders react bullishly or bearishly, depending on the categorisation.

bgm wrote:

[


The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

You forgot to use the term IMO - because that's all it is. When the share price recovered almost immediately, it showed the initial reaction was kneejerk, and your opinion was wrong -- of course IMO.

PlymSpotter wrote:

@ bgm - exactly, this order caused nerves.

Markets encounter surprises every day, however they can be categorised into positive and negative. Typically traders react bullishly or bearishly, depending on the categorisation.

Which amounts to: not much.

Get back to us when we see institutional investors start circulating a motion to oust the IAG board.

Till then, just another day in the stock market.

bob75013 wrote:

bgm wrote:

[


The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

You forgot to use the term IMO - because that's all it is. When the share price recovered almost immediately, it showed the initial reaction was kneejerk, and your opinion was wrong -- of course IMO.

What are you disagreeing with?

- you say it’s my opinion that the A220 hasn’t had 2 fatal crashes?

- you says that it’s my opinion that 2 fatal crashes of the 737 MAX within months of each other for a new type is not a stellar safety record?

Maybe in the US because you’re so blinded by your loyalty to Boeing, you’re viewing the Max as a much better plane that it actually is. Outside of the US, people view the MAX with a much more critical eye.

“IMO”

Revelation wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

@ bgm - exactly, this order caused nerves.

Markets encounter surprises every day, however they can be categorised into positive and negative. Typically traders react bullishly or bearishly, depending on the categorisation.

Which amounts to: not much.

Get back to us when we see institutional investors start circulating a motion to oust the IAG board.

Till then, just another day in the stock market.

Actually I would disagree.

It is significant for two reasons. Firstly, you have a significant negative reaction to the order (well, LoI) but, secondly and actually more importantly, there was no lasting damage to the share price, which rallied within a few days. Other airlines looking at MAX orders will have been analysing this closely.

bgm wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

bgm wrote:

[


The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

You forgot to use the term IMO - because that's all it is. When the share price recovered almost immediately, it showed the initial reaction was kneejerk, and your opinion was wrong -- of course IMO.

What are you disagreeing with?

- you say it’s my opinion that the A220 hasn’t had 2 fatal crashes?

- you says that it’s my opinion that 2 fatal crashes of the 737 MAX within months of each other for a new type is not a stellar safety record?

Maybe in the US because you’re so blinded by your loyalty to Boeing, you’re viewing the Max as a much better plane that it actually is. Outside of the US, people view the MAX with a much more critical eye.

“IMO”

So you want to play games? You know what I meant. The fact that share price recovered almost immediately means your statement that "The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record " is clearly wrong.

If share price had opened down on the news and either stayed down or kept going down, then something meangful could be inferred.

THAT did not happen. Sorry to burst your baloon.

Don't ever pay even the slighest attention to what 'the market' does; it's a bunch of coke-fuelled hysterical chickens moving numbers from one column to another, motivated by nothing else than lining their own pockets. They're always reactionary and are eventually proven wrong about as often as they're proven right. Glorified guesswork, in other words, and usually not even that educated to begin with.

bgm wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

The sudden drop in share price is less about the MAX, but more a function of the markets displeasure with surprises. I think the share price performance would have been similar if IAG ordered 200 A220s.

The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

There are little to no concerns in the finance community about the future of the MAX. Everyone I’ve spoken with - and it’s a lot of people - know the MAX will return to service with the necessary changes. Boeing will certainly suffer financial harm and that is to the benefit of opportunistic buyers like IAG.

What makes shareholders (owners) nervous is a 200 aircraft order without any foresight. It is clear that IAG sufficiently assuaged any concerns.

PlymSpotter wrote:

It is significant for two reasons. Firstly, you have a significant negative reaction to the order (well, LoI) but, secondly and actually more importantly, there was no lasting damage to the share price, which rallied within a few days. Other airlines looking at MAX orders will have been analysing this closely.

And what they will see is IAG got a cracking deal on 737s, so good that WW moved forward without telegraphing the move despite the perceived risks, and once the market digested it they're back on board. They even got a nice opportunity to buy in at a lower price if they were looking to do so. In other words, another day in the office.

BA777FO wrote:

Cunard wrote:

RexBanner wrote:

Landing performance in Jersey with the Max 8 is going to be a bit of an issue. In theory it’s doable but factor in a wet runway and/or a couple of knots tailwind (ie quartering tailwind across 26 utilizing the lower minima in fog on that runway) and there’s go oning to be problems. That one will be very interesting as it’s BA’s most frequent route out of Gatwick (outside of Malaga in the summer).

I should imagine that Jersey will eventually be transferred from LGW to LHR especially once the British Airways shorthaul fleet at LGW is completely Boeing. The Airbus is more suitable for Jersey and for that reason I can see it moving from LGW to LHR at some point.

I think that's unlikely until a 3rd runway at LHR opens. It's a slot issue. A 737 Max can cope with Jersey just fine to and from LGW on a 30 minute sector. The 737-400s had steel brakes rather than carbon ones and it was never an issue stopping it. It was tight on a wet runway with little headwind, but no real issue. Takeoff performance was usually with a hefty de-rate too.

I think it'd be a perfect swap to coincide with a 3rd runway but until then 5 slot pairs for Jersey are better used by 787s, A350s and 77Ws etc on longhaul.

JER had a 737 MAX service direct to Tenerife this winter for sun lovers - which is a lot further away than LGW:

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019 ... e-service/

The MAX would be lightly loaded on arrival from LGW although with enough fuel to hold and possibly return to LGW when low visibility requires that - not infrequent regrettably.

I agree re LHR. BA's LHR - JER flying ended about 20 years ago due to more profit potential from their limited slot availability at LHR.

Didn’t ba get it’s airbuses a320s cheap away back when airbus were struggling by putting in a large order ? I’m sure this is just the same . Maybe a warning shot to airbus to keep future a320 series competitive priced

f4f3a wrote:

Didn’t ba get it’s airbuses a320s cheap away back when airbus were struggling by putting in a large order ? I’m sure this is just the same . Maybe a warning shot to airbus to keep future a320 series competitive priced

Don't forget that back in the day BA was also 'humorously' known as Boeing Airways as they had never ordered any Airbus aircraft [they did inherit some British Caledonian A320s) and the order for the A320 family instead of more 737s was a real shock - so really the pendulum has for now just swung the other way and goes to show that things do change, sometimes against all the odds and so we are 'reeling' from the shock that commercial considerations at IAG can outweigh brand loyalty.

bgm wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Why don't you review IAG's share price. I don't really feel there is anything else I can add to make it more obvious, other than what I've already said:

'IAG's shares dropped quite substantially after the LOI was announced. They have since recovered, but it is a sign that the markets were not bullish on the news.'

The sudden drop in share price is less about the MAX, but more a function of the markets displeasure with surprises. I think the share price performance would have been similar if IAG ordered 200 A220s.

The A220 hasn't had 2 fatal crashes within months of each other with hundreds of lives lost, nor has it been grounded for months. The markets are jittery because IAG ordered a flawed airplane which a less than stellar safety record.

You speak with such authority. Lol, no.

Congratulations to Boeing and IAG. This was a big order. I’ve seen a lot of comments regarding this order and potential purchase of Norwegian. With this order they can grow on their own without Norwegian. For me with this order it seems less likely that they’ll buy them because they will get the hardware in the same timeframe.

Can we seriously do something about this AvB flamewar over here?

I was reading through the LOI thread and most of the discussion became A vs. B, I'm opening this thread to hear thoughts on whether there is a chance for IB to get some of the 73M's if the LOI becomes an actual order.

Since IB have not operated a Boeing in years and they have A32N's on order - last I recall were wet-leased 744's they flew to Canaries around the mid 2000's - I find quite odd for them to get 73M's. Another fact is that none of the major european carriers (considering AF and KL different brands) operate a mix A/B short-haul fleet.

If IAG is really getting a bargain from Boeing it might be a business case to operate a mixed short-haul fleet? The incremental cost to transition from an A or B only fleet to a mix one is outweighed by a discounted price of replacement frames?

Willie Walsh was quoted at the Paris Air Show saying that they would likely go to Level, Vueling and BA (LGW).

Simple answer: no. Fleet is not large enough at either EI or IB to support the 737 subfleet. Aribus commonality, both LH and SH for these carriers plays a huge role.

-LEVEL (SH) is now tiny enough with just AMS and VIE to play any significant role on fleet commonality. I guess it's the easiest one.
-Vueling could change to an all-737 fleet if the price has been that kind of a bargain. But remember Vueling (at least during the Cruz era) was not really able to cope with any kind of complexity. Let's see how they manage a fleet swap that big.
-BA LGW is quite different as crew are under different conditions.

And the BA LGW part makes me think about IB Express. When the so-called new low-cost carrier was created, unions sued. And they kinda won. Since then IB Mainline and Express run a mixed common seniority list for crew.
Should IBx change its fleet to the 737 (the "excuse" for IAG would be LCC fleet alignment within the group) then crew crossfleeting would be really hard to implement with the A320series on mainline and 737 for Express.

upperdeckfan wrote:

Since IB have not operated a Boeing in years and they have A32N's on order - last I recall were wet-leased 744's they flew to Canaries around the mid 2000's - I find quite odd for them to get 73M's. Another fact is that none of the major european carriers (considering AF and KL different brands) operate a mix A/B short-haul fleet.

They still "operated" Boeing after the 747-400 retirement. The BCN-MAD shuttle service was 757-heavy during the 2000s. The last 5 757-200 on IB fleet were transfered to a 3rd party and kept flying under IB colours for a while.

My conclusion: a strategic decision to diversify linked to a one-time opportunity for cheap early deliveries:

“During a webcasted panel session at the ACI Europe annual congress in the Cypriot city of Limassol on 26 June, Walsh noted that there had been ‘concern’ within the airline group for some time that it was becoming too reliant on the European airframer,” reported Flight Global, who went on to attribute Walsh saying that it was “Unhealthy” to rely only on one manufacturer.

https://simpleflying.com/iag-airbus-captivity/

lightsaber wrote:

So much angst over one order. I do not understand. Boeing's engineers are capable. Deals happen. It is an obvious win for both sides.

Shrewfly wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

In reality, no ordinary passengers will pay attention to whether they are flying 737 Max months after the grounding is lifted.
AND, BA can always choose not to the model operating the flight on the website if they want (and if the MAX really hurting the booking numbers).

I wouldnt be so sure
There were people actively avoiding DC10s at one point, and in this day of instant communication and mass media, people have easy access to news and are far more aware than they were back then.

There probably wont be enough pax trying to avoid the MAX to make a difference, but some will. I'd be amazed if Boeing didnt rebrand the model mind

I'm certain after return to service, the MAX branding goes away and becomes something else.

Notice no one knows the 737-8 crashed? They know the MAX crashed. A rebrand is required.

Lightsaber

You think a simple rebranding will solve this!! Really!! Another issue was identified by both FAA and Boeing, estimated return to service now extended till who's knows when! This is not a simple fix! The longer the MAX stays out of service and in the news the more harm it does to the entire 737 brand and Boeing! Thank god you're not the CEO of Boeing if you think a simple rebranding fixes everything, come to think of it... you might just fit in nicely with the top management of Boeing with your strategy...

bgm wrote:

Outside of the US, people view the MAX with a much more critical eye.

What people outside of the US? People with opinions that don't matter to anyone except themselves?

Mr. Romero and Mr. Walsh are both outside of the US, and they clearly don't agree with you. And unlike you, they make airplane buying decisions, so their opinions actually matter.

IPFreely wrote:

What people outside of the US?

The people that actually buy tickets that fund these airlines.

Anyway, fingers crossed it will never materialize. Thankfully it's not an order, merely a letter of intent.

IAG share argument is absolutely stupid. IAG share price has been on a downward trejectory for nearly one year. Any aircraft order probably negatively impacted share price due to increased debt or increased capacity growth during a global economic slowdown rather than the aircraft type. This should go under the classification of Boeing derangement syndrome, which affects foreigners as much as fawning over Boeing affects some Americans.

bgm wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

What people outside of the US?

The people that actually buy tickets that fund these airlines.

Anyway, fingers crossed it will never materialize. Thankfully it's not an order, merely a letter of intent.

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Bobloblaw wrote:

bgm wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

What people outside of the US?

The people that actually buy tickets that fund these airlines.

Anyway, fingers crossed it will never materialize. Thankfully it's not an order, merely a letter of intent.

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Given the seemingly endless issues this plane is riddled with, and more being discovered by the day, no, I hope they do not take delivery of these aircraft.

bgm wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

bgm wrote:

The people that actually buy tickets that fund these airlines.

Anyway, fingers crossed it will never materialize. Thankfully it's not an order, merely a letter of intent.

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Given the seemingly endless issues this plane is riddled with, and more being discovered by the day, no, I hope they do not take delivery of these aircraft.

It’s not endless issues and the plane isnt riddled. It one big issue that’s ongoing in one area.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

My conclusion: a strategic decision to diversify linked to a one-time opportunity for cheap early deliveries:

“During a webcasted panel session at the ACI Europe annual congress in the Cypriot city of Limassol on 26 June, Walsh noted that there had been ‘concern’ within the airline group for some time that it was becoming too reliant on the European airframer,” reported Flight Global, who went on to attribute Walsh saying that it was “Unhealthy” to rely only on one manufacturer.

https://simpleflying.com/iag-airbus-captivity/

A slightly odd argument to me. BA for example is hardly over reliant on Airbus with its large fleet of mainly Boeing widebodies.

I've no problem with IAG buying the MAX if they got a great price and it suits their needs, but the logic of Walsh's argument almost suggests they would buy a plane, even if it was inferior or more expensive JUST to diversify their fleet.

Bobloblaw wrote:

bgm wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Given the seemingly endless issues this plane is riddled with, and more being discovered by the day, no, I hope they do not take delivery of these aircraft.

It’s not endless issues and the plane isnt riddled. It one big issue that’s ongoing in one area.

It's not that far off.

The plane design flawed.
The software (to restore the flawed plane design) is flawed, something if ongoing and expanding.
The certification is flawed.
The outsourcing is flawed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers

IMHO this program doesn't deserve recertification.

Bobloblaw wrote:

bgm wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Given the seemingly endless issues this plane is riddled with, and more being discovered by the day, no, I hope they do not take delivery of these aircraft.

It’s not endless issues and the plane isnt riddled. It one big issue that’s ongoing in one area.

If they had a lot of faith in the thing right now they would’ve ordered it, but as it stands it has more than one big issue. It has the MCAS software issue, it has the FCC microprocessor issue (scarier imo), some of them have slat issues, it may have an issue with the hand operation of the trim wheel, and like we said before when they only discovered the first problem, who knows what else is wrong with the thing. I don’t know about IAG but I wouldn’t buy aircraft from a company that makes a product like that, claims it’s safe even though it kills nearly 350 people and also gets caught falsifying documents and doing just about everything else wrong too.

bgm wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

What people outside of the US?

The people that actually buy tickets that fund these airlines.

Anyway, fingers crossed it will never materialize. Thankfully it's not an order, merely a letter of intent.

Given that you offer no evidence, I reject your claim that people won't fly the 737Max. I believe you may not fly it, as you apparently have some bizarre and inexplicable love and hate relationships with corporations that manufacture and buy airplanes, even though you have no relationship with these corporations. But that's not the norm. The norm is that most air travelers can't even identify the type of aircraft before, during, or after they fly, and even if they can, they don't care.

You go back to crossing your fingers that the LOI doesn't turn into an order. Someday, hopefully, you'll find more important things to cross your fingers about.

I think we are getting off topic by spending too much time talking about the cert issues . There’s already a thread for that . If it doesn’t fly again ba will get a good deal on what replaces it anyway . They are in no hurry to get these planes . At the end of the day they are prob going to reap rewards of a cheap deal while others may have paid top dollar for airbuses . It will also get airbus being a bit leaner on pricing in the future

nickllhill wrote:

VV wrote:

nickllhill wrote:

Am I being silly in thinking.. These can’t go to BA at Heathrow as they can’t take containers?

Why are people so obsessed by containers on single aisle aircraft. Get over it.
Does Ryanair have issues with containers?

Do you know how expensive it is to carry a lot of baggage in Europe?

Damn! Please stop this madness about containers on short haul flights in Europe.

I agree with you, my only point is I heard BA were set on this, even going on to sell some non compatible BMI A320s

I guess the big shock (for me at least) that they have opted for this then dropping containers is hardly a stretch.

so? They have baggage carts and tugs don't they? and rather than One Baggage loader they might need 2 per pit? If they install the articulating Pit (we call the magic carpet) they can load more and faster. this isn't rocket science. The difference is, the cargo door opens inward on a 737 and outward on an Airbus. On the 737 replacement? It'll open outwards so they can load "cans" ..








/

BA never placed a LOI and didn't take the order. This isn't Lion Air or Emirates! Expect every one of them to be delivered!

MrHMSH wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Since the order isn't firm, not quite.

Not all LOIs turn into orders. (See indecisive ME3 carriers, or carriers gated by their respective governments.) But if you think an LOI of this size from BA isn't going to turn into a firm order your capacity for denial is extraordinary.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'm not in denial, the order isn't firm and the planes haven't been delivered yet. Until we're nearer the time they'll be assembled/delivered it's still just a possibility.

Bobloblaw wrote:

bgm wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

So you’re hoping IAG never takes delivery of these aircraft?

Given the seemingly endless issues this plane is riddled with, and more being discovered by the day, no, I hope they do not take delivery of these aircraft.

It’s not endless issues and the plane isnt riddled. It one big issue that’s ongoing in one area.

It’s almost over a year already, with many predictions by Boeing of the plane flying again having passed. That’s pretty ‘endless’ figuratively speaking. Also ‘designed by clowns’ by some of Boeing’s people own admission points to far more issues than one.

^^ and with Willie Walsh going out (the MAX LOI was his idea after all), perhaps IAG will let the LOI lapse.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

^^ and with Willie Walsh going out (the MAX LOI was his idea after all), perhaps BA will let the LOI lapse.

There are a chance for that or at least most of this order never materialize

PepeTheFrog wrote:

^^ and with Willie Walsh going out (the MAX LOI was his idea after all), perhaps IAG will let the LOI lapse.

I thought it was Steve Gunning's idea.