PhilB,

I mentioned all those airlines because let's face it, airline travel is continuing to grow and the major international trunk routes are going to require bigger planes 5-7 years from now than the 747-400 with its 410-420 pax load. This is especially in light of the fact more landing slots will NOT become available at most of the world's major airports. I mean, how many major airports can afford to expand easily like DFW or CDG in terms of parking gates and ESPECIALLY runway capacity?

Hence the list of likely airlines that will buy or long-term lease the A3XX-100.

People forget that Asian airlines fly with mostly full flights. I mean, try to get a last-minute ticket on CX, JL or CI--fat chance.

Now that SQ has announced their 25-plane order and options, I expect several other Australasian airlines to follow suit. Don't be surprised that by 2002 every major Asian airline plus Qantas will order the A3XX-100. The most likely airlines to place an order within the next 12 months--Cathay Pacific Airways, Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Japan Airlines, Korean Airlines, and Qantas. In fact, don't be surprised that KE makes an early order for the A3XX-100, because there is a massive amount of overseas traffic KE flies and their current flights--especially to the USA--are always full.

There have been "downturns" many times over the 45 years I've been watching the aviation scene. Every one has been heralded as either "the long forecast end of the airline boom" or "the end of the party for airlines and aircraft manufacturers". Both statements have always been proved to be hogwash.

Throughout the period, the traffic growth graph has been constatly upward. True, the pedal has come off the gas from time to time but the growth of traffic is allied to the growth in people's freedom.

From the evolution of the motor car, people have grabbed to chance to move further, faster, more frequently.

Sure companies cut travel budgets (tell me about it, I was in the international conference business for 24 years) but it doesn't matter if you sit at the front or the back, the aircraft gets to the gate at a given time and airlines will find ways of gaining revenue whatever the pax mix in order to keep in business.

Surveys around the world show that people put travel at the top of their wish list and will even cut out other "essentials" to make a trip. Where there is a market, someone will fill the need.

Twenty years ago we were told that teleconferencing would do away with face to face meetings by 2000. Various types of video "experience" would do away with the need to visit places and, anyway, by 2000 oil would be in such short supply, travel would be restricted.

Over decades, fuel costs and environmental problems will only slow the rate of growth, not stall it.

One day, someone will solve the environmental problems in a way that is acceptable with regard to safety (cryogenics?).

The genie is out of the bottle and no-one will stop the growth of travel.

In 1968, Boeing saw the 747 as a short term stop gap until the release of the B2707, expecting the aircraft would never be full and having designed it for conversion to a freighter after 5-7 years service. The airlines bought it, but under the air fare arrangements of the time, struggled to fill it at first.

The 2707 never happened, Concorde was tied down to a handful of routes and the industry leapt forward on a tide of lower fares, increased availability and by building peoples expectation.

The A3XX is the next rung on the ladder.

PhilB, some comments on your comments, as it were.

LH are not a player on the Kangaroo route, I don't even think they are flying to Sydney any more. They are focused on building up a second hub at MUC, which means splitting the l/h traffic. Thus the big order for A340-600 they made (25?)

As for traffic growth, it is mostly at the cost of constantly falling fares. Imagine trying to justify investing billions of dollars, with a poor return. The SQ numbers are obviously inflated, but their total profit from all current routes is less than 6-7% of the total investment in tha A3XX... i.e. they would be better off leaving it in the bank. The SIN government though is set on keeping Changi a main hub though.

As I said, very few airlines can make the B744 work. Look at the largest B744 carrier, BA, loosing money. UA (the largest USA user), losing money. And that's during a boom for air travel! Total investment in the B744 over the last 12 years has probably been greater than the profits of all the worlds airlines (c. 70-80 billion worth of B744 bought, annual operating profits of the worlds airlines less than 5 billion USD)


However, this is a business unlike any other, guess that's why I love it. Don't put your pension fund in airline stocks though!

Ray Chuang,

You are so right about the growth of travel, runway and slot availability but the big question is already being asked in the USA and it will be asked in Asia sooner rather than later, viz:

When does the passenger want to go?

Already in the USA airlines are downsizing aircraft and 737s are operating 4 and 5 hour sectors with RJs on not much shorter rides, all with increased frequency.

On routes over 7 hours there is a great deal of sense in packing a number of widebodies each day and sending them of in one or two tranches, due to time zones.

For rides of less than seven hours, and particularly those lasting only 2-3 hours, the problem for the airline is knowing when to go. Passengers want to go when they need to.

In China, with no time zones and growing traffic, making people wait until an A3XX is full doesn't make sense. Very frequent flights do.

Buying the 737-800, which can seat almost many as the early 707, in quantity is the answer to what to buy. How to slot it into and out of airports and maintain separation on airways is a whole different question

Lutfi,

First, re DLH on the Kangaroo route, their ommission on this major trunk route cannot be maintained because the traffic on the route, whether stopping in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore, is of great importance to Germany and the EC as a whole. Qantas and SIA are currently expanding in Germany, it goes against the whole German psychology to let a foreign carrier dominate a growing route.

Also the freight potential around the Pacific rim dcitates that DLH will be a player in Australasia in the years to come.

"Air travel growth at the cost of constantly falling fares"?

Well may be so. Although the growth in travel was initially sparked by the fall in greatly overpriced fares in the early 1970s, travel growth now has a momentum nothing to do with cost - more to do with freedom, expectation and greater expendable income.

Airlines are not charities and those that stay in business do so because it is worth their while.

Most airlines that are losing money at present are doing so because they budgeted on oil at $10 a barrel and thought it would hold, spend far too much on non flying admin and management structures or "diversification into catering, travel agencies and ill thought out peripheral ventures. They also have byzantine fare structures which put off travellers and send them elsewhere. Plus the fact that many still operate as if they were national institutions, owed a living, instead of competitive entities.

BA and UA are not losing money because of the 747-400, they are losing money because of dinosaur like management, poor people management (how much has BA paid out in redundancies?) and plainly poor hiring and firing as well as the other items mentioned above.
My experience on United in August, 4 sectors, one cancelled, massive queing, all the others late, dirty aircraft, poor communications and a couldn't care less attitude is much more the reason they lose money than the 400srs.

Lutfi,

Airlines may be making losses on their 747's, but they still have them in their fleet......the need is there, whether the airline can manage the fleet properly is a completely different matter........

'The A3XX is a poor freighter'.......you must have amazing insight Lutfi, considering the plane has never flown and no real performance data is available......and I suppose Fedex, Cargolux, Atlas, all of whom have unofficially confirmed that they are considering the aircraft, have got it all wrong??

Performance data is available. But you are right, needs to be discounted by 5-8% for marketing hype, and new aircraft performance (AI and Boeing usually quote performance of a brand new aircraft. They deteriorate in service by 4-5% over the first few years as the engines get older, and the airframe becomes less clean with bird strikes etc.)

The A3XX will make a good "package" freighter. It has great volume payload, but the max weight payload is about the same as the 747 str. But the triple deck design is designed for pax, not cargo, so it needs 90-100 more MTOW (Max Take Off Weight) for that cargo. That's expensive in terms of fuel, landing charges etc.

Also max height of a pallet in a A3XX is 8 feet, in a 744 is 10 feet. The ceiling height was designed for pax again in a A3XX. Doen't sound much but that means that you can't fly a A3XX engine inside a A3XX, so spares will need to be lifted in by a B744F or an Antonov in case of an engine problem.

No front swing door on A3XX, and more importantly, will need specialised upper main deck loader to load the top deck of the A3XX . This means you can only fly it to those airports with that equipment.

So in summary, if you are carrying light weight packages between definite hubs, the A3XX makes sense (Fedex Memphis- Paris?) But for a general cargo carrier like Atlas or Cargolux, who get asked to fly charters to odd places all the time, I don't think so. So Fedex/UPS may buy it, can't see others.

What many people don't realise is that the A3XX-100 is the shrink version. The tailfin, wing and much of the structure is designed for the bigger A3XX-200, which will be around 2010 onwards. A shrink is always heavy for the payload it carries. The A3XX-200 is the aircraft that will really scare Boeing, and be more efficient. The A3XX-100 is almost just a loss leader. Because if your analysis says you need a bigger aircraft, then the A3XX-100 isn't much bigger (100-150 seats more, for an investment of 200 m an aircraft) That doesn't make sense if your B744 isn't yet old.

The A3XX-200 will be 200-250 seats more, for about the same price. So when an airline looks to replace its old B744 (2010-2015), if they think they need the bigger a/c. they will go for a really big a/c. Otherwise, replace a B744 with a A340 or B777 derivative

PhilB, yes UA/BA have many problems. But these are the two biggest B744 operators. If they can't get it together now, which bank will give the billions of US for larger aircraft? As you say, many airlines are run badly, so I question how they can find the money to buy A3XX.

LH to Australasia? If they can make profit on the route, they will do it. LH are one of the better run airlines out there now, and they don't fly for fun, they do it for cash. Once an airline realises that no-one owes them a living, and become competitive, issues of face become much less important. Such as US carriers getting rid of many widebodies after deregulation, and using twins across the Atlantic. The feather bedded European carriers continued with the 747's.

Accoring to some, Boeing might as well just shut down all operations and give up. 10 firm orders from SIA certainly does not spell the end of this battle, far from it. The first panels have yet to be joined and some are already claiming victory. Well, the list of things that can go very wrong from here until 2005 is very long indeed. Besides, the widebody market will absolutely not break down to one that runs from 300-400 seats and then jump staright to 550-650 seats. There will always be a significant amount of room in between and this is where Boeing's 747NG planes will play.

Some poeple on this forum laugh at Boeing and sound just as stupid as the Boeing crowd they point the finger at. Just like last year when Airbus posted more new orders for the first time ever and again Boeing was finished as a company. Even though 2000 isn't over, Boeing's sure giving Airbus a run for its money aren't they? Surprising for a company that only sells medievil airframes with 16th C. technology.

Airbus is still playing with fire on the investment they're making in the A3XX and funds for development of other new aircraft will be severley limited over the next 10-15 years. Perhaps this will come back to haunt them. No one here can predict the future, so it is quite comical to see the gloaters out in full force so early in the VLA game (whether the're for Airbus or for Boeing).

Which European carriers are "featherbedded and running 747s?

Why are the 747s out of Europe across the Atlantic sold out daily throughout the summer?

As I said, the BA and UA mess is nothing to do with the 400srs. Their's are as full as anyone else's. The problem lies with the managements and their poor performance in both cases.

Senior executives in any company will point the finger away from themselves whenever ill thought out schemes fail.

BA continued up until Ayling's departure, to act as the flag carrier. It isn't, its just another British airline.

Launching GO, which competes with the parent, in an already frenetic market could never work. Selling the engine plant to GE to gain advantage when buying GE engines and having to put other types of engine work out to contract might "turn on" short sighted accountants but has cost the airline.

Concentrating on a business market to the detriment of the rest of the population is nonsense e.g. they used to fly a 767 MAN-LAX. In the first summer the load factors were around 90% pax, 95% hold cargo. To the amazement of Manchester Airport and the travel trade they pulled the service as it wasn't making money.

The reason, only a couple of Business Class seat were being sold on each trip. Now if BA cannot make money on the figures quoted, the management should be changed and the airline put in the hands of real airline people, not so called professional managers.

Cargolux, Atlas, etc. are more interested in the 747X, according to Boeing. Cargolux probably would want to save money and keep their all-747 fleet, not turning to Airbus. Turning to the A3XX would cost any airline that operates a great amount of 744's will cost them A LOT more money for the A3XX, for little more capacity, it doesn't make sense. That's why I state that Virgin, UA, BA, Atlas, Cargolux, etc will buy the 747X instead of A3XX. Turning to the A3XX would make no sense at all if you operate the 747-400. It would cost a lot less to get the 747X then the A3XX for these airlines. This includes aircraft operation, savings on fuel, employees (less needed), pilot training. That's why UA, BA, Cargolux and Atlas would probably purchase the 747X instead to save money (as I stated) and keep their Boeing long haul fleet. The same goes with Qantas.

In my opinion, the A3XX is an ugly plane that makes no sense compared to the 747X. The 747X is so much cheaper to buy and operate, airport changes would not be that much as they would with A3XX. The 747X would have just a little less capacity than the A3XX, yet it is more economical and cheap.

The 747X is the smarter way to go, these airlines know that, they've only expressed interest in the A3XX, they also did that with the 747X, so stop with this interest stuff.

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
The 747X is the smarter way to go, these airlines know that, they've only expressed interest in the A3XX, they also did that with the 747X, so stop with this interest stuff.
-------------------------------

I could reply point by point, but I think the comments already spoken here speak for themselves. I do think it's funny watching the attempt to turn around a tsunami with a 6 ounce glass though. I just read through my Aircraft Orders newslist and the very respected Marc Shaeffer, owner and operator of the Aircraft Orders list with all sorts of information sources, says in his opinion the "domino has just started rolling".

I'll attach the press release from Singapore Airlines below and let you decide how to read it of course. Of key interest are the words "new technology" uttered by SIA's chairman. Then skim below to read Mr Tan's comments and try to focus in on the product they want to create using the A3XX.

Meanwhile, I wish you good luck turning that tsunami around. (G)

Ahhh...denial. It's a funny thing.

MAC

------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore Airlines Announces US$ 8.6 Billion Airbus A3XX Order

29/09/2000

Singapore Airlines (SIA) announced today an US$8.6 billion order for 25
super-jumbo A3XX very large aircraft (VLA). The price tag includes the cost of
spares and installed engines (but not spare engines).

The prices are applicable at the time of aircraft delivery, between early 2006 and
2011, with price escalation factors incorporated.

Ten of the aircraft are firm orders, the rest options. The 15 options can be
exercised for freighters as well as passenger aircraft.

The very large aircraft (VLA) with over 500 seats will be the largest passenger
aircraft ever produced. With the first delivery scheduled for early 2006, SIA will be the first airline in the world to accept and operate this revolutionary aircraft. (SIA was also the first airline, together with a US airline, to operate the Boeing
747-400).

A decision on the engine type will be made by the end of October.

Said Dr Cheong Choong Kong, SIA's Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer:

"Our decision to be a pioneer for this latest aircraft type is further evidence of
SIA's determination to stay ahead of the field in product and service. The A3XX is the latest in aircraft technology."

The decision was the culmination of a keenly contested competition between the
A3XX and the B747X, Boeing's version of the VLA. According to Dr Cheong, "We
conducted the usual meticulous evaluation; first, of whether we needed a VLA,
and then of the comparative merits of the candidates. An important reason for
the choice of the A3XX was its new technology. Economic factors were also
important."

The A3XX has a range of 7,500 nautical miles, in SIA's configuration. SIA intends to deploy it on its high-density routes to London, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Sydney.

The A3XX routes to the USA will entail an intermediate point. They will
complement the non-stop services that SIA plans to operate to US points in 2002 with the super-long-range Airbus A340-500.

Mr. Michael Tan, SIA Executive Vice-President (Commercial), said: "Although the
first delivery is 5 years away, we can hardly wait. The larger cabin interior offers
intriguing opportunities. We don't wish to give anything away at this stage, but
our customers can expect service innovations and unprecedented levels of
comfort. Improving on what we are already offering our passengers will require
creativity and a good deal of research, but it is a necessary and worthwhile
effort."

The Airline's interest in a VLA of over 500 seats has been common knowledge.
Such an aircraft will relieve congestion in airspace and at airports, allowing the
carriage of a larger number of passengers at the same frequency, which is good
for the environment. "A larger aircraft also means a lower operating cost per
seat," said Dr Cheong, "especially with the higher efficiency that comes with
newer technology. This confers a competitive advantage to the operator,
enabling it to earn higher profits with the same or even more attractive fares. "

SIA currently operates a fleet of 92 aircraft, with a further 39 on firm order and
33 on option. It operates 44 B747-400s (of which eight are freighters), 18 Boeing 777s, 15 Airbus A340-300s, and 15 A310-300s. The average age of the aircraft in SIA's passenger fleet currently is 5 years 7 months, making it one of the aviation world's youngest.

More information can be found on http://www.singaporeair.com

I don't think you understood my post MAC. My point was not concerning SQ, it was concerning other airlines that have expressed interest in the A3XX+747X.

Has ANYONE noticed this?

From the Seattle Times article posted here, This point is absolutely stunning!
Folks. Read into this! Boeing couldnt even -give away- the 747X!

------------------
Boeing made an all-out push for the deal, offering to reduce the 747X's price to as low as $142 million, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations. Boeing even offered to buy back some of Singapore's existing 747-400s and take back the new 747X version after 10 years if Singapore didn't want it.

Boeing officials declined to discuss specifics of the Singapore negotiations, but Mulally acknowledged that "we offered Singapore a very, very attractive" proposal.
-----------------

Singapore valued the 25 A3XXs at $8.6 billion, an average of $344 million for each aircraft, including spare parts. That's significantly higher than the list price for the A3XX, which ranges from $218 million to $240 million.

But it is also well-known that launch customers typically receive sizable discounts. Singapore officials said the purchase price includes an inflation adjustment, but it is unclear how much Singapore will pay for the entire order. It declined to disclose specifics of the deal other than to say it was a "hotly contested competition."

Despite Mulally's assurances about the 747X's future, Boeing's attempts to make the Singapore sale with such favorable terms may raise serious questions about the future of the program: Can the redesign of the venerable 747 hold its own against a newcomer with more seats and new technology?

Cheong Choong, Singapore's deputy chairman and chief executive, said the A3XX's larger capacity was the answer to the growing clash between airport congestion and the need to carry more passengers. He added that the A3XX will enable the carrier to earn more profit on each seat without raising fares.

Choong's comments seemed to undermine Boeing's claim that the 747X would offer lower operating costs than the A3XX.

Some analysts cautioned, though, that Singapore's role as an influential carrier may be a bit overblown. Not all of Singapore's airplane purchases have fared well. It also was an early buyer of the Douglas MD-11 - a slow-selling, gas-guzzling widebody jet that few other airlines chose to buy.

-----------------------------------

May I interject:

And SIA cancelled that order after McDonnell Douglas resorted to the now infamous "napkin" proposal, changes to the MD-11 drawn on a dinner napkin. They went ahead and ordered A340s, then 777s and A340-500s

Then read this:
------------------------

With 44 747s, Singapore has the world's sixth-largest fleet of the jumbo jet. Mulally held out hope that Singapore may still buy some 747Xs in the future. However, Choong all but ruled that out, saying Boeing's plane did not meet the airline's needs.

"The two aircraft are made for the same mission," he said. "It was one or the other for us."
-----------------------

The article weaves in some ways to downplay the purchase then it weaves the other way. I cant help but notice the financials Boeing made to SIA and they still turned them down! It sort of blows the "cheaper to operate, cheaper cost to acquire" argument somewhat/completely to hell.

Regards
MAC

Let's just see which plane will outsell the other one.  

I'm going to laugh my head off when Airbus realizes that they've wasted so much money on the A3XX. Like they will sell 100's of 'em. HA! They won't be able to even make a profit out of the A3XX. We'll just have to wait and see.  

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
Turning to the A3XX would cost any airline that operates a great amount of 744's will cost them A LOT more money for the A3XX, for little more capacity, it doesn't make sense. That's why I state that Virgin, UA, BA, Atlas, Cargolux, etc will buy the 747X instead of A3XX. Turning to the A3XX would make no sense at all if you operate the 747-400. It would cost a lot less to get the 747X then the A3XX for these airlines. This includes aircraft operation, savings on fuel, employees (less needed), pilot training. That's why UA, BA, Cargolux and Atlas would probably purchase the 747X instead to save money (as I stated) and keep their Boeing long haul fleet. The same goes with Qantas.
---

I'm no fan of Airbus myself, but how does your theory here hold true? Singapore, one of the worlds most respected airlines, AND one of the worlds largest operators of 747-400s and decided to opt for the A3XX. Now you say "Turning to the A3XX would make no sense at all if you operate the 747-400." Do you really think an airline like Singapore has made a mistake? Does their decision make no sense since they are what, only the second largest operator of 747-400s in the world?? Get real man, and make a little sense here.

Sammy

Just stating the statistics there sammyk. Maybe SQ ordered the A3XX, I mean, well they do have A340's too, right? I think they made a big mistake.

Acually, I was stating facts.

When the A340 was ordered, the 777 was not available, and the MD-11 failed to meet expectations, so it wasn't a mistake buying the A340, it was the only alternative. It may have "become" a mistake later when the 777 arrived on the scene, which may be why they are replacing these aircraft.

Sammy

The real reason for SQ trading A340s for B777?

Whilst changing horse in mid stream can cost a great deal of money, the 777 had advantages (but not enough unless the price was really sharp), the new aircraft would be good PR, especially in keeping down the average age of the fleet, so Boeing didn't have a hard job in buying SQ's business.

Also, they knew darn well they could easily sell on the A340s taken in trade.

Boeing pulled the same deal in Kuwait re 767s, and why not? Whilst profit pays wages, turnover and keeping the workforce busy enables product continuity and development of experience far more than the "take them on/lay them off" approach.

Anyone know why this thread has replicated itself?

Mac, you're as full of crap as the next guy. If you intend to do research and pass yourself off as an expert, then you should try to do a thorough job. As always, you're hatred of Boeing comes through clear as day. Let's start by asking what figure, when discounted by 30%, gets you to $142MM? About $205MM. As you should know, that is a reasonable discount for a launch customer like SIA.

Second, the price tag quoted for SIA includes inflationary factors, depreciation residuals, spares, and ENGINES! Do you know with any certainty what the actual price per base plane is? Of course you don't. Yet you still manage to jump all over Boeing for their ridiculous offer. Why don't you read some of the analysis witten by real aviation experts quoted in Reuters who are all in agreement that this deal is just about guaranteed to be a money loser for Airbus? I put more faith in Paul Nisbet from JSA Research than Marc Schaffer any day of the week.

The real reason you piss me off so much though is that you always do your best to paint individuals as morons by tearing their personal opinions and comments apart like a demented school teacher. Why don't you just post your own response without being such an antagonistic ***hole. I wish Airbus the best, but man I'd love to hear your comments if the A3XX went the way of the MD-11. Overblown promises..pissed off launch customer cancels..EU launches the costliest bailout in industrial history. If you don't think this could happen you're incredibly naive.

" Overblown promises..pissed off launch customer cancels..EU launches the costliest bailout in industrial history."

Sounds not unlike some of the policies, endowments and pensions sold by the financial services industry in the UK, USA and Europe in the last 25 years  

Why is it that so many under 35s on this forum get so frustrated when someone disagrees with their OPINION?

Why the paranoia from Boeing supporters?

Why do so few people quote facts or sources?

Why do so many people believe what they see in the daily press and in the non aviation media?

Most airline or aviation correspondents of the non-aviation press wouldn't know the front end of Concorde from a knitting needle (and that goes for some of the journalists on aviation mags too).

As for those claiming to KNOW what a company will order because "a pilot told me" or who say "xxx will NEVER do this, that or the other", they just show immaturity.

Some of us work/have worked in and with the industry. We don't know all the answers either but get pretty fed up of having to work through acres of garbage to read facts and interesting opinions

PhilB

It's because some people dont want to admit that there is a huge paradigm shift going on and wish to ignore it. While the tidal wave approaches their beliefs, they continue to sit on the beach. (G) It's funny to watch.

MAC

I get my facts from Boeing.com.

Anyway, what I said in my earlier posts were just my 2 cents.

Wingman

If you could READ the Seattle Times article posted by CX747 you wouldnt look so foolish. I'll copy it below for you ol' buddy. Now, go read the article and you'll see the $142 million dollar number THEY quote.

It does appear Boeing was trying desparately to GIVE away the 747X and they lost. Now, before that vein explodes in your head, please try to read.

Thanks!
MAC

-------------------------------
Saturday, September 30, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Boeing loses Singapore order


by Kyung M. Song and Stanley Holmes
Seattle Times aerospace reporters
In a decision that could prove seminal in the contest for superiority
between Boeing and Airbus Industrie, Singapore Airlines yesterday placed
an $8.6 billion order for the proposed Airbus A3XX super-jumbo plane.

The influential Southeast Asian carrier, which has one of the largest
Boeing 747 fleets in the world, capped a fierce sales battle between
Boeing and Airbus by announcing it will buy as many as 25 of the mammoth
A3XX planes, including firm orders for 10 of them and options to buy 15
more. The deal is the single biggest order for the A3XX and is perhaps
the first to give a stamp of market approval for the super-jumbo plane.

Singapore chose the A3XX because the plane would hold 55 more seats than
the new, enlarged 747 Boeing is planning. The decision calls into
question Boeing's argument that it doesn't see a large-enough market to
justify building a jet much bigger than the existing 747, the largest
commercial jetliner.

Singapore's order marks the first high-profile defeat for Boeing's
proposed 747X, the company's counter to the A3XX. Three other airlines
have placed Airbus orders, but until Singapore none had so seriously
compared the A3XX and the 747X before choosing Airbus.

Boeing's stock closed yesterday at $64.63, up 6 cents for the day.

Boeing had vigorously maneuvered to thwart the Airbus order, reportedly
shaving more than 20 percent off the $180 million list price of the 747X.


Alan Mulally, president of Boeing's commercial airplanes group,
downplayed the defeat. But Boeing executives acknowledged privately that
they were deeply disappointed.

Singapore's decision has reshaped the jumbo-jet competition by anointing
the A3XX as a legitimate challenger to Boeing's 32-year monopoly for
airplanes that haul more than 400 passengers.

Boeing Commercial derives a quarter of its profits and a fifth of its
airplane sales from the 747. That makes the jet Boeing's most profitable
model in an otherwise low-margin, extremely competitive industry. The
success of the A3XX could seriously jeopardize the profits of the 747.

Boeing made an all-out push for the deal, offering to reduce the 747X's
price to as low as $142 million, according to people with knowledge of
the negotiations. Boeing even offered to buy back some of Singapore's
existing 747-400s and take back the new 747X version after 10 years if
Singapore didn't want it.

Boeing officials declined to discuss specifics of the Singapore
negotiations, but Mulally acknowledged that "we offered Singapore a very,
very attractive" proposal.

Singapore valued the 25 A3XXs at $8.6 billion, an average of $344 million
for each aircraft, including spare parts. That's significantly higher
than the list price for the A3XX, which ranges from $218 million to $240
million.

But it is also well-known that launch customers typically receive sizable
discounts. Singapore officials said the purchase price includes an
inflation adjustment, but it is unclear how much Singapore will pay for
the entire order. It declined to disclose specifics of the deal other
than to say it was a "hotly contested competition."

Despite Mulally's assurances about the 747X's future, Boeing's attempts
to make the Singapore sale with such favorable terms may raise serious
questions about the future of the program: Can the redesign of the
venerable 747 hold its own against a newcomer with more seats and new
technology?

Cheong Choong, Singapore's deputy chairman and chief executive, said the
A3XX's larger capacity was the answer to the growing clash between
airport congestion and the need to carry more passengers. He added that
the A3XX will enable the carrier to earn more profit on each seat without
raising fares.

Choong's comments seemed to undermine Boeing's claim that the 747X would
offer lower operating costs than the A3XX.

Some analysts cautioned, though, that Singapore's role as an influential
carrier may be a bit overblown. Not all of Singapore's airplane purchases
have fared well. It also was an early buyer of the Douglas MD-11 - a
slow-selling, gas-guzzling widebody jet that few other airlines chose to
buy.

"Singapore is an extremely sophisticated customer that enjoys being an
early adopter, but (the deal) doesn't frankly say anything about the
viability of the 747X," said Pierre Chao, an aerospace analyst for Credit
Suisse First Boston. "Boeing will ultimately have to address the
seat-size issue, but it won't be until 2010 and beyond. There is quite a
bit of room for the 747X to be a viable product."

Even with the Singapore victory, Airbus faces some steep challenges. The
European planemaker remains short of the 40 or 50 firm orders it needs to
launch the A3XX later this year. In addition to the 10 firm orders from
Singapore, Airbus has "commitments" for another 22 A3XX and options for
five more, from Emirates Airlines, Air France and International Lease
Finance Corp., an influential aircraft-leasing firm.

With Singapore's first delivery scheduled for early 2006, that airline's
passengers will be first to fly aboard the world's biggest jetliner.

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group, said
Singapore's lead could spark more A3XX orders from other major carriers.
Qantas of Australia, Cathay Pacific of Hong Kong and Virgin Atlantic of
Great Britain are among five remaining airlines that have expressed
interest in the plane so far but haven't placed orders.

Singapore plans to fly the A3XX as far as 8,600 miles and deploy it on
high-traffic routes to London, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York,
Tokyo, Hong Kong and Sydney. By the time the A3XX enters service,
Singapore expects enough traffic on those routes to keep the bigger plane
just as full.

Singapore does have options on 10 747-400s, a model it already flies with
386 seats. Choong said the A3XX order will not affect Singapore's future
purchases for that plane.

With 44 747s, Singapore has the world's sixth-largest fleet of the jumbo
jet. Mulally held out hope that Singapore may still buy some 747Xs in the
future. However, Choong all but ruled that out, saying Boeing's plane did
not meet the airline's needs.

"The two aircraft are made for the same mission," he said. "It was one or
the other for us."

Kyung Song's phone: 206-464-2423. E-mail: [email protected] Stanley
Holmes' phone: 206-464-2732. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
I get my facts from Boeing.com.

Anyway, what I said in my earlier posts were just my 2 cents.

---------------
Hahahahahaha!
Enough said. ROFL!!!

MAC

MAC, I agree with Wingman, you piss me off. Some of what I said in my posts were facts. Others were my opinions. SO maybe I should rephrase my post:

The facts I posted were from Boeing.com.

Anything else was my opinion.

Happy now???

Do you know how to glean through a -corporate- press release and determine that as quite possibly -skewed opinion in their favour-?

If Boeing announces the moon will turn black and green, will you report that as "fact" too? I weigh ALL press releases from either company with a great grain of salt. And indeed I challenge the Seattle Times on their "factual analysis" because they too have been caught in some cases as attempting to whip up a skewed viewpoint as well. It's existed long before William Randolph Hearst appeared on the scene many moons ago. Try challenging what one may call "fact" sometime. It may be more opinion based, intending you to agree with one side, than you understand.

MAC

Ithink i'm the only person that wan't to cry about this news. The original a3xx launch costumer was suposed to be air france , wich has confimed orders for the a3xx

Ithink i'm the only person that wan't to cry about this news. The original a3xx launch costumer was suposed to be air france , wich has confirmed orders for the a3xx

MAC_Veteran wrote:

"I do think it's funny watching the attempt to turn around a tsunami with a 6 ounce glass though."

I wholeheartly agree...they sound so desperate, don't they?

Boeing747-400 wrote:

"Let's just see which plane will outsell the other one.

I'm going to laugh my head off when Airbus realizes that they've wasted so much money on the A3XX. Like they will sell 100's of 'em. HA! They won't be able to even make a profit out of the A3XX. We'll just have to wait and see."

Yeah, we wait and see....orders, MANY orders....and a nightmare come true!

The Airbus A3XX. Coming in 2006. Rated R.



Regards
the WorldTraveller  

We'll just see. WOW! The A3XX got an order!! That means that it will definently outsell the 747X! FOr one order of 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Desperate, eh? I wonder how SOME people on this forum are going to feel when the 747X is launched and it gets more orders than the A3XX.

I don't sound desperate. I smile at this whole topic.  

Yes Mac, the $142MM figure was given in the press, and not outrageously low as you stated, but a typical 30% discount for a launch order.

The SIA chairman is quoted as saying that the Airbus offer much was more attractive from a financial standpoint. It is only reasonable to assume then that while Boeing tried to "give" the 747NG away, Airbus acutally did "give" it away.

Many people on this forum praise you for your "well researched" posts, but some of us are intelligent enough to see right through it. You have never, in your entire life on Airliners.net, presented a balanced or unbiased opinion. Boeing makes crap product, the US government is a pure scam, Airbus is absolutely wonderful, and the EU are innocent little lambs struggling in the face of industrial US imperialism. Why don't you save us all the aggravation of wading through your never-ending posts and just state your name. We can fill in the rest. Is it really that shameful being an American? Get over it man, what happens at Boeing and the halls of Congress happens in every other company and country.

Many people smile at this topic, but for different reasons and with different smiles.

Your smile seems to be more sour than sweet.

Anyway, have a good day!

Regards
the WorldTraveller

Its these kind of topics that make airliners.net special!
My belief is that the A3XX will be launched and sell reasonably well. Now Boeing must be working there heads off to come up with something better (plan B) sice the Boeing 747X will fail to get any orders. Around 2007-2008+ we will see a brand new Boeing NLA. I am willing to bet on that! I believe the Boeing NLA will be a truly great aircrfat like the A3XX.

BoeingB747-400, you are so immature! At least do some research before you post! I have X person in my faimly working in Boeing and my neighbour said this etc. That does not work on airliners.net. You are not a 7 year old in primary school.

Jeremiah Teahan

How am I immature? Just stating my opinions. I'm just saying the way I feel about this topic as everyone else, that'd the point of a forum!

BTW, I AM NOT AN IMMATURE PERSON.

Someone one this forum recently stated that it would be stupid to buy the A3XX as a current B747-400 operator, because this involved high crew training costs.

This is certainly true, but may I point to the huge number of companies changing to the A320 series as their standard narrow body, even thought this causes higher training costs? Here's a purely European list of companies currently changing to Airbus, despite new versions of their current narrow body plane fully available:
Aer Lingus (byebye B737)
Air France (byebye B737)
Air Portugal (byebye B737)
Alitalia (byebye Boeing MD-80)
Austrian Airlines (byebye MD-80)
British Airways (byebye B737)
Finnair (byebye Boeing MD-80)
Iberia (byebye Boeing MD-80)
Lufthansa (byebye B737)
Sabena (byebye B737)
Swissair (byebye Boeing MD-80)


How can this be? The answer is simple: Airbus normally offers a free simulator + technical assistance to each of its customers if they deside to buy a significant number of planes to replace their fleet.

That's why training costs were of so little importance in this incomplete list of big companies turning their back on Boeing. They will be equally unsignificant for B747-400 operators in the current and future A3XX deals.

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
BTW, I AM NOT AN IMMATURE PERSON.


You call the above written being mature?? In another post you had to proclaim that you weren't an idiot. You seem to cry like a baby when someone calls you names. Not exactly mature of you is it?? Are you going to go and tell your mommy too? And to think, it says your age is between 21-25...sure its not somewhere between 11-15?

So just stop the whinning already...

 

Sammy

I know the capacity of the A3XX but how many people will they really seat. It all depends on the airline, right. The 747-400 has the capacity of 420pax in 3-classes but SIA seats only 390 on it. How many people will they really seat on the A3XX. Especially on SIA long routes where they might have some weight penalties. In my opinion no more than 500pax. On shorter routes they can put more but in 3class arrangement it will never be more than 500pax.

I still dont see the point of this thing.

Listen. You're saying you are stating only your opinions. You say a lot thing that can't be tolerate. And BTW I red almost all your posts and there were nothing usefull to read.

MAC, as usual, your acidic attack on anything American or Boeing shows through. In my opinion, you get exactly the wrong point of the Seattle Times article. The real point is Singapore did not buy the 747X at $142 M per copy, therefore, there was another financial package which was even more attractive. Your deduction that the 747X is such a piece of shit that Boeing can't give it away is both slanted and unrealistic. The actual fact is that what occurred is what everyone expected. Airbus "gave away" these A3XX's. Singapore themselves said "Airbus financial package was much more attractive." Not more attractive, but MUCH more attractive. I know how much you love actual quotes or reference to articles, so I though I'd include that poignant item. It's easy to figure out what the 747X's capabilities are, so the performance was not in question. My personal belief is SQ needed the extra 40-50 seats and when coupled with the price, they had a dream situtation. That said, many is the time I've wanted to respond to one of your War and Peace length diatribes which you have "backed up" with "data" from the Cato Institute et. al., but I just don't have the time or the inclination. I can assure you that at least one forum member understands your own bias and inclinations and can make his own decisions. And yes, I am an educated business man, lawyer, business owner, and commercial rated pilot. Please, let's keep some posts simple and not smother interest or repsonses with inordinately large amounts of selected fact sources coupled with innuendo. Your glee at the Boeing loss is as misplaced and distasteful as others childish rants and disappointment.

MAC, as usual, your acidic attack on anything American or Boeing shows through. In my opinion, you get exactly the wrong point of the Seattle Times article. The real point is Singapore did not buy the 747X at $142 M per copy, therefore, there was another financial package which was even more attractive. Your deduction that the 747X is such a piece of shit that Boeing can't give it away is both slanted and unrealistic. The actual fact is that what occurred is what everyone expected. Airbus "gave away" these A3XX's. Singapore themselves said "Airbus financial package was much more attractive." Not more attractive, but MUCH more attractive. I know how much you love actual quotes or reference to articles, so I though I'd include that poignant item. It's easy to figure out what the 747X's capabilities are, so the performance was not in question. My personal belief is SQ needed the extra 40-50 seats and when coupled with the price, they had a dream situtation. That said, many is the time I've wanted to respond to one of your War and Peace length diatribes which you have "backed up" with "data" from the Cato Institute et. al., but I just don't have the time or the inclination. I can assure you that at least one forum member understands your own bias and inclinations and can make his own decisions. And yes, I am an educated business man, lawyer, business owner, and commercial rated pilot. Please, let's keep some posts simple and not smother interest or repsonses with inordinately large amounts of selected fact sources coupled with innuendo. Your glee at the Boeing loss is as misplaced and distasteful as others childish rants and disappointment.

I thought Americans liked the free market concept with its open competition between all competitors.
At least that's what they have been telling us in Europe for the last 40 years when they were dominating our devided airline industrie.
Now that the tide is turning in favour of the united European airline industrie, apparently they are no longer in favour of this open competition...

Sabenapilot what does that have to do with the topic. Adria who are you to talk, every single one of your posts is pure nonsense.

You guys have serious issues.

Very true Sabena pilot....but more interestingly I've been looking over the notes I took and some of the blurb Boeing put out at Farnborough 1996 - you know, when they "announced" the various 747 stretches, later "put on the back burner".

The Boeing backers on this forum all point to high development costs of the A3XX, difficulties in making the aircraft perform to spec, problems of pilot conversion etc.. All very well and some of it holds water.

So does it for the new 747. To say that the aircraft will be easier/cheaper/quicker to develop is hogwash.

The aircraft will require a new wing, new engines and the whole fuel/hydraulics package will change. The stretch to the upper deck will go beyond the limits of the current lower deck capacity for taking an upper deck stretch. The whole rear fuselage, above the current floor, will need redesign and reworking.

The undercarriage will need beefing up as the loads and the balance of the aircraft will change.

Finally there is the dreaded question - to fly by wire or not? Boeing will HAVE to wrestle with this one as its current 747 customer base gets used to flying Airbus aircraft in their fleets.

In all, the 747X will not turn out to be the cheap, quick answer Boeing hope. I just hope their CAD programmes are fine tuned to throw up all the points of change on initial design as, once the metal starts going together, the cost of delay and change will be horrendous.

fly-by-pilot,
With my previous post I refer to the stupid remarks made by several forum members on the tactics used by Airbus to get acces to new customers.
Instead of criticizing Airbus for its alternative methods by saying they are unfair, Boeing would do better if they were equally aggressive on the market.
Boeing has for too long relied on political pressure rather then on economical matters to maintain its lead.
Remember that the influence of Washington isn't that big anymore since the end of the cold war...
It comes as no surpise to me that this decay in influence is parallel to the rise of Airbus.

ok, but it still doesent belong to this topic.

Pathetic Navion

Absolutely pathetic. I should have expected more but alas no.

You cant answer fact against fact, so you retort to mudslinging. Please, go back to the cave or rock you came from and stay there. Reactionaries like you find quite good company though unfortunately. If you are such an "educated man", you could have done quite a lot better for a reply. A lot better. And instead of replying to my posts before, like a true chickensh*t you are, you decide to lambaste them without any sort of facts on your side proving you right. You wait until an opportune time that suits you well instead of when the subject is fresh. Shall we go over them ad nauseaum or do facts confuse you? 'Me thinks the latter applies'. Shall we go toe to toe with professors and senior fellows at the Cato Institute? Of course you wont.

I suggest a read of the book "Twilight of American Culture" by Morris Berman, available on Amazon.Com. The section on stupidty matches your posts well.

Happy reading, if you can.

MAC