FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Akbar today also said the 777X will be 18-20% more efficient than the current 777. Whilst saying he will again of course take them once they are ready. Again I’m just putting this out there. It could just be marketing fluff. But for someone like him not to complain the way Clark is complaining it’s interesting that’s all. And we all know AAB can kick a fuss.

Can you please tell me what he meant exactly?

20% on the same trip? 20% per seat? What is the reference stage length? Depending on what this number is based on it could be really mediocre (almost below expectations) to good. Also current 777, in his fleet or compared to the last of the line, or compared to the first 77W (the current one) that came off the line?

I won’t read much into it but he said 18-20% more efficient than their 777s in his fleet. Not much else but he just said it.

Also thing is general maybe fuel burn might be where they want but as smartplane pointed out there’s much more than that. There’s performance wear, how does performance change with more usage? Etc. Which really affects costs. Also high and hot performance. This is the data he says Emirates will have not seen so. I don’t know

Revelation wrote:

retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. .

If Boeing would ever do that, the rest of the industry will be watching, discussing. The perception would be that if you order Boeing aircraft you have to take them, despite delays, quality problems, changing market conditions. Or you will face retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. Good to know during negotiations for 737's, 787, or 777x's vs A320, A330 or A350s. Only a kind of monopolist can do that. It's been some time since Boeing was in that position.

Revelation wrote:

Not really. If EK ends up "abandoning their 777-8 /777-9 order" there will be retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. That's "highly unlikely", IMO. If EK ends up not wanting the product and there's no room left for deferral it'll be a lot like we saw with the A380 end game, some orders will be transferred to other products, compromises will be made.

Really, Boeing retaliates because an airline cancels an order that is scheduled to be 5 years late being delivered and may not meet specs even after being 5 years late? They'd be laughing stock who are just putting their lack of performance and execution on display.

Any attempt at blacklisting is going to result in billion dollar lawsuits.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

The 777X program is dead without Emirates. They account for more than one third of the order book and there may be airlines that wont be good for the frames they have on order. One is Etihad.

That's about as helpful as pointing out EK is dead if Boeing stops supporting EK's 77Ws, won't deliver any of their 787s and blacklists any vendor helping EK, neither is going to happen.

Boeing is in the business of selling planes and providing support for plane sold.

What message are they going to be sending to clients present and future if they did all of that?

What kind of message would EK be sending in the very unlikely event they abandon their order as many here casually suggest? That'd be tantamount to corporate suicide. Airbus has frozen out Ryanair merely due to aggressive negotiating. Stiffing a vendor with a multi-billion dollar order would come with major consequences. It's just not going to go down that way, IMO. A negotiated settlement would happen just like when EK found a way to not take 39 A380s it had on order by taking other Airbus products.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. .

If Boeing would ever do that, the rest of the industry will be watching, discussing. The perception would be that if you order Boeing aircraft you have to take them, despite delays, quality problems, changing market conditions. Or you will face retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. Good to know during negotiations for 737's, 787, or 777x's vs A320, A330 or A350s. Only a kind of monopolist can do that. It's been some time since Boeing was in that position.

Textbook ]selective editing: just remove the part where you postulate EK abandoning their order then start discussing the rest without the burden of tying cause to effect.

BoeingVista wrote:

Really, Boeing retaliates because an airline cancels an order that is scheduled to be 5 years late being delivered and may not meet specs even after being 5 years late? They'd be laughing stock who are just putting their lack of performance and execution on display.
Any attempt at blacklisting is going to result in billion dollar lawsuits.

I guess Airbus should be prepared for Ryanair's solicitors then?

Of course, and I've already said it, EK abandoning a multi-billion dollar order will result in multi-billion dollar law suits and other things such as Boeing not running to pick up the phone when one of their planes needs service. Cause, meet effect.

Sokes wrote:

"In the allegory, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

I didn't understand this when I first read it. Now I do.

Revelation wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's about as helpful as pointing out EK is dead if Boeing stops supporting EK's 77Ws, won't deliver any of their 787s and blacklists any vendor helping EK, neither is going to happen.

Boeing is in the business of selling planes and providing support for plane sold.

What message are they going to be sending to clients present and future if they did all of that?

What kind of message would EK be sending in the very unlikely event they abandon their order as many here casually suggest? That'd be tantamount to corporate suicide. Airbus has frozen out Ryanair merely due to aggressive negotiating..

If that was true Ryanair would have committed corporate suicide, and Boeing would pay for a clean sheet program by cleaning them out, being the only possible source for new aircraft for them.
If Ryanair ever seriously considered switching the OEM, Airbus would happily sell to them. They would just never get a price on a phone, e-mail or any document before sitting down to put ink on the contract, and have to nail that down in face to face discussions.

Airbus doesn´t have much in the way of lasting hard feelings over cancelling what.... 127 Airbus WB Aircraft with some 40-ish billion list price?

best regards
Thomas

Isn't the B777-300ER running into tyre speed limits when it's very hot?
Emirates isn't going to cancel their -9X.

Revelation wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's about as helpful as pointing out EK is dead if Boeing stops supporting EK's 77Ws, won't deliver any of their 787s and blacklists any vendor helping EK, neither is going to happen.

Boeing is in the business of selling planes and providing support for plane sold.

What message are they going to be sending to clients present and future if they did all of that?

What kind of message would EK be sending in the very unlikely event they abandon their order as many here casually suggest? That'd be tantamount to corporate suicide. Airbus has frozen out Ryanair merely due to aggressive negotiating. Stiffing a vendor with a multi-billion dollar order would come with major consequences. It's just not going to go down that way, IMO. A negotiated settlement would happen just like when EK found a way to not take 39 A380s it had on order by taking other Airbus products.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. .

If Boeing would ever do that, the rest of the industry will be watching, discussing. The perception would be that if you order Boeing aircraft you have to take them, despite delays, quality problems, changing market conditions. Or you will face retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. Good to know during negotiations for 737's, 787, or 777x's vs A320, A330 or A350s. Only a kind of monopolist can do that. It's been some time since Boeing was in that position.

Textbook ]selective editing: just remove the part where you postulate EK abandoning their order then start discussing the rest without the burden of tying cause to effect.

BoeingVista wrote:

Really, Boeing retaliates because an airline cancels an order that is scheduled to be 5 years late being delivered and may not meet specs even after being 5 years late? They'd be laughing stock who are just putting their lack of performance and execution on display.
Any attempt at blacklisting is going to result in billion dollar lawsuits.

I guess Airbus should be prepared for Ryanair's solicitors then?

Of course, and I've already said it, EK abandoning a multi-billion dollar order will result in multi-billion dollar law suits and other things such as Boeing not running to pick up the phone when one of their planes needs service. Cause, meet effect.

Sokes wrote:

"In the allegory, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

I didn't understand this when I first read it. Now I do.

If Emirates cancels the 115 777-9 without cause, Boeing can sue Emirates according to the conditions of the order. IMO the usual would be that Boeing gets to keep initial payments and progress payments, with Emirates having to pay progress payments being due. If Emirates cancels for cause, it can happen that Boeing would have to repay initial payments and progress payments.

If Boeing would than try to retaliate in regards to service of older frames sold to Emirates or something similar, Boeing would be seriously smacked down in court. I would even assume that such a move would sour Boeing's relation with the whole industry. Who would trust Boeing ever again?

Boeing would NOT go this route. This thinking of retaliation (not yours) is fanboyism.
If the 777X orders should be cancelled for any reason Boeing would try to move them to other products like 787 or MAXes and such. Or NMA? The customer on the other hand would NOT throw away his investments and advance payments and would NOT burn bridges with a big manufacturer.
Whatever is going on they will try to come together and settle things peacefully. This is too expensive for mudfights.

mjoelnir wrote:

If Emirates cancels the 115 777-9 without cause, Boeing can sue Emirates according to the conditions of the order. IMO the usual would be that Boeing gets to keep initial payments and progress payments, with Emirates having to pay progress payments being due. If Emirates cancels for cause, it can happen that Boeing would have to repay initial payments and progress payments.

If it isn't clear enough by now, my point is that is a big if.

Keep watching the dancing shadows on the wall of the cave, they are mesmerizing.

Not my analogy, but IMO an appropriate one.

Noshow wrote:

Whatever is going on they will try to come together and settle things peacefully. This is too expensive for mudfights.

My point is, regardless of whether some want to see it or not, both sides have some mud to fling if it comes to that, but it won't.

Revelation wrote:

I guess Airbus should be prepared for Ryanair's solicitors then?

I assume you are talking about Airbus refusing to deal with O'Leary, nothing says one company has to sell to another company so totally different. You don't seem to be getting this

Revelation wrote:

Of course, and I've already said it, EK abandoning a multi-billion dollar order will result in multi-billion dollar law suits and other things such as Boeing not running to pick up the phone when one of their planes needs service. Cause, meet effect.

Nope you are not getting this. Boeing is in clear breech for non delivery. Sure, they can 'reset' this through compensation but Emirates has to be willing to accept the cash and roll over dates otherwise Boeing will remain in breach and the contract can be voided, maybe they want more money maybe they want out of the contract, time will tell. And you suggest Boeings response to this should be to further destroy their revenue steam by refusing to service Emirates planes? Crazy talk.

BoeingVista wrote:

Nope you are not getting this. Boeing is in clear breech for non delivery.

Really? Prove it by showing me a copy of the current contract showing me the clauses on delivery dates and how lateness does or does not breech the contract.

Note there has been at least one re-negotiation of the original contract and that happened after the GE "durability issue" and the 149% wing load test were known issues.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing would NOT go this route. This thinking of retaliation (not yours) is fanboyism.
If the 777X orders should be cancelled for any reason Boeing would try to move them to other products like 787

If you search 6-8 year old threads, all these options were discussed.
I have been posting for 8 years, not to trust STC and spend money on 777X.

That would be a win-win deal.

Boeing need not spend $10 Billion on 777-9X program, $2 Billion out of pocket if stars are aligned.
Washington State keeps jobs without giving $8 Billion incentives to Boeing.
EK gets a hot and heavy performance it demands easily with a 748i than 777X.

Boeing can offer up to $20/Million discount on each B748i. Just pass on $2B savings from shutting down 777x program.

Emirates will be happy with such discount, Boeing engineers can work on next real thing

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=584225&p=8939673&hilit=777x&sid=cc32d0558b3fd1a414c32c6689c1ccfe#p8939673

Quoting boefan (Reply 61):
After that Boeing files for bankruptcy

Actually 777X program can push Boeing to the brink. Making more copies of B748 even with small margin is not going to do any harm.

Consider a "hypothetical" scenario where EK cancels B777X order. $10 Billion is down the drain. 250-300 copies may bring the program cost down to $2-$3 Billion (considering all incentives and write offs)

Boeing sales team should have convinced TC to order 150xB748i even with deeper discounts. Now burden is on 777X program to design a bird with EK's hot/humid/heavy specs.

Finally, One NB (737) cannot feed a family of so many slackers forever.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=581525&p=8838713&hilit=777x&sid=cc32d0558b3fd1a414c32c6689c1ccfe#p8838969

Is there a possibility EK can go to just one model, ie., B748i replacing both 777X and A380 orders?

Primary assumption B gives deep discounts to offset fuel costs.

Boeing can
Shutdown 777X program, offer savings to customers as discounts on 748I/Classic 777/787.
Work on next gen planes. Does VLA has a place in B's strategic plan?, no one knows.


For EK
Single model has its advantages.
No need to wait for airport upgrades. Always a sticking point.

I am sure there are lot of holes in this theory.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=572805&p=8545037&hilit=777x&sid=cc32d0558b3fd1a414c32c6689c1ccfe#p8545037

Actually on pure financial terms it is a good thing if B777X program goes away. Boeing has to spend $10 Billion, Washington state has to incentivize $8 Billion over 10 year to bring program net cost down to $2 Billion for may be 300 frames.

Three big assumptions 1)Program goes on schedule and 2) B777X performs according to EK's specs and 3) No cancellations.

Looking at Boeing's recent sales pitch for 100 x B748Is to EK owners and rumored 2% efficiency on B77W, together suggests Boeing may be having second thoughts about B777X.

Even if Boeing sells each B748 at $80 Million ($20 Million discount) which is hard to reject, safe bet for Boeing than sinking $10 Billion in to B777X.

VLA market itself is over hyped. B737s bring $2.5 Trillion and all Boeing VLAs together $240 Billion. VLA is like a high-maintenance hot date gives severe headaches.

If ME3 cancels there are always countries in Asia who can buy 10x77Ws or B788s each. There is always EXIM and other financial aids to push those deal.

Also we can label any CAA as bad kitty putting an end to expansion.

Bottomline, don't pick a fight with US.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=584567&p=8956637&hilit=777x&sid=cc32d0558b3fd1a414c32c6689c1ccfe#p8956637

BoeingVista wrote:

Boeing is in clear breech for non delivery. Sure, they can 'reset' this through compensation but Emirates has to be willing to accept the cash and roll over dates otherwise Boeing will remain in breach and the contract can be voided, maybe they want more money maybe they want out of the contract, time will tell.

What does Emirates need the -9X for? Africa, Europe and Asia can also be done with -300ER. For the US and Australia the -9X is needed.
If lessors can really not place their returned -300ERs Emirates taking only a few -9X and leasing old -300ERs instead may fix the second hand market for widebodies.
Funny, just a few posts back I argued the opposite. But your reasoning makes sense.

Why are you so harsh to Revelation? He is one of our key contributors here. Assuming he is wrong this time doesn't make him crazy.

xwb777 wrote:

In a pre-recorded online interview with John Strickland at the Arabian Travel Market trade show in Dubai, Sir Tim Clark has warned Boeing that Emirates will refuse and not accept any B7779 if Boeing does not meet its contractual commitments.

Emirates was supposed to receive the first example last July, and now doubts that the first delivery will be in 2024 although boeing has told them that it will be late 2023.

The delay for Emirates means that the airline has no current and solid visibility on how it will replace the current B777-300ER fleet.

Clark has also criticized Boeing on overpromising and not getting it right with the B737MAX and B777X

Does he mean by refusing delivery that he will be switching the entire B779 order to the B787 or ordering from Airbus?


Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-05-24/

In the attached video, TC seems dissatisfied with the way BCA is going forward with the 777X program, i.e. dissatisfied with corporate policy/practise. He does not say anything unequivocal about the plane itself. One could rephrase: ”Sir Tim Clark not happy with BCA and GE not disclosing data.”

EK is the 779. They will not cancel in significant numbers.

Granted, the article could be rewritten the following way: ”Outgoing EK CEO admits that their order of 126 777X wide-body airliners is a liability in the current volatile market. According to Clark, tying this amount of capital to potentially unneeded planes is, at this stage of the pandemic, unwise. EK pursues any plausible excuse to be able to renegotiate the order, or to amend it to comprise in part of the smaller 787 Dreamliner. By doing this, EK would receive jets more suitable to future thin(ner) routes.”

Replacing A PART of the order with 787s is probably the worst case scenario for BCA and, according to this thread itself, not too likely.

Split issue:
1. Does EK want to cancel their 777X order. And can they?
2. Will enough orders be left to keep the program going? Or does maybe Boeing itself want to close or delay it?

Noshow wrote:

Split issue:
1. Does EK want to cancel their 777X order. And can they?
2. Will enough orders be left to keep the program going? Or does maybe Boeing itself want to close or delay it?

Short answers:
1. Yes. No.
2. Yes. Delay, yes. But only, because their customers are not well off due to the pandemic.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If Emirates cancels the 115 777-9 without cause, Boeing can sue Emirates according to the conditions of the order. IMO the usual would be that Boeing gets to keep initial payments and progress payments, with Emirates having to pay progress payments being due. If Emirates cancels for cause, it can happen that Boeing would have to repay initial payments and progress payments.

If it isn't clear enough by now, my point is that is a big if.

Keep watching the dancing shadows on the wall of the cave, they are mesmerizing.

Not my analogy, but IMO an appropriate one.

Noshow wrote:

Whatever is going on they will try to come together and settle things peacefully. This is too expensive for mudfights.

My point is, regardless of whether some want to see it or not, both sides have some mud to fling if it comes to that, but it won't.

So what mud has Emirates on it's fingers in the relation to Boeing? Being the biggest customer for the 777 during the years? Having ordered the 777-9 and by that lead Boing down a wrong path?
Having to accept a delivery delay that is at least 2 years up to 4 years? Having the effrontery to complain about Boeing not being upfront with the performance numbers during the test campaign with their biggest customer? Having the insolence of telling Boeing, that they will not take delivery, if the specs are not according to the contracts?
IMO I do not find any mud. Just reasonable behavior of a customer.

mjoelnir wrote:

So what mud has Emirates on it's fingers in the relation to Boeing? Being the biggest customer for the 777 during the years? Having ordered the 777-9 and by that lead Boing down a wrong path?
Having to accept a delivery delay that is at least 2 years up to 4 years? Having the effrontery to complain about Boeing not being upfront with the performance numbers during the test campaign with their biggest customer? Having the insolence of telling Boeing, that they will not take delivery, if the specs are not according to the contracts?
IMO I do not find any mud. Just reasonable behavior of a customer.

Honestly,
What would Tim do with more WBs even if Boeing delivered it in 2019?

There are 100s of WBs are parked all over the world.
International corporate travel is not coming back anytime soon.
People are trying to avoid hubs and going non-stop as much as possible to avoid additional points of COVID transmission.
No aviation financier or lessor ready to finance EK's 779 purchases.
There are still A380s and 77Ws pending SLB.

EK's fleet is slightly rationalized because of Mueller's short gig. Had it been just up to Tim, Emirates will be making payments on AOG 772s, A332s along with A380s.

Grandstanding is not legal standing.

Revelation wrote:

...
He very well could keep the Whales, abandon or defer the 777Xs, wait in the queue for a few years for the A350s and 787s to arrive while his competitors beat his backside with lower CASM and better yield due to having the right planes on the right routes.

No wonder STC needs to vent in public, he's painted himself into a corner.

He made the decision for the current fleet.
Did he make a mistake?

Revelation wrote:

What kind of message would EK be sending in the very unlikely event they abandon their order as many here casually suggest? That'd be tantamount to corporate suicide. Airbus has frozen out Ryanair merely due to aggressive negotiating. Stiffing a vendor with a multi-billion dollar order would come with major consequences. It's just not going to go down that way, IMO. A negotiated settlement would happen just like when EK found a way to not take 39 A380s it had on order by taking other Airbus products.

EK is not in the building of planes and selling them, then selling parts and service. Boeing's entire job is to build and sell planes and they are not going to burn bridges with the biggest 777 and 777X customer. This is nothing similar to Ryanair that has never flown an Airbus aircraft their entire history and is unlikely to ever do so.

It is unlikely that Emirates just dumps their order too. That would be a huge political issue too.

Ryanair does have inherited Airbus aircraft in the group.

oldJoe wrote:

Jetport wrote:

Noshow wrote:

To me it would be the wrong attitude to fight customers in any way. The customer is always right. If his needs change, make him a better offer better tailored for what he needs now. These Middle Eastern airlines are spending billions in airplanes. Calling them U-turn something or whatever is arrogant and not the way to do business. And this is certainly not the style Boeing successfully does business globally.

Still the fact that STC is publicly complaining to NOT get enough information is remarkable. Such a huge customer has permanent engineering staff at Boeing.

Timmy Clark publicly complaining is NOT remarkable. Mr. Clark is a narcissistic blowhard, he complains publicly all the time about everything.

And he is definitely not the only one. My boss always said to me explicitly: the customer is king !
I have built production facilities in many countries for more than two decades and some customers have treated me and my colleagues like dirt. We always kept a smile on our faces and at the end of the day we achieved what we wanted, the final check.

The customer is king... until he is not. I, and my past employers as well, have turned down customers that were pains in the you-know-what, so we could focus our time on customers that paid and were willing to work with us.
When your order book is full, you will drop primarily the customer that brings the lowest margin; and those are usually the ones that are real PITAs...

Remember, your customer has no obligation to use you as a vendor; the flip side of this is that, in the industrial world (dealing with the public is another level), you have no obligation to provide your services to those knocking at your door.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's about as helpful as pointing out EK is dead if Boeing stops supporting EK's 77Ws, won't deliver any of their 787s and blacklists any vendor helping EK, neither is going to happen.

That's a generalization. You are trying to use highly unlikely unrelated events to minize the perceived risk of EK abandoning their 777-8 /777-9 order.

Not really. If EK ends up "abandoning their 777-8 /777-9 order" there will be retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. That's "highly unlikely", IMO. If EK ends up not wanting the product and there's no room left for deferral it'll be a lot like we saw with the A380 end game, some orders will be transferred to other products, compromises will be made.

Withdrawal of services and/or support? That would open Boeing to a lawsuit that's lost from the beginning; and if the UAE has similar regulations than the US, Boeing withdrawing airframe support to one of their product might just prompt the UAE authorities to withdraw Airworthiness Certificate of said Boeing products (or bar them from flying into the UAE). That would be the stupidest move from Boeing, and it would cost them dearly.

BoeingVista wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Of course, and I've already said it, EK abandoning a multi-billion dollar order will result in multi-billion dollar law suits and other things such as Boeing not running to pick up the phone when one of their planes needs service. Cause, meet effect.

Nope you are not getting this. Boeing is in clear breech for non delivery. Sure, they can 'reset' this through compensation but Emirates has to be willing to accept the cash and roll over dates otherwise Boeing will remain in breach and the contract can be voided, maybe they want more money maybe they want out of the contract, time will tell. And you suggest Boeings response to this should be to further destroy their revenue steam by refusing to service Emirates planes? Crazy talk.

There have been up to three 777X contract iterations (some customers skipped the second and some the third), each with increased levels of compensation, primarily through additional retrospective credits. A fourth is currently on the table.

Billion dollar questions are:

How tolerant will Boeing be with customers wanting to reduce units acquired, while preserving compensation levels on a per unit basis?

And how much $ scope exists for yet more compensation, after three previous, on top of very generous launch pricing, which was squeezed by Airbus A380 pricing after credits?

To mitigate demands for more compensation, Boeing needs some very good performance news, supported by guarantees.

Sokes wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Boeing is in clear breech for non delivery. Sure, they can 'reset' this through compensation but Emirates has to be willing to accept the cash and roll over dates otherwise Boeing will remain in breach and the contract can be voided, maybe they want more money maybe they want out of the contract, time will tell.

What does Emirates need the -9X for? Africa, Europe and Asia can also be done with -300ER. For the US and Australia the -9X is needed.

At the time of the order, the 777-9/8 was slated to replace the entire 777 fleet at Emirates:
https://www.executivetraveller.com/emir ... 77-9x-jets

Since then plans have changed and the type would replace the oldest A380s as well, with the order downsized and the A350 and 787 supposedly replacing some of the 777-300ERs.

Noshow wrote:

Ryanair does have inherited Airbus aircraft in the group.

Ryanair DAC (the airline) only operates 737s.
Ryanair DAC is a subsidy of Ryanair Holdings plc, in the same manner than Laudamotion GmbH (Lauda), Buzz, Ryanair UK and Malta Air are; Lauda is the one operating A320s. They all have different Air Operator Certificates.

WayexTDI wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

Jetport wrote:

Timmy Clark publicly complaining is NOT remarkable. Mr. Clark is a narcissistic blowhard, he complains publicly all the time about everything.

And he is definitely not the only one. My boss always said to me explicitly: the customer is king !
I have built production facilities in many countries for more than two decades and some customers have treated me and my colleagues like dirt. We always kept a smile on our faces and at the end of the day we achieved what we wanted, the final check.

The customer is king... until he is not. I, and my past employers as well, have turned down customers that were pains in the you-know-what, so we could focus our time on customers that paid and were willing to work with us.
When your order book is full, you will drop primarily the customer that brings the lowest margin; and those are usually the ones that are real PITAs...

Remember, your customer has no obligation to use you as a vendor; the flip side of this is that, in the industrial world (dealing with the public is another level), you have no obligation to provide your services to those knocking at your door.

And what do you do if your order book is not great, as in this case if Emirates were to reduce or cancel their order?
Personally, I don't think Emirates won't get a 777X, they will, the only question is how many and when?
And at the end of the day : customer is king

willfinn wrote:

EK is the 779. They will not cancel in significant numbers.
...
Replacing A PART of the order with 787s is probably the worst case scenario for BCA and, according to this thread itself, not too likely.

I think worst case for BCA would EK ordering A350s. (like most 777x customers..)

oldJoe wrote:

Personally, I don't think Emirates won't get a 777X, they will, the only question is how many and when?

And how much they will pay.

Didn't BCA already book $6.9B charge against 777X program?

If the "biggest"(extensively repeated buzzword) single order(not customer) of 777-9 turns out to be zero, R&D is not wasted. FWT, matured FBW architecture, and any lessons learned can be used for future programs. Same goes for GE9X.

Tim can do what he does best.

keesje wrote:

willfinn wrote:

EK is the 779. They will not cancel in significant numbers.
...
Replacing A PART of the order with 787s is probably the worst case scenario for BCA and, according to this thread itself, not too likely.

I think worst case for BCA would EK ordering A350s. (like most 777x customers..)

Nowhere near, the worst case for BCA would be EK being launch customer for the A350NEO thus killing the 777-9 dead, and a 100 aircraft order would get Airbus to launch a A350 NEO program.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

That's a generalization. You are trying to use highly unlikely unrelated events to minize the perceived risk of EK abandoning their 777-8 /777-9 order.

Not really. If EK ends up "abandoning their 777-8 /777-9 order" there will be retaliation, be it law suits, withdrawal of product, withdrawal of services, withdrawal of support. That's "highly unlikely", IMO. If EK ends up not wanting the product and there's no room left for deferral it'll be a lot like we saw with the A380 end game, some orders will be transferred to other products, compromises will be made.

Withdrawal of services and/or support? That would open Boeing to a lawsuit that's lost from the beginning; and if the UAE has similar regulations than the US, Boeing withdrawing airframe support to one of their product might just prompt the UAE authorities to withdraw Airworthiness Certificate of said Boeing products (or bar them from flying into the UAE). That would be the stupidest move from Boeing, and it would cost them dearly.

Yes, Boeing withdrawing support is a truly ridiculous suggestion it would tank their business. The minimum they should expect from this would be a billion dollar lawsuit and GCAA refusing to certify the 777-X making the middle east a no go area for it.

You really do have to wonder what happened to Boeing. Their myriad of suppliers for the 787 program, their lack of quality control on the 737MAX and general problems with innovation do not bode well for them over the long term. If the 777X doesn't hit specs quickly, that will really put a damper on things. Delays from Boeing are nothing unusual, and STC really should slap himself if he thought otherwise. I still believe the failure to design more comfortable and likeable narrowbodies has tarnished their image somewhat. The 757 was a great aircraft, and the decision to end the program instead of relaunch it leaves it without an answer to the A321 beyond elongated 737s.

keesje wrote:

willfinn wrote:

EK is the 779. They will not cancel in significant numbers.
...
Replacing A PART of the order with 787s is probably the worst case scenario for BCA and, according to this thread itself, not too likely.

I think worst case for BCA would EK ordering A350s. (like most 777x customers..)

True, but IMHO cancelling the 777X order is not a realistic proposition. I should have written: ”The LIKELY worst case scenario...”. The two parties are mutually committed. Previously, EK carried Airbus’ VLA aircraft. Today, BCA is the only game in town.

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

willfinn wrote:

keesje wrote:

willfinn wrote:

EK is the 779. They will not cancel in significant numbers.
...
Replacing A PART of the order with 787s is probably the worst case scenario for BCA and, according to this thread itself, not too likely.

I think worst case for BCA would EK ordering A350s. (like most 777x customers..)

True, but IMHO cancelling the 777X order is not a realistic proposition. I should have written: ”The LIKELY worst case scenario...”. The two parties are mutually committed. Previously, EK carried Airbus’ VLA aircraft. Today, BCA is the only game in town.

As the old bacon and eggs joke goes, Boeing is committed, Emirates is in involved. An A350 stretch would work for Emirates but it currently doesn't exist, thats not to say it cannot be brought into existence and EK have shown themselves willing to change horses (orders) in mid stream before so I really don't see why people discount it as a viable proposition.

Noshow wrote:

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

I assume when they ordered they thought they get a good price for (I make that up now) 12 year old planes. However if they can't get a proper price for 12 year old -300ERs or if they can lease very cheap, that changes the calculation.

They may for example say "We still want them, but to replace 18 year old planes, not 12 year old ones. " .
I also believe Emirates wants them. For long ranges they probably want them immediately. But for below 10 hours flights?

Some program delay will be included in any customers fleet strategy. I can't imagine this to be the critical issue.
Maybe EK ran out of money. But even then they'd need passengers to bring back business and profits to Dubai so they'd need aircraft in any case.

Noshow wrote:

Some program delay will be included in any customers fleet strategy. I can't imagine this to be the critical issue.
Maybe EK ran out of money. But even then they'd need passengers to bring back business and profits to Dubai so they'd need aircraft in any case.

The order was negociated in 2013/2014 with an EIS in 2019. I suppose part of Boeing commercial speech was despite of the changes it was a trivial upgrade of the 77W.

Why would an airline already flying all previous 777 versions succesfully would inclued 5 years of delay on a five years programme for an additionnal version of the jet ?

Noshow wrote:

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

How likely is that?
We are here discussing the death of the replacement a/c that Boeing is putting out for their existing 777W which EK is using the fly to numerous destinations, do we believe that the Boeing designers did not have a specific range to accommodate their largest customer in their design calculations?

If the 777X is supposed to be an improvement on the 777W, do we take it that some things are going to be worse so "useable range" is the first candidate, I would think that would be the first candidate in the design and everything else follows after that, being 20% more fuel efficient than the 777W does not help the customer if the a/c cannot fly the airlines existing route structure being done by the a/c it is replacing.

Unfortunately we have very little information of what is taking place with the testing, recertification of any issues arising from testing and how they are progressing with the new certification requirements, most of which we still do not have details on, other than actuators, what do we know? Do we even know if analysis has already been submitted for the "blow out" repairs?
No one likes to be in the dark, need some led flashlights.

Since 2003 and the 77W introduction, Boeing Comercial Aircraft division hasn't developpe a "new plane" that earned them money on aircraft sales alone.
The 787 will, but for now it is still in the red due to the developpement cost higher than expected. But the 747-8, the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison.
The good sales in the past of both 777-300ER and 737-800 and the spare parts, service and supports of those fleets plus 787 from now on, are what is still holding BCA togethere.
The next project has to matter or it will be the last for the commercial division ...

Any updates on the matter?

A july launch date seems impossible.

mig17 wrote:

the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison. .

Even with all the extra cost, there is plenty of volume of Max to make some good money.

Best regards
Thomas

Noshow wrote:

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.

tommy1808 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison. .

Even with all the extra cost, there is plenty of volume of Max to make some good money.

Best regards
Thomas

Maybe, but still, more than 21 billion of extra costs over 4400 plane is roughly 5 million of margin gone per plane. That is 10% of the true salling price. I don't think "good money" is the term.
Yes, the MAX will make good money on spare parts, service and support.

mig17 wrote:

Since 2003 and the 77W introduction, Boeing Comercial Aircraft division hasn't developpe a "new plane" that earned them money on aircraft sales alone.
The 787 will, but for now it is still in the red due to the developpement cost higher than expected. But the 747-8, the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison.
The good sales in the past of both 777-300ER and 737-800 and the spare parts, service and supports of those fleets plus 787 from now on, are what is still holding BCA togethere.
The next project has to matter or it will be the last for the commercial division ...

In hindsight Boeing shouldn't have taken up 777X based on Tim's imaginary Noah's arc design and should have used those R&D dollars and time on something else.

Trent 972B-84 is perfect example of an attempt to cater imaginary requirements and vendor gets into trouble not meeting customer requirements, in this case wear and tear.

sxf24 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.

77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.

Just wait until he sees one of the planes completely painted.....he'll change his tune

keesje wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.

77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.

Please tell me how does EK fly DXB-LAX today?

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.

77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.

Please tell me how does EK fly DXB-LAX today?

With a seriously reduced payload and burning a lot of fuel. Or 777LR? Haven't been in LAX lately..