|Quoting Zvezda (Reply 91):|
If Boeing were to do all that the result would cost more than and be inferior to a B787-11X.
Do we have any "guestimates" on things like dimensions, performance (range), floorspace, and capacity for a 787-11? I don't believe the A350-1000 will have as much floor space as the 777-300ER, but she'll win on being much more efficient then the 773ER at the same passenger load, even if it's not quite as high. I am guessing the same will apply for the 787-11 (won't carry quite as many folks as the A35G, but at the same load, will be more efficient), but I'd be interested to know how all three planes slot into each other in terms of capacity and range.
|Quoting Leelaw (Reply 92):|
Perhaps, or Boeing wasn't motivated to provide a costly "loss leader"/sweetener because the 787 program was already firmly established. It's possible Boeing learned from its earlier experience unloading SQ's A343s that chasing future orders with costly "loss leaders"/sweeteners isn't necessarily a profitable enterprise in the long run. Who knows, the only thing for certain is that the boys from Changi will drive a hard bargain with each and every deal.
Yes they will, but by absorbing whatever costs it took to get SQ to choose the 777 over the A340 (did Boeing take all 17?), Boeing went on to land 77 orders for the 777 family, and I am sure every one of them was sold at a profit, even after the costs of reselling the A343 fleet was calculated in.
Right now, SQ has identical MoUs for both the 787 and A350 families. SQ might very well buy both models, or they may cancel one of the MoUs. If SQ does end up cancelling the 787 MoU and stops ordering 777s and moves forward solely with A350s (and assuming they're all profitable sales), you can be sure that not offering "loss leaders"/sweeteners was not a profitable enterprise in the long run...
|Quoting EbbUK (Reply 99):|
It may be less than ideal but if it means minimising running costs then these operators will be at the negotiating table with one thing at the top of their agenda, take these planes off us and we will buy your new jets.
While I am going to be seen immediately contradicting myself to my reply above to Leelaw, the deal needs to be financially sensible for the manufacturer. Using AF and the 773ER as an example, AF is going to say "make us a deal that includes taking 19 773ERs all less then a decade old that we're still paying for, plus make the new deal no worse then what we're paying now for those 19 frames".
I just don't see Airbus being able to do so without them bleeding red ink by the barrel. It would be like financing a 2006 vehicle with no money down and then going back to the dealership 12 months later and wanting a 2007 model with no money down at the same monthly payment. You're still "upside down" on the 2006, so when you factor in those monies into the 2007, the only way the payment is going to be the same is if the dealer discounts the 2007 to well below his cost. And as I have stated many times, I don't believe Airbus does deliberately negative deals just to win orders.
I find it much more likely that if AF feels the A350 family - including the A35G - is the better option for them then the 787 family, they will indeed "stagger" replacements, buying A358s and A359s to replace their oldest 772s and A343s and then, sometime in the very late 2010s to early 2020s, start to replace their 773ERs with A35Gs.