flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think it's reasonable to assume the A359 costs more than the 787-10 because it is a more capable aircraft than the 787-10. Generally speaking, the more lift the more you pay. Plus, there have been numerous stories about how Boeing has ratcheted down production costs on the 787, particularly when Hawaiian chose the 789 versus the A338. As I recall, Leeham claimed it cost Boeing approximately 95 million to produce a 789 and sold them in that deal for $125 million.

Airbus should be charging more for an aircraft that can do more imho. Since both the 787 and A350 have sold extremely well, it appears both OEM's strategies for selling these aircraft appear to be working well.

Doesn't the a321neo have a lower list price than the MAX10 despite being more capable ? , last I checked, it did. Seems capability might not necessarily mean everything with regards to pricing.

I do believe that even thou the a359 and 78X could be similarly priced, the latter has more flexibility or wiggle room with it's pricing, meaning it should be possible to undercut the a359 in most cases since airlines rarely pay list price.

Since the 787-10 is just a stretched -9 and the fact that it shares more in common ( components ) with it's sibling than the a359 does with the a35K, it's not crazy to believe that the economics of scale favours the 787-10 more and allows it to be cheaper to build than the a359 in general

Build costs are closely tied to build rate, the fact that there is more of them around (both models are mature enough in their production) means little. I see no reason why the 78x would, at this stage, have more ‘wiggle room’.

I would say that the evidence that the 78X commands a higher value gives it additional margin, I would expect them both to cost about the same to make.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well the build rate didn't help the 787-8, still a pain in the ass for Boeing to produce and the 789/78X was (is still) favoured because of their better level of commonality (shared costs of production) . Nothing to do with how many of them around, but rather how many components could be shared across during production with little or no modification.

I'm Doubtful thou that the 78X has reached a comparable and mature rate of production as the a359 just yet , it would definitely be cheaper if it did. It has never really had a chance to do so since the Covid19 hit a year and a couple of months after it's EIS in 2018, and disrupted everything.

I think a 787-9ER and 787-10ER both have promise. I am not sure there is a need to do an "A350-1000" type treatment to the 787 (bigger wing, bigger landing gear) given Boeing has the 777X program.

One nice thing about the 787-10 is it is a very good high-density TATL airplane, and CONUS to Hawaii. For UA, from EWR and IAD it can reach all of Europe and Tel Aviv. That has been a capacity and range segment that has been ignored.

A 787-10ER would allow higher density destinations from ORD, such as Haneda. I could see UA buying the 787-10ER to augment their fleet, and possibly add the 787-10ER to replace 777-200ERs.

One thing I think that is needed is a lower capacity TATL airplane. Something with the range performance between an A330-300/767-400ER and the 767-300ER, but more in the capacity range of the A330-300 and 787-9. That is why I think a 787 "Lite" "Next Generation" could make some sense. One model at roughly a 787-8 length for longer, thinner segments (6,000nm range), and one at a 787-9 length for TATL routes (5,500nm range) that can't support the 787-10. This would require a new, smaller wing specs similar to the 767-400ER's, and a new generation of engines likely requiring longer landing gear.

Given Boeing has the 777X, going "down market" with the 787 makes some sense.

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Sermons wrote:

Doesn't the a321neo have a lower list price than the MAX10 despite being more capable ? , last I checked, it did. Seems capability might not necessarily mean everything with regards to pricing.

I do believe that even thou the a359 and 78X could be similarly priced, the latter has more flexibility or wiggle room with it's pricing, meaning it should be possible to undercut the a359 in most cases since airlines rarely pay list price.

Since the 787-10 is just a stretched -9 and the fact that it shares more in common ( components ) with it's sibling than the a359 does with the a35K, it's not crazy to believe that the economics of scale favours the 787-10 more and allows it to be cheaper to build than the a359 in general

Build costs are closely tied to build rate, the fact that there is more of them around (both models are mature enough in their production) means little. I see no reason why the 78x would, at this stage, have more ‘wiggle room’.

I would say that the evidence that the 78X commands a higher value gives it additional margin, I would expect them both to cost about the same to make.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well the build rate didn't help the 787-8, still a pain in the ass for Boeing to produce and the 789/78X was (is still) favoured because of their better level of commonality (shared costs of production) . Nothing to do with how many of them around, but rather how many components could be shared across during production with little or no modification.

The commonality (or lack thereof) in the 788 vs the other two manifests it’s self as a production rate decrease to the rate of that model on the fraction that is not common then normalised to the weight. Add to the fact that the 788 did the bull of the early teething issues it’s easy to see why it got a bad rep. For example if it were just the 789 and 78X being produced (at 10per month for easy maths) at 90% common the 789 and 78X with a market share of 70:30 in favour of the 789 then: the 789 would have its 90% common parts produced at 10/month and 10% non common parts at 7/month. The 78X has then the 90% at 10 and the 10% at 3.

If we call 10/month unit costs if 1/unit weight then 3/month will be unit costs 1.32 cost per unit weight and 7/month is 1.09 cost per unit weight. This gives the 789 a total unit cost of 1.009 per unit weight and the 78X 1.032 per unit weight. Given that the OEW is ~ 5.1% higher I would expect the build cost of the 78X given the above numbers to be 7.4 % highe than its sibling.

Sermons wrote:

I'm Doubtful thou that the 78X has reached a comparable and mature rate of production as the a359 just yet , it would definitely be cheaper if it did.

It’s built on a very mature platform, there’s no reason to speculate that the 2 aircraft in question aren’t able to be produced smoothly at this point.

Sermons wrote:

It has never really had a chance to do so since the Covid19 hit a year and a couple of months after it's EIS in 2018, and disrupted everything.

Did Covid only affect Boeing? Lol

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Did Covid only affect Boeing? Lol

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guess which aircraft had more time to mature it's production before the pandemic hit. One had only less than 2 years, the other had four, That's the point.. Beat around the bush if you want. Lol

Sermons wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Did Covid only affect Boeing? Lol

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guess which aircraft had more time to mature it's production before the pandemic hit. One had only less than 2 years, the other had four, That's the point.. Beat around the bush if you want. Lol

The 787 had 10years vs the A350 having 5?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk