Tons of information & insights on Addison Schonland's AirInsight:

https://airinsight.com/notes-from-boein ... et-review/

Lots of nice Boeing slides and (IMO slightly incomplete) market projections


https://airinsight.com/notes-from-boein ... et-review/


Boeings Darren Hulst, the new Randy. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20180316008100320

I like Darren's the A321neo serves a niche comment..... this is almost as good as the A321 is just catching up to the 900...

You really do hope this is just their (very poor) external PR view. If this is truly the internal Boeing view it points that they are still stuywith their heads in the sand.

StTim wrote:

You really do hope this is just their (very poor) external PR view. If this is truly the internal Boeing view it points that they are still stuywith their heads in the sand.

He didn’t mention that it was a very large niche?

The interesting thing is that he is here…agreeing with Keesje about the smaller narrow bodies being the growth driver, implying that is what Boeing should focus on moving forward, vs. a direct/true A321NEO competitor-centered next generation product. I guess you will have to change your position on that, Keesje? LOL.

Also, the focus on total fuel use/carbon emissions is a bit odd, to me. I know a lot of airlines pay lip service to this, but it really comes down to total profitability for them in decisions as between types/fleet mixes. The 737 has always been lighter (and slightly less capable) than the A320, so I get it, but really, the A359 is pretty efficient too, and it wouldn’t hurt to add some ‘reality’ into the market split picture, imho.

Finally, “family” matters, yes, but there are a lot of key/big airlines out there that operate A330/777/787/A350 mixes of fleets too. Some build their business models around buying basically ‘some’ of everything (ahem, LH).

All that being said, it comes across as smoother than anything Randy ever tried to pull off, imho.

texl1649 wrote:

The interesting thing is that he is here…agreeing with Keesje about the smaller narrow bodies being the growth driver, implying that is what Boeing should focus on moving forward, vs. a direct/true A321NEO competitor-centered next generation product. I guess you will have to change your position on that, Keesje? LOL.

Also, the focus on total fuel use/carbon emissions is a bit odd, to me. I know a lot of airlines pay lip service to this, but it really comes down to total profitability for them in decisions as between types/fleet mixes. The 737 has always been lighter (and slightly less capable) than the A320, so I get it, but really, the A359 is pretty efficient too, and it wouldn’t hurt to add some ‘reality’ into the market split picture, imho.

Finally, “family” matters, yes, but there are a lot of key/big airlines out there that operate A330/777/787/A350 mixes of fleets too. Some build their business models around buying basically ‘some’ of everything (ahem, LH).

All that being said, it comes across as smoother than anything Randy ever tried to pull off, imho.

Just one little bit of correct. It depends on what you are talking about.

The 737-800/MAX is and was better (more efficient) than the A320 CEO/NEO.

Where Airbus currently outperforms is with the A321 vs the Boeing 737-9 and Likely the -10 (but it's not flying yet so we can't say for certain which one is 'better', though the A321 will have more range.)

Cheers,

Boeing will potentially achieve significant sales through to 2027, ahead of market share achieved in the previous five.

The but, is effective prices, after deducting front end discounts, retrospective volume credits, and especially compensation credits, mean every sale generates a fraction of the revenue per unit compared to Airbus.

Cash flow is king, and plenty of cash will be generated.

Obviously the presentation is designed for customers. Given the market is well covered by the existing model range, and sub-par competition from Airbus, don't expect new model launches any time soon.

Interesting to analyse where the words 'guess' and 'think' appear, versus 'know' as a barometer of confidence and conviction.

keesje wrote:

Tons of information & insights on Addison Schonland's AirInsight:

https://airinsight.com/notes-from-boein ... et-review/

Lots of nice Boeing slides and (IMO slightly incomplete) market projections


https://airinsight.com/notes-from-boein ... et-review/


Boeings Darren Hulst, the new Randy. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20180316008100320

Interesting they choose to omit the A319 in their comparisons.

As in another thread there were a few A319 orders discussed.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I like Darren's the A321neo serves a niche comment..... this is almost as good as the A321 is just catching up to the 900...

lol right? 4,211 jets is quite the niche... One slide also says the Dreamliner is one family then on the other side treats the A330-800, A330-900, A350-900, and A350-1000 like they're 4 separate families of aircraft. Lots of stretching here but with slots booked up on the side of the aisle, they should be able to round up some decent orders for the show I'm sure. I do imagine though it's harder for Boeing not having any guarantees on the delivery for the -10Max and to a lesser extent the -7Max.

lostsound wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I like Darren's the A321neo serves a niche comment..... this is almost as good as the A321 is just catching up to the 900...

lol right? 4,211 jets is quite the niche...

He said the XLR to be fair. Not the 321 as a whole

StTim wrote:

You really do hope this is just their (very poor) external PR view. If this is truly the internal Boeing view it points that they are still stuywith their heads in the sand.

He's the vice president for marketing. It's his job to sell the product, not set the strategy.

The fact is Boeing isn't going to be in a position to change the product lineup until they're stably delivering the current lineup again. In the present situation, I think the 2024 time frame for launch that Leeham has suggested makes sense.

Until that plane is actually in production, the marketing folks are going to continue to talk up the current lineup as much as they can.

Opus99 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I like Darren's the A321neo serves a niche comment..... this is almost as good as the A321 is just catching up to the 900...

lol right? 4,211 jets is quite the niche...

He said the XLR to be fair. Not the 321 as a whole

mmmm 515 sales for the XLR alone.... still a 'big niche'... i thought a niche was when you created a plane for 2 customers and built just 38 examples....

AviationLuver wrote:

Just one little bit of correct. It depends on what you are talking about.

The 737-800/MAX is and was better (more efficient) than the A320 CEO/NEO.

Doesn't it depend on the mission though. I don't think it is possible to say the 738/MAX is more efficient as this implies it is over all possible scenarios. The argument about which one is more efficient is nuanced as you mention the big difference between the 737 and A320 families when looking at sales is the A321/NEO eating the 739 up. I doubt the A320 would have achieved the sales it did had it been worse than the 738 in efficiency. We also need to consider the substandard offering from Boeing for an aircraft larger than the 738 means more sales for the 738 compared to the A320 losing sales to the A321. So even looking at sales is not without nuance.

All we know, no matter the lovely marketing words from Boeing, the A320 family has been clawing back the deficit they had on sales on the 737 family before recently overtaking them, despite a 20 year headstart for the 737. They would not have been able to do this had their offering been less efficient than the competition. It will not be long before the A320 will overtake the 737 in deliveries as well. This trend did not start with the A321 being better than the Boeing offering and being the difference but with the A320 being more than competitive against the 738.

texl1649 wrote:

The interesting thing is that he is here…agreeing with Keesje about the smaller narrow bodies being the growth driver, implying that is what Boeing should focus on moving forward, vs. a direct/true A321NEO competitor-centered next generation product. I guess you will have to change your position on that, Keesje? LOL.

Also, the focus on total fuel use/carbon emissions is a bit odd, to me. I know a lot of airlines pay lip service to this, but it really comes down to total profitability for them in decisions as between types/fleet mixes. The 737 has always been lighter (and slightly less capable) than the A320, so I get it, but really, the A359 is pretty efficient too, and it wouldn’t hurt to add some ‘reality’ into the market split picture, imho.

Finally, “family” matters, yes, but there are a lot of key/big airlines out there that operate A330/777/787/A350 mixes of fleets too. Some build their business models around buying basically ‘some’ of everything (ahem, LH).

All that being said, it comes across as smoother than anything Randy ever tried to pull off, imho.

I agree Boeing should build an "unbeatable" 150-200 seater, optimized for 500-2000NM range. Quiter, flexible & 10% more efficient than A320NEO and more capable than A220-500.

Selling 1000-2000x 250 seat 5000NMA's is not enough & could have Boeing out in the heart of the global market.

On WB's, I expect some disrupting A350-1000 orders from A350-900 customers soon.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

lol right? 4,211 jets is quite the niche...

He said the XLR to be fair. Not the 321 as a whole

mmmm 515 sales for the XLR alone.... still a 'big niche'... i thought a niche was when you created a plane for 2 customers and built just 38 examples....

515 out of 10,000 sales between the 320neo and 737max, thats 0.5%

I think if the max10 were launched same time as the 321neo boeing would not be thinking about a single aisle at all. even with all the uncertainty its gaining traction to be fair. IAG, QR (still MoU), Alaska, - delta is looking at it seriously, it has already overtaken the sales of the 900ER and the Max 9, then you also had united with the 150 or so, and i think more will be ordered when its in service and people can see the operational figures, and you also have ryanair looking for some too

I liked the charts they presented for the 777X at least, shows the dominance of 777-300ER, heavily underwhelming demand of the A35K and also a fairly realistic prediction for the demand of large airplanes in the coming 12+ years.

Opus99 wrote:

515 out of 10,000 sales between the 320neo and 737max, thats 0.5%

It’s 5.15%, not 0.5%.

FlyHPN wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

515 out of 10,000 sales between the 320neo and 737max, thats 0.5%

It’s 5.15%, not 0.5%.

sorry my bad

Opus99 wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

515 out of 10,000 sales between the 320neo and 737max, thats 0.5%

It’s 5.15%, not 0.5%.

sorry my bad

That 10,000 sales is spread out accross the following models:
737-MAX7
737-MAX8
737-MAX8 200
737-MAX9
737-MAX10
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A321NEO LR
A321NEO XLR

Capturing over 5% of the totals amongst a group of 10 is not a bad measure of success by any means and is certainly better than niche. It's disengenous to try to undermine the success and impact of the XLR by calling it Niche. It's a runaway sales success and it only had it's first flight just days ago.

I understand your pro Boeing (I'm Boeing indifferent at the moment... just waiting for Do Nothing Calhoun to move on so that a real roadmap can be established)... But attempting to throw shade on XLR numbers is a poor attempt at ignoring/minimizing Boeing's mistake of doing almost nothing for too long against the A321NEO (all 3 flavors). Mr Darren knows better... But he's in a tough spot... I hope this MAX10 is good (no really I do... I'd like to see them get some cash out of it so they can fund the next great thing later on)... I hope it can fly 200+ pax 3000nmi with decent runway performance all day long.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

It’s 5.15%, not 0.5%.

sorry my bad

That 10,000 sales is spread out accross the following models:
737-MAX7
737-MAX8
737-MAX8 200
737-MAX9
737-MAX10
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A321NEO LR
A321NEO XLR

Capturing over 5% of the totals amongst a group of 10 is not a bad measure of success by any means and is certainly better than niche. It's disengenous to try to undermine the success and impact of the XLR by calling it Niche. It's a runaway sales success and it only had it's first flight just days ago.

I understand your pro Boeing (I'm Boeing indifferent at the moment... just waiting for Do Nothing Calhoun to move on so that a real roadmap can be established)... But attempting to throw shade on XLR numbers is a poor attempt at ignoring/minimizing Boeing's mistake of doing almost nothing for too long against the A321NEO (all 3 flavors). Mr Darren knows better... But he's in a tough spot... I hope this MAX10 is good (no really I do... I'd like to see them get some cash out of it so they can fund the next great thing later on)... I hope it can fly 200+ pax 3000nmi with decent runway performance all day long.

The MAX10 has 717 sales, I guess that’s not bad across that host of aircraft but this forum would say otherwise.

The XLR is selling well, but they have a point. It is not something to lose sleep over. The vast majority of the sales is the 321NEO as that is the one most customers go for. Even as the XLR has been launched, most of it is still the standard NEO.

Boeings problem is not the XLR, it’s not having a flying respond to the 321NEO. The MAX10 can match tbe 321NEOs seat count with about a 1 seat difference. Smaller frame, skinnier, so their fuel burn should be pretty much the same. And it shows, as the max10 has been flying it has been getting more orders, BA, Alaska, United, delta wants to order 100, Ryanair wants to order 200, it’s not far away from 1000 orders. And I think over the next 10 years, it will do quite well.

Boeing launching an XLR competitor is a waste of time, they need to differentiate the market with something that’s not on the market.

XLR is still a hit for the market it was built for. But if Boeing had the max10 originally, the landscape would be different. KLM went to airbus because there was no clarity on the Max10 EIS and fair enough.

Is the XLR something Boeing should lose sleep over? No. The 321NEO? Yes because that’s wheee everyone is flocking and they would be too on the max10 but you don’t even know when you’re going to get the damn thing

Aseem747 wrote:

I liked the charts they presented for the 777X at least, shows the dominance of 777-300ER, heavily underwhelming demand of the A35K and also a fairly realistic prediction for the demand of large airplanes in the coming 12+ years.

I think you are watching feel good info. No passenger 777s delivered for years, many are replaced by A350 (BA, AF, SQ, CX, DL, a dozen more).

The no.1 777(x) customer saying strange things lately.. Objectively (weight, track record, efficiency, capability) the -1000 seems clearly superior.

Darren Hulst is doing smart work-arounds, creating perceptions. E.g. positioning the A350 as a 787 competitor iso a 777 competitor..



As said before I hope the Boeing board has a more honest and clear picture of the situation. Group think did a lot of damage over the last 10 years.

Opus99 wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

sorry my bad

That 10,000 sales is spread out accross the following models:
737-MAX7
737-MAX8
737-MAX8 200
737-MAX9
737-MAX10
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A321NEO LR
A321NEO XLR

Capturing over 5% of the totals amongst a group of 10 is not a bad measure of success by any means and is certainly better than niche. It's disengenous to try to undermine the success and impact of the XLR by calling it Niche. It's a runaway sales success and it only had it's first flight just days ago.

I understand your pro Boeing (I'm Boeing indifferent at the moment... just waiting for Do Nothing Calhoun to move on so that a real roadmap can be established)... But attempting to throw shade on XLR numbers is a poor attempt at ignoring/minimizing Boeing's mistake of doing almost nothing for too long against the A321NEO (all 3 flavors). Mr Darren knows better... But he's in a tough spot... I hope this MAX10 is good (no really I do... I'd like to see them get some cash out of it so they can fund the next great thing later on)... I hope it can fly 200+ pax 3000nmi with decent runway performance all day long.

The MAX10 has 717 sales, I guess that’s not bad across that host of aircraft but this forum would say otherwise.

The XLR is selling well, but they have a point. It is not something to lose sleep over. The vast majority of the sales is the 321NEO as that is the one most customers go for. Even as the XLR has been launched, most of it is still the standard NEO.

Boeings problem is not the XLR, it’s not having a flying respond to the 321NEO. The MAX10 can match tbe 321NEOs seat count with about a 1 seat difference. Smaller frame, skinnier, so their fuel burn should be pretty much the same. And it shows, as the max10 has been flying it has been getting more orders, BA, Alaska, United, delta wants to order 100, Ryanair wants to order 200, it’s not far away from 1000 orders. And I think over the next 10 years, it will do quite well.

Boeing launching an XLR competitor is a waste of time, they need to differentiate the market with something that’s not on the market.

XLR is still a hit for the market it was built for. But if Boeing had the max10 originally, the landscape would be different. KLM went to airbus because there was no clarity on the Max10 EIS and fair enough.

Is the XLR something Boeing should lose sleep over? No. The 321NEO? Yes because that’s wheee everyone is flocking and they would be too on the max10 but you don’t even know when you’re going to get the damn thing

I think Boeing should be worried, 515 confirmed sales for a model that has only just flown for the first time is a solid start, but factor in potential conversions alone and you could see this number rise. The XLR rounds off a family offering huge flexibility with a single type, converting to an XLR is minimum fuss and risk. I can see many airlines going for it.

As a side note, we don't know if BA will get the MAX 10. IAG have made the order, but no indication where they will go yet.

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

I liked the charts they presented for the 777X at least, shows the dominance of 777-300ER, heavily underwhelming demand of the A35K and also a fairly realistic prediction for the demand of large airplanes in the coming 12+ years.

I think you are watching feel good info. No passenger 777s delivered for years, many are replaced by A350 (BA, AF, SQ, CX, DL, a dozen more).
.

I don't see how A359 replacing 777-200ER has any relevance to what I was saying since it's obvious I was only talking about larger aircraft. Not aircraft comparable to the 787, which Boeing has given the role as a 772 successor from their side.

Also, the charts I only talked about i.e the ones presented alongside the 777X section. One of them is a chart showing the orders of various large twin jets, which I guess was a feel bad info for you but it's factual so we can't interpret it any other way. The other one is only a prediction on how much large twin jets might be demanded in the future as current jumbos get retired so that one can agree or disagree with,

Darren Hulst is doing smart work-arounds, creating perceptions. E.g. positioning the A350 as a 787 competitor iso a 777 competitor..

I feel like the charts were more to show just how wide of a market the 787 family alone covers compared to Airbus wide bodies rather than showing what is whose competitor. They have talked about the A350-1000 separately too since we all know that is the only 777X competitor, I don't think Boeing really cares in 2022 that the A350-900 is similar to the 772.

Objectively (weight, track record, efficiency, capability) the -1000 seems clearly superior.

Even the A340-600 was superior to 77W in many aspects yet it ended up the way it did. Efficiency of 351 seems superior only to you, not to the top 5 largest A350 customers who all seen a place for 779 in their fleet.

As said before I hope the Boeing board has a more honest and clear picture of the situation. Group think did a lot of damage over the last 10 years.

I think they do in the wide body sector. The 788 and 789 are doing great, 787-10ER has been brought up multiple times since they recognize the only wide body that's giving them a hard time, 777X if they do not delay more and more then they can rest assured that they'll continue to do great in the large passenger and large freighter market.

Opus99 wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

sorry my bad

That 10,000 sales is spread out accross the following models:
737-MAX7
737-MAX8
737-MAX8 200
737-MAX9
737-MAX10
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A321NEO LR
A321NEO XLR

Capturing over 5% of the totals amongst a group of 10 is not a bad measure of success by any means and is certainly better than niche. It's disengenous to try to undermine the success and impact of the XLR by calling it Niche. It's a runaway sales success and it only had it's first flight just days ago.

I understand your pro Boeing (I'm Boeing indifferent at the moment... just waiting for Do Nothing Calhoun to move on so that a real roadmap can be established)... But attempting to throw shade on XLR numbers is a poor attempt at ignoring/minimizing Boeing's mistake of doing almost nothing for too long against the A321NEO (all 3 flavors). Mr Darren knows better... But he's in a tough spot... I hope this MAX10 is good (no really I do... I'd like to see them get some cash out of it so they can fund the next great thing later on)... I hope it can fly 200+ pax 3000nmi with decent runway performance all day long.

The MAX10 has 717 sales, I guess that’s not bad across that host of aircraft but this forum would say otherwise.

The XLR is selling well, but they have a point. It is not something to lose sleep over. The vast majority of the sales is the 321NEO as that is the one most customers go for. Even as the XLR has been launched, most of it is still the standard NEO.

Boeings problem is not the XLR, it’s not having a flying respond to the 321NEO. The MAX10 can match tbe 321NEOs seat count with about a 1 seat difference. Smaller frame, skinnier, so their fuel burn should be pretty much the same. And it shows, as the max10 has been flying it has been getting more orders, BA, Alaska, United, delta wants to order 100, Ryanair wants to order 200, it’s not far away from 1000 orders. And I think over the next 10 years, it will do quite well.

Boeing launching an XLR competitor is a waste of time, they need to differentiate the market with something that’s not on the market.

XLR is still a hit for the market it was built for. But if Boeing had the max10 originally, the landscape would be different. KLM went to airbus because there was no clarity on the Max10 EIS and fair enough.

Is the XLR something Boeing should lose sleep over? No. The 321NEO? Yes because that’s wheee everyone is flocking and they would be too on the max10 but you don’t even know when you’re going to get the damn thing

You are looking at the wrong numbers to deduct how important the XLR is. While only selling 5% in absolute numbers, the XLR commands a large premium and probably soaks up 15-20% of the profits for the whole NB segment. See iPhone vs Samsung.

Like Smartplane mentioned, cashflow is king in this business. The XLR is the king of cashflow...

Ps.: I do believe that Boeing has no place competing against the XLR as that market is not big enough for 2 planes of those capabilities.

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

I liked the charts they presented for the 777X at least, shows the dominance of 777-300ER, heavily underwhelming demand of the A35K and also a fairly realistic prediction for the demand of large airplanes in the coming 12+ years.

I think you are watching feel good info. No passenger 777s delivered for years, many are replaced by A350 (BA, AF, SQ, CX, DL, a dozen more).
.

I don't see how A359 replacing 777-200ER has any relevance to what I was saying since it's obvious I was only talking about larger aircraft. Not aircraft comparable to the 787, which Boeing has given the role as a 772 successor from their side.

Also, the charts I only talked about i.e the ones presented alongside the 777X section. One of them is a chart showing the orders of various large twin jets, which I guess was a feel bad info for you but it's factual so we can't interpret it any other way. The other one is only a prediction on how much large twin jets might be demanded in the future as current jumbos get retired so that one can agree or disagree with,

Darren Hulst is doing smart work-arounds, creating perceptions. E.g. positioning the A350 as a 787 competitor iso a 777 competitor..

I feel like the charts were more to show just how wide of a market the 787 family alone covers compared to Airbus wide bodies rather than showing what is whose competitor. They have talked about the A350-1000 separately too since we all know that is the only 777X competitor, I don't think Boeing really cares in 2022 that the A350-900 is similar to the 772.

Objectively (weight, track record, efficiency, capability) the -1000 seems clearly superior.

Even the A340-600 was superior to 77W in many aspects yet it ended up the way it did. Efficiency of 351 seems superior only to you, not to the top 5 largest A350 customers who all seen a place for 779 in their fleet.

As said before I hope the Boeing board has a more honest and clear picture of the situation. Group think did a lot of damage over the last 10 years.

I think they do in the wide body sector. The 788 and 789 are doing great, 787-10ER has been brought up multiple times since they recognize the only wide body that's giving them a hard time, 777X if they do not delay more and more then they can rest assured that they'll continue to do great in the large passenger and large freighter market.

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

keesje wrote:

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line.

777 market advantage is clear is about as much (if not less) of a lie than Airbus painting LongRangeLeader on their A350-1000, an aircraft so leading for long hauls that it achieved a wonderful negative 4 dozen orders in the time span of a decade. But it's marketing so I don't give too much serious thought on them. They're designed to give incorrect perceptions while still being something defendable.

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think you are watching feel good info. No passenger 777s delivered for years, many are replaced by A350 (BA, AF, SQ, CX, DL, a dozen more).
.

I don't see how A359 replacing 777-200ER has any relevance to what I was saying since it's obvious I was only talking about larger aircraft. Not aircraft comparable to the 787, which Boeing has given the role as a 772 successor from their side.

Also, the charts I only talked about i.e the ones presented alongside the 777X section. One of them is a chart showing the orders of various large twin jets, which I guess was a feel bad info for you but it's factual so we can't interpret it any other way. The other one is only a prediction on how much large twin jets might be demanded in the future as current jumbos get retired so that one can agree or disagree with,

Darren Hulst is doing smart work-arounds, creating perceptions. E.g. positioning the A350 as a 787 competitor iso a 777 competitor..

I feel like the charts were more to show just how wide of a market the 787 family alone covers compared to Airbus wide bodies rather than showing what is whose competitor. They have talked about the A350-1000 separately too since we all know that is the only 777X competitor, I don't think Boeing really cares in 2022 that the A350-900 is similar to the 772.

Objectively (weight, track record, efficiency, capability) the -1000 seems clearly superior.

Even the A340-600 was superior to 77W in many aspects yet it ended up the way it did. Efficiency of 351 seems superior only to you, not to the top 5 largest A350 customers who all seen a place for 779 in their fleet.

As said before I hope the Boeing board has a more honest and clear picture of the situation. Group think did a lot of damage over the last 10 years.

I think they do in the wide body sector. The 788 and 789 are doing great, 787-10ER has been brought up multiple times since they recognize the only wide body that's giving them a hard time, 777X if they do not delay more and more then they can rest assured that they'll continue to do great in the large passenger and large freighter market.

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Lying?

OEMs make subjective comparisons all the time, including Airbus showing max range and max payload together when they are incompatible. Airlines understand the marketing charts are high-level fluff and they dive deep into the details.

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think you are watching feel good info. No passenger 777s delivered for years, many are replaced by A350 (BA, AF, SQ, CX, DL, a dozen more).
.

I don't see how A359 replacing 777-200ER has any relevance to what I was saying since it's obvious I was only talking about larger aircraft. Not aircraft comparable to the 787, which Boeing has given the role as a 772 successor from their side.

Also, the charts I only talked about i.e the ones presented alongside the 777X section. One of them is a chart showing the orders of various large twin jets, which I guess was a feel bad info for you but it's factual so we can't interpret it any other way. The other one is only a prediction on how much large twin jets might be demanded in the future as current jumbos get retired so that one can agree or disagree with,

Darren Hulst is doing smart work-arounds, creating perceptions. E.g. positioning the A350 as a 787 competitor iso a 777 competitor..

I feel like the charts were more to show just how wide of a market the 787 family alone covers compared to Airbus wide bodies rather than showing what is whose competitor. They have talked about the A350-1000 separately too since we all know that is the only 777X competitor, I don't think Boeing really cares in 2022 that the A350-900 is similar to the 772.

Objectively (weight, track record, efficiency, capability) the -1000 seems clearly superior.

Even the A340-600 was superior to 77W in many aspects yet it ended up the way it did. Efficiency of 351 seems superior only to you, not to the top 5 largest A350 customers who all seen a place for 779 in their fleet.

As said before I hope the Boeing board has a more honest and clear picture of the situation. Group think did a lot of damage over the last 10 years.

I think they do in the wide body sector. The 788 and 789 are doing great, 787-10ER has been brought up multiple times since they recognize the only wide body that's giving them a hard time, 777X if they do not delay more and more then they can rest assured that they'll continue to do great in the large passenger and large freighter market.

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Boeing would argue the A359 is a 789/78X competitor, not a 777X competitor. The marketing point would be similar though, because if you add the A359 to Airbus’s numbers on that chart Boeing would gladly add the 789/78Xs to theirs (it would actually skew it even more in Boeing’s favor).

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line.

777 market advantage is clear is about as much (if not less) of a lie than Airbus painting LongRangeLeader on their A350-1000, an aircraft so leading for long hauls that it achieved a wonderful negative 4 dozen orders in the time span of a decade. But it's marketing so I don't give too much serious thought on them. They're designed to give incorrect perceptions while still being something defendable.

Watching:

- 1-2 freighters/ month rolling of the line that will soon will be forbidden(2027)
- 77E/W deliveries stopped for a while
- no passenger 777 deliveries 2020-2025
- SC 606 adjusted 777x orders (-128)
- a seriously delayed program (6 yrs?)
- 30 new builds parked, facing post assembly modifications.
- 777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines
- further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA)

for me it's a kind of bewildering seeing statements like "The 777 market advantage is clear".

IMO Boeing better get their feet back on the ground. Who does Darren think he's convincing? Airline fleetmanagers 25+ yrs in the business? Lessors?

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line.

777 market advantage is clear is about as much (if not less) of a lie than Airbus painting LongRangeLeader on their A350-1000, an aircraft so leading for long hauls that it achieved a wonderful negative 4 dozen orders in the time span of a decade. But it's marketing so I don't give too much serious thought on them. They're designed to give incorrect perceptions while still being something defendable.

Watching:

- 1-2 freighters/ month rolling of the line that will soon will be forbidden(2027)
- 77E/W deliveries stopped for a while
- no passenger 777 deliveries 2020-2025
- SC 606 adjusted 777x orders (-128)
- a seriously delayed program (6 yrs?)
- 30 new builds parked, facing post assembly modifications.
- 777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines
- further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA)

for me it's a kind of bewildering seeing statements like "The 777 market advantage is clear".

IMO Boeing better get their feet back on the ground. Who does Darren think he's convincing? Airline fleetmanagers 25+ yrs in the business? Lessors?

Like I said above, "Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line."
Just keep that in mind then you should easily see why "777 market advantage is clear" isn't anything ridiculous to say. The chart has only compared 777-300ER and 777X with A35K so should be clear what they're going for here? Issues with 777X are one thing, the big market interest for 777 as large wide bodies is another.

I especially don't get why you keep bringing up what's replacing 772 when it's been almost a decade if not more since classic 777 variants haven't been produced, for Boeing all that matters in regards to 772 is whether airlines are using 787 to replace it or not. A350-1000 doesn't have anything noteworthy sales wise compared to large 777 variants which even you seem to recognize (even if you don't admit judging by how often you bring up the 787 rival's accomplishments) so it only helps further make the 777 market advantage clear in this context.

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think looking "the 777 family is outselling the A350-1000" is truth, but also is designed to create incorrect perceptions. Because it leaves out todays reality of A350-900s replacing 777s everywhere. And no passenger 777s deliveries 2020-2025. Willingly leaving out essential information to create perceptions qualifies as lying for me. "The 777 market advantage is clear". Really? I think the market (airlines, media, congress, even Airbus) has been soft on Boeing because of the overall bleak situation and because most agree dual source competition is essential for long term development and industry health.

Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line.

777 market advantage is clear is about as much (if not less) of a lie than Airbus painting LongRangeLeader on their A350-1000, an aircraft so leading for long hauls that it achieved a wonderful negative 4 dozen orders in the time span of a decade. But it's marketing so I don't give too much serious thought on them. They're designed to give incorrect perceptions while still being something defendable.

Watching:

- 1-2 freighters/ month rolling of the line that will soon will be forbidden(2027)
- 77E/W deliveries stopped for a while
- no passenger 777 deliveries 2020-2025
- SC 606 adjusted 777x orders (-128)
- a seriously delayed program (6 yrs?)
- 30 new builds parked, facing post assembly modifications.
- 777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines
- further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA)

for me it's a kind of bewildering seeing statements like "The 777 market advantage is clear".

IMO Boeing better get their feet back on the ground. Who does Darren think he's convincing? Airline fleetmanagers 25+ yrs in the business? Lessors?

"777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines"

@ DL, pre-pandemic, the 777s were going to operate alongside the A350s.
@ SQ, they still operate 777-300ERs, and will for a while
@ CX, 777-300ER fleet serves different routes (different configuration) and isn't going anywhere anytime soon
@ BA hasn't replaced a single 777, (other than the old -200As), and have no plans to
@ AF, 777-300ERs are not going anywhere anytime soon.

"further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA) "

LH has indicated they plan on keeping the order. There is nothing else than can replace their 747-400s, and soon A380s and 747-8s
UA - I will bet you a lot of money the A350 will never be in UA colors....

kaitak744 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Aseem747 wrote:

Inclusion of the A350-900 would mean the 777X wouldn't have a relevance in the chart so can see why they did that, they could be specific like advantage of 777 in large aircraft market is clear but too long of a marketing line.

777 market advantage is clear is about as much (if not less) of a lie than Airbus painting LongRangeLeader on their A350-1000, an aircraft so leading for long hauls that it achieved a wonderful negative 4 dozen orders in the time span of a decade. But it's marketing so I don't give too much serious thought on them. They're designed to give incorrect perceptions while still being something defendable.

Watching:

- 1-2 freighters/ month rolling of the line that will soon will be forbidden(2027)
- 77E/W deliveries stopped for a while
- no passenger 777 deliveries 2020-2025
- SC 606 adjusted 777x orders (-128)
- a seriously delayed program (6 yrs?)
- 30 new builds parked, facing post assembly modifications.
- 777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines
- further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA)

for me it's a kind of bewildering seeing statements like "The 777 market advantage is clear".

IMO Boeing better get their feet back on the ground. Who does Darren think he's convincing? Airline fleetmanagers 25+ yrs in the business? Lessors?

"777s being replaced by A350s at DL, SQ, CX, BA, JAL, AF and many other airlines"

@ DL, pre-pandemic, the 777s were going to operate alongside the A350s.
@ SQ, they still operate 777-300ERs, and will for a while
@ CX, 777-300ER fleet serves different routes (different configuration) and isn't going anywhere anytime soon
@ BA hasn't replaced a single 777, (other than the old -200As), and have no plans to
@ AF, 777-300ERs are not going anywhere anytime soon.

"further key 777 customers close to deflection (LH, EK, AI, UA) "

LH has indicated they plan on keeping the order. There is nothing else than can replace their 747-400s, and soon A380s and 747-8s
UA - I will bet you a lot of money the A350 will never be in UA colors....

thank you for this, you know when people just say anything like

SQ, still has refused to order the 350-1000, 777 being replaced by 777X, they've said this multiple times
BA that is just a flat out lie, its not even misleading, its just a lie and the poster knows it but who cares. BA's last wide body oder was 777-300ERs btw
UA that is has pushed out the 350s to 2027 and keeps ordering 787s with a HGW version on the way, good luck to that order, bear in mind UA was the same customer that threw the 35K in the trash and went for the older generation 777-300ER but okay sure

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

LH just ordered 777XFs instead of A350Fs, so deflection? more like incorrect information

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

There is little disagreement that Airbus' single aisle line up is more complete and successful than Boeing's.

For wide bodies, Boeing's product line would be great, if they could actually certify and deliver their products. The 787
is a great aircraft and also the first candidate among the widebodies to receive an engine upgrade since it is the longest in service among A350, A33NEO, 787, 777X.
Boeing may struggle to turn a profit on those programs but I am comvinced they will continue to sell well.

I do not believe at all that the 777x is going to be cancelled, even though Boeing will continue eating charge after charge until EIS. The program is too far advanced already and it would be strategically unwise to hand Airbus the entire market above the 787.

WalterFaber wrote:

There is little disagreement that Airbus' single aisle line up is more complete and successful than Boeing's.

Complete? It depends on who you ask.
Basically, Airbus has 2 NB sizes (A320 and A321) that encompasses the 4 Boeing NB sizes (737-7 through -10, let's count the -8200 as a -8); some people find there is too much of a gap between the A320 and A321 and justify the small increments from the 737-8 to the -9 to the -10 (+10 seats each time).
It really goes down to 2 mindsets:
- you need to have the aircraft with the closest amount of seats needed, then the 737MAX is your champion;
- easier to manage only 2 models in a single fleet, then the A320neo is your champion.

The A320neoFamily has, in my opinion, a huge advantage over the 737MAX: the 3 variants allowing you to pack pax in (A321neo), add a little range (A321LR) or replace the 757 (A321XLR)

The 737 differentiates more for passenger capacity, the A320/21 more for range. But if you add the A220 to the mix, I think it is fair to say that the Airbus single Aisle line is more complete. I am looking forward for additional derivatives like the A220-500 or longer range versions.

WalterFaber wrote:

The 737 differentiates more for passenger capacity, the A320/21 more for range. But if you add the A220 to the mix, I think it is fair to say that the Airbus single Aisle line is more complete. I am looking forward for additional derivatives like the A220-500 or longer range versions.

I don’t think a neo without aux tanks has more range than a MAX.

WalterFaber wrote:

The 737 differentiates more for passenger capacity, the A320/21 more for range. But if you add the A220 to the mix, I think it is fair to say that the Airbus single Aisle line is more complete. I am looking forward for additional derivatives like the A220-500 or longer range versions.

I agree that Airbus NB line-up is more complete:
- A220: from 110 to 130 pax, and even 150-160 if an A220-500 is launched. Lower end of the NB market, can still get to a decent size for smaller airlines;
- A320neo Family: 150 to 240 pax. Higher end of the NB market.

Yes, there is an overlap between the A220-300/potential -500 and the A319neo; but those are different ends of different families of aircraft for different missions.
I don't think there is a lot of internal cannibalisation of sale; it actually makes the whole offering stronger and more attractive to customers.

Opus99 wrote:

thank you for this, you know when people just say anything like

SQ, still has refused to order the 350-1000, 777 being replaced by 777X, they've said this multiple times
BA that is just a flat out lie, its not even misleading, its just a lie and the poster knows it but who cares. BA's last wide body oder was 777-300ERs btw

Both of these airlines operate highly congested routes, the 777X is a perfect fit for that as they should be able to fill it the majority of the time. And that's the going to be critical, obviously we don't know what the exact capacity of the 779 will be yet, but assuming a high density on both we are talking 426 on the X and 410 on the 350. That's not a lot of difference, especially when you take into account the amount of extra weight the X is going to have to haul to carry and extra couple of dozen seats.

It is also worth bearing in mind that although the Ge9X is the latest and greatest engine in its class, it was completed and certified in 2020 - only 3 years later than the XWB97's on the A350. We all kinda assume that there is little to no generational difference between the 787s power and the A350's due to relatively small development time between them, but It's actually about 7 years and even if we all agree that the XWB97s on the A350 are just a high thrust variant, so no further efficiency was gained then it still only means that's there is the same 7-year difference between the XWB and GE9X.

I don't see what the big selling point is for the 777X over the A35K - Yes, it can carry 20 more people and yes it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than the 77W and 744's it was designed to replace, but unless an airline needs those seats due to capacity constraints or likes to fit ultra-premium cabins. I just don't see what it brings to the table. The wings are cool though, I love those, and they should make it more efficient. I also assume it will be able to carry more belly cargo, but enough to warrant its price and fuel burn?

Opus99 wrote:

UA that is has pushed out the 350s to 2027 and keeps ordering 787s with a HGW version on the way, good luck to that order, bear in mind UA was the same customer that threw the 35K in the trash and went for the older generation 777-300ER but okay sure

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

LH just ordered 777XFs instead of A350Fs, so deflection? more like incorrect information

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

I have no idea if UA will ever take delivery of its A350's, but you make a good point, they are adding lots of 787's in the meantime, so perhaps they will never need an aircraft of that size? I notice that you didn't say that you expect them to order 77X's though. Why not?

The freighter versions are a little different. I fully expect the 777XF to dominate this market - simply because of market inertia and that Boeing has been the only game in town for a long time. But I still expect Airbus to perhaps sell 100 or so A350Fs during its lifetime, thereby ending Boeing's monopoly. And although it's not nice to think of this as a motivating factor, by Airbus having an alternative it will mean for the first time in a very long time Boeing is going to have to be price competitive. The 748F saved the 748, well perhaps not saved but at least cushioned the financial blow - I think Boeing will reach its new target of 350 77X's, but across both the pax and F variants and with the cash cow all moo'ed out and having to pay 5 years worth of compensation credits I find it hard to how it will ever turn a profit.

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

thank you for this, you know when people just say anything like

SQ, still has refused to order the 350-1000, 777 being replaced by 777X, they've said this multiple times
BA that is just a flat out lie, its not even misleading, its just a lie and the poster knows it but who cares. BA's last wide body oder was 777-300ERs btw

Both of these airlines operate highly congested routes, the 777X is a perfect fit for that as they should be able to fill it the majority of the time. And that's the going to be critical, obviously we don't know what the exact capacity of the 779 will be yet, but assuming a high density on both we are talking 426 on the X and 410 on the 350. That's not a lot of difference, especially when you take into account the amount of extra weight the X is going to have to haul to carry and extra couple of dozen seats.

It is also worth bearing in mind that although the Ge9X is the latest and greatest engine in its class, it was completed and certified in 2020 - only 3 years later than the XWB97's on the A350. We all kinda assume that there is little to no generational difference between the 787s power and the A350's due to relatively small development time between them, but It's actually about 7 years and even if we all agree that the XWB97s on the A350 are just a high thrust variant, so no further efficiency was gained then it still only means that's there is the same 7-year difference between the XWB and GE9X.

I don't see what the big selling point is for the 777X over the A35K - Yes, it can carry 20 more people and yes it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than the 77W and 744's it was designed to replace, but unless an airline needs those seats due to capacity constraints or likes to fit ultra-premium cabins. I just don't see what it brings to the table. The wings are cool though, I love those, and they should make it more efficient. I also assume it will be able to carry more belly cargo, but enough to warrant its price and fuel burn?

Opus99 wrote:

UA that is has pushed out the 350s to 2027 and keeps ordering 787s with a HGW version on the way, good luck to that order, bear in mind UA was the same customer that threw the 35K in the trash and went for the older generation 777-300ER but okay sure

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

LH just ordered 777XFs instead of A350Fs, so deflection? more like incorrect information

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

I have no idea if UA will ever take delivery of its A350's, but you make a good point, they are adding lots of 787's in the meantime, so perhaps they will never need an aircraft of that size? I notice that you didn't say that you expect them to order 77X's though. Why not?

The freighter versions are a little different. I fully expect the 777XF to dominate this market - simply because of market inertia and that Boeing has been the only game in town for a long time. But I still expect Airbus to perhaps sell 100 or so A350Fs during its lifetime, thereby ending Boeing's monopoly. And although it's not nice to think of this as a motivating factor, by Airbus having an alternative it will mean for the first time in a very long time Boeing is going to have to be price competitive. The 748F saved the 748, well perhaps not saved but at least cushioned the financial blow - I think Boeing will reach its new target of 350 77X's, but across both the pax and F variants and with the cash cow all moo'ed out and having to pay 5 years worth of compensation credits I find it hard to how it will ever turn a profit.

UA is way down the pike for me in ordering the 777X, they might to replace 300ERs but with the way UA keeps planes by the time it comes to replace them the 350 and 787s might have already have re-engine launch and at that point the 787-10 will probably have the range to do just about anything and will probably be a better fit. That’s just my 2c.

The 777X and 350-1000 are very close in efficiency from what I can tell, and you’re right. Unless you need the extra seats you won’t go for it. OR you’ll just go for whoever gives you the better overall package (including engines, maintenance costs, intervals etc)

On the program generally, I think 500 is achievable across both pax and cargo, I don’t think Boeing at this point cares about any of their programs turning a profit, they just have to generate cash.

Boeing is going to present things so it looks like their product line is the best. Airbus is going to do the same. It would be a fireable offense if the marketing department for either wasn't doing this.

If Boeing ever starts delivering 787s again and gets the MAX 7, MAX 10 and 777X certified we will get to see a real competition. At the moment, Boeings entire range consists of the 737 MAX 8, 737 MAX 9 and some freighters.

Opus99 wrote:

UA is way down the pike for me in ordering the 777X, they might to replace 300ERs but with the way UA keeps planes by the time it comes to replace them the 350 and 787s might have already have re-engine launch and at that point the 787-10 will probably have the range to do just about anything and will probably be a better fit. That’s just my 2c.

The 777X and 350-1000 are very close in efficiency from what I can tell, and you’re right. Unless you need the extra seats you won’t go for it. OR you’ll just go for whoever gives you the better overall package (including engines, maintenance costs, intervals etc)

I can't say I have ever closely followed UA's orders and their practises, but one thing I do find a little odd is when they delayed the aircraft last time, they added more. And I think this was at the same time they were placing another Airbus order for the XLR's. So you would think that if they were so desperate to get out of the contract, one which it's safe to assume they would be liable to pay a cancellation fee for, then the best time would have been when negotiating another order for aircraft from the same manufacturer. Perhaps this is just the way they roll? Get a sweet deal or better delivery slots on the XLR now by ordering more A350s and then just taking the financial hit at a later date when they cancel them.

But having said all that they have around 48 772's which will have an average age of 28 in 2027, so if they do decide to ditch the A350 they are going to have to order something to replace them. Maybe one of the 787's variants would be suitable for many of those 772 routes, but I am sure there are a few which will either need the range or lift capacity of the 77X. I mean, I genuinely don't know what they will do, and would certainly not bet on any outcome, but cancelling an existing order for a suitable aircraft and incurring whatever financial penalties that dictates to then order another aircraft which isn't really going to be any more efficient, and with no clue as to when it will even enter service or start mass production opening up possible delivery slots.... As I said, I don't know, but I think UA cancelling the 350 for more Boeing's is a bit of a fanboy wet dream around here.

Opus99 wrote:

On the program generally, I think 500 is achievable across both pax and cargo, I don’t think Boeing at this point cares about any of their programs turning a profit, they just have to generate cash.

I don't think 500 is impossible, it would just take a really long time to get to those numbers, as the majority of new orders would be for the F IMHO. The Pax version's biggest problem doesn't really exist yet, but I think it will by the end of the decade - that being of course; Ultrafan. Had they not screwed the pooch so badly with the X then it would have had a good 10 years to shine and gain orders, but at preset we are talking 2025, and perhaps I'm being a little optimistic but say RR have something to offer around 2028 and Airbus is able to launch a A350NEO with deliveries expected to start 2030 onwards? That gives the 77X 2 to 3 years to "make hay".

I am of course assuming that an A350 NeoF would be launched much later if at all - Thus the 77XF should have much more time to garner orders. And as I said above, they are going to have to be competitive orders this time, Buttercup the cash cow is all mooed out and that's really going to hurt the program ... And if somehow or for some reason, it turns out to be simple for Airbus to Neo the F at the same time as the rest of the family... Then; I fear the worst, Buttercup has defected and now lives in Toulouse

@Daysleeper: I agree, A350NEO and/or B787NEO will hurt the B777x which will have lost at least 5 years of its lifecycle to delays. Considering that thelifecycle of a widebody version usually is 15-20 years, the 5 years are a lot.

keesje wrote:

- no passenger 777 deliveries 2020-2025

You keep saying that.

But we've had 3 777-300ER deliveries so far in 2022, there were 7 in 2021 (plus 1 -200LR), and 4 in 2020.

Not a lot, I agree, but not none.

Opus99 wrote:

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

How long until the 777-9 is actually delivered? Lufthansa was supposed to get theirs in 2018...now not until 2025 at the absolute earliest. Even the 787 was less delayed...

Lufthansa ordered theirs in 2013, so that order to delivery lag will be ~12 years.

Opus99 wrote:

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

So, let me get this straight, you're using a rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get brand new white tail 77Ws) over another rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get ex QR A350-1000 NTUs) to prove that one plane is better than another?

Daysleeper wrote:

I don't see what the big selling point is for the 777X over the A35K - Yes, it can carry 20 more people and yes it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than the 77W and 744's it was designed to replace, but unless an airline needs those seats due to capacity constraints or likes to fit ultra-premium cabins. I just don't see what it brings to the table. The wings are cool though, I love those, and they should make it more efficient. I also assume it will be able to carry more belly cargo, but enough to warrant its price and fuel burn?

That's just it; the 777-9's competitive advantage is having more premium real estate up front than it's competitors.

Daysleeper wrote:

The 748F saved the 748, well perhaps not saved but at least cushioned the financial blow - I think Boeing will reach its new target of 350 77X's, but across both the pax and F variants and with the cash cow all moo'ed out and having to pay 5 years worth of compensation credits I find it hard to how it will ever turn a profit.

I don't really see how it can be cashflow positive, let alone a profitable program. Seven years of delay compensation is a hell of a lot....

Similarly problematic; the 777 line is running very slow for the next few years. Whilst I'm sure that they've sold some high margin 777Fs in that period, one wonders whether that's enough to stop the red ink.

zkojq wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

How long until the 777-9 is actually delivered? Lufthansa was supposed to get theirs in 2018...now not until 2025 at the absolute earliest. Even the 787 was less delayed...

Lufthansa ordered theirs in 2013, so that order to delivery lag will be ~12 years.

Opus99 wrote:

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

So, let me get this straight, you're using a rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get brand new white tail 77Ws) over another rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get ex QR A350-1000 NTUs) to prove that one plane is better than another?

Daysleeper wrote:

I don't see what the big selling point is for the 777X over the A35K - Yes, it can carry 20 more people and yes it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than the 77W and 744's it was designed to replace, but unless an airline needs those seats due to capacity constraints or likes to fit ultra-premium cabins. I just don't see what it brings to the table. The wings are cool though, I love those, and they should make it more efficient. I also assume it will be able to carry more belly cargo, but enough to warrant its price and fuel burn?

That's just it; the 777-9's competitive advantage is having more premium real estate up front than it's competitors.

Daysleeper wrote:

The 748F saved the 748, well perhaps not saved but at least cushioned the financial blow - I think Boeing will reach its new target of 350 77X's, but across both the pax and F variants and with the cash cow all moo'ed out and having to pay 5 years worth of compensation credits I find it hard to how it will ever turn a profit.

I don't really see how it can be cashflow positive, let alone a profitable program. Seven years of delay compensation is a hell of a lot....

Similarly problematic; the 777 line is running very slow for the next few years. Whilst I'm sure that they've sold some high margin 777Fs in that period, one wonders whether that's enough to stop the red ink.

How any of what you just said does that change the fact that the 777-300ER remains the market leader in the 350+ seater market.

Secondly it’s not a rumour

https://twitter.com/spaethflies/status/ ... IWY581tMnQ

The 350-1000 obviously more efficient etc etc. so it’s “better”
But it’s not the market leader in its field. It’s just not.

300ERs are still being delivered.

Yes it’s helped greatly by reduced pricing but also the fact that it’s just a really really good airplane. Probably the best Boeing has built and will probably ever build.

Extremely rugged and reliable, efficient, good cargo hauler, reliable engines.

No amount of reduced pricing can help the 380 against a 35K or 777-9. And that’s coming from an airline CEO (Alex Cruz)

But for the right price a 300ER can unseat both those jets. Mainly because of their ridiculous pricing

However, not for long.

Hopefully the 777X is at least cash flow positive. If it’s not, who cares? It’s not the end of the world. You butter your bread elsewhere, it’s like when people bring up 787 program accounting profitability, like at this point, who actually cares even within Boeing I don’t even think they care anymore, just get whatever cash you can and keep it moving. Why do we like crying over spilt milk here

We are avgeeks, who gives a f*** if it makes any money or not, other than the “bean counters” you all supposedly hate.

zkojq wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

as of TODAY, the 350-1000 has not finished battling the 300ER talk less of the 777-9, when it does we can continue this discussion

How long until the 777-9 is actually delivered? Lufthansa was supposed to get theirs in 2018...now not until 2025 at the absolute earliest. Even the 787 was less delayed...

Lufthansa ordered theirs in 2013, so that order to delivery lag will be ~12 years.

Opus99 wrote:

I agree with Boeing in the sense that, the fact remains the 777-300ER still continues to lead the 350+ seater market, up to the point that LH will rather acquire white tail 777-300ERs than white tail a350s when it looks at whether to bring back 380s.

So, let me get this straight, you're using a rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get brand new white tail 77Ws) over another rumor that hasn't happened (LH to get ex QR A350-1000 NTUs) to prove that one plane is better than another?

Daysleeper wrote:

I don't see what the big selling point is for the 777X over the A35K - Yes, it can carry 20 more people and yes it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than the 77W and 744's it was designed to replace, but unless an airline needs those seats due to capacity constraints or likes to fit ultra-premium cabins. I just don't see what it brings to the table. The wings are cool though, I love those, and they should make it more efficient. I also assume it will be able to carry more belly cargo, but enough to warrant its price and fuel burn?

That's just it; the 777-9's competitive advantage is having more premium real estate up front than it's competitors.

Daysleeper wrote:

The 748F saved the 748, well perhaps not saved but at least cushioned the financial blow - I think Boeing will reach its new target of 350 77X's, but across both the pax and F variants and with the cash cow all moo'ed out and having to pay 5 years worth of compensation credits I find it hard to how it will ever turn a profit.

I don't really see how it can be cashflow positive, let alone a profitable program. Seven years of delay compensation is a hell of a lot....

Similarly problematic; the 777 line is running very slow for the next few years. Whilst I'm sure that they've sold some high margin 777Fs in that period, one wonders whether that's enough to stop the red ink.

The EIS of the 777X was never 2018. At launch, first flight was 2019 with deliveries in 2020.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2013/11/17 ... -emirates/

Opus99 wrote:

thank you for this, you know when people just say anything like

SQ, still has refused to order the 350-1000, 777 being replaced by 777X, they've said this multiple times

SQ is always going to have a dual sourcing strategy. They will never go all Airbus or all Boeing. That said, the 777X will primarily replace the A380 and they will also replace 77W on high yield routes (requiring F) like LHR and CDG. There are also quite a few 77W routes which have gone to A350-900. These were routes which were the last ones to go from 77E to 77W. 77X will be 4 class, A359 3-class. If you take both requirements together (route requirements as well as a dual source strategy), then 777X is the obvious choice.

CX will have a similar strategy.

Opus99 wrote:

How any of what you just said does that change the fact that the 777-300ER remains the market leader in the 350+ seater market.

How do you define a market leader? Sales? But given that its order book is presently empty due to it being superseded by newer models then it would have to be historical sales. In which case it’s hardly leading anything really, is it?

I agree that at one point in time it led the VLA market, being the most efficient and modern option available. But those days are long gone and there are better “market leading” options available. I mean, if it’s still the market leader now, then why did Boeing bother producing the X?

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly it’s not a rumour

https://twitter.com/spaethflies/status/ ... IWY581tMnQ

A twitter link kinda defines a rumour IMHO. Show me a press release stating that LH has just ordered some brand new 77W’s to be built and yeah you might be onto something. But the last I saw was that they were going to be re-activating some of the stored A380s to deal with next years demand. Still all rumours though, so who knows.

Opus99 wrote:

The 350-1000 obviously more efficient etc etc. so it’s “better”
But it’s not the market leader in its field. It’s just not.

As I mentioned further up, I guess it comes down to how you define what a market leader is. For me it would be the most efficient and modern airframe within its market segment. Therefore almost every type has at some point in its life been the market leader (with the possible exception of the Max) until another type is produced which almost certainly be more efficient and have better technology.

Opus99 wrote:

300ERs are still being delivered.

Are you talking new build ones? Or white tails which have been stored for a while? I didn’t think there had been any 77Ws in production for the last year at least. But I could be wrong.

Opus99 wrote:

Yes it’s helped greatly by reduced pricing but also the fact that it’s just a really really good airplane. Probably the best Boeing has built and will probably ever build.

Extremely rugged and reliable, efficient, good cargo hauler, reliable engines.

No amount of reduced pricing can help the 380 against a 35K or 777-9. And that’s coming from an airline CEO (Alex Cruz)

But for the right price a 300ER can unseat both those jets. Mainly because of their ridiculous pricing

However, not for long.

I agree that is perhaps the best aircraft Boeing has ever built, but I hope your wrong about it being the best they will ever build. Sincerely I do. I personally have a soft spot for it too, I think its one of the best looking aircraft still flying. I’m not so keen on flying it though. I find it a little noisy for long haul travel - even if I’m sitting in the posh seats. 10 abreast in Y…id rather walk

Opus99 wrote:

We are avgeeks, who gives a f*** if it makes any money or not, other than the “bean counters” you all supposedly hate.

The problem is the bean counters don’t just count the beans; they control them. If the 77X turns out to be a financial flop and costs Boeing money, then the next time engineering wants to borrow some beans to make a new fancy airplane for us to all enjoy they are going to say no. And you might well end up being right; the 77W is and was Boeing will ever make.

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

How any of what you just said does that change the fact that the 777-300ER remains the market leader in the 350+ seater market.

How do you define a market leader? Sales? But given that its order book is presently empty due to it being superseded by newer models then it would have to be historical sales. In which case it’s hardly leading anything really, is it?

I agree that at one point in time it led the VLA market, being the most efficient and modern option available. But those days are long gone and there are better “market leading” options available. I mean, if it’s still the market leader now, then why did Boeing bother producing the X?

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly it’s not a rumour

https://twitter.com/spaethflies/status/ ... IWY581tMnQ

A twitter link kinda defines a rumour IMHO. Show me a press release stating that LH has just ordered some brand new 77W’s to be built and yeah you might be onto something. But the last I saw was that they were going to be re-activating some of the stored A380s to deal with next years demand. Still all rumours though, so who knows.

Opus99 wrote:

The 350-1000 obviously more efficient etc etc. so it’s “better”
But it’s not the market leader in its field. It’s just not.

As I mentioned further up, I guess it comes down to how you define what a market leader is. For me it would be the most efficient and modern airframe within its market segment. Therefore almost every type has at some point in its life been the market leader (with the possible exception of the Max) until another type is produced which almost certainly be more efficient and have better technology.

Opus99 wrote:

300ERs are still being delivered.

Are you talking new build ones? Or white tails which have been stored for a while? I didn’t think there had been any 77Ws in production for the last year at least. But I could be wrong.

Opus99 wrote:

Yes it’s helped greatly by reduced pricing but also the fact that it’s just a really really good airplane. Probably the best Boeing has built and will probably ever build.

Extremely rugged and reliable, efficient, good cargo hauler, reliable engines.

No amount of reduced pricing can help the 380 against a 35K or 777-9. And that’s coming from an airline CEO (Alex Cruz)

But for the right price a 300ER can unseat both those jets. Mainly because of their ridiculous pricing

However, not for long.

I agree that is perhaps the best aircraft Boeing has ever built, but I hope your wrong about it being the best they will ever build. Sincerely I do. I personally have a soft spot for it too, I think its one of the best looking aircraft still flying. I’m not so keen on flying it though. I find it a little noisy for long haul travel - even if I’m sitting in the posh seats. 10 abreast in Y…id rather walk

Opus99 wrote:

We are avgeeks, who gives a f*** if it makes any money or not, other than the “bean counters” you all supposedly hate.

The problem is the bean counters don’t just count the beans; they control them. If the 77X turns out to be a financial flop and costs Boeing money, then the next time engineering wants to borrow some beans to make a new fancy airplane for us to all enjoy they are going to say no. And you might well end up being right; the 77W is and was Boeing will ever make.

But I didn’t say they ordered it. I said they were considering. So Don’t get it mixed up.

It’s the market leader in sales and deliveries actually. Let’s look back the last 5 years. In the 350+ seater market it has been the most sold and the most delivered.

The 777-9 and 350-1000 pretty much net negative numbers year on year.

300ER sits at 50 net orders in the past 5 years, even with adjustments it’s at 45 net I believe
777X is at about 35 net since emirates cancelled a bunch, if you want to take in to consideration adjustments you’re going into serious negative numbers
The 350-1000 I mean, you know the answer to that

Opus99 wrote:

But I didn’t say they ordered it. I said they were considering. So Don’t get it mixed up.

It’s the market leader in sales and deliveries actually. Let’s look back the last 5 years. In the 350+ seater market it has been the most sold and the most delivered.

The 777-9 and 350-1000 pretty much net negative numbers year on year.

300ER sits at 50 net orders in the past 5 years, even with adjustments it’s at 45 net I believe
777X is at about 35 net since emirates cancelled a bunch, if you want to take in to consideration adjustments you’re going into serious negative numbers
The 350-1000 I mean, you know the answer to that

This is an industry standard metric? The market leader is the frame with the most orders and deliveries over the last 5 years?

It makes little to no sense to me, as most new programs (at least recently) see the bulk of their orders right after launch, allowing the buyers to get both the best pricing and earliest slots. Also with a new design it is going to take time for production to ramp up, hence deliveries are going to be slow or none existent for the first 5 years after launch (10 or maybe 12 for the X)

For me the leader in a segment is the one with the most demand, hence orders and a backlog.