Some (if not most) of the aircraft Airbus & Boeing produce directly compete with each other (i.e., A320 vs 737, A330 vs 767/777, A340 vs 747/777, etc.). In the past we saw airlines order either Airbus or Boeing aircraft to fulfill a particular type order (i.e., narrowbody short-medium haul, wide body medium-long haul, ULH, etc); however, I have noticed that many airlines have orders for both the A350 and the 787 on the books. To name a few: UA, AA, EY, BA, SQ, CA, etc. I'm wondering why a number of airlines have ordered both of them if they are essentially direct competitors.

[Edited 2015-04-11 19:47:01]

Quoting AirFrance744 (Thread starter):

All comes down to the price of acquiring the frames... 50 A350s is cheaper than acquiring an additional 50 787s in a order let alone each pros & cons of the types, range, maintenance, etc.

[Edited 2015-04-11 20:03:34]

They're not exactly direct competitors. In terms of range they more or less are, but the A350 family is a 777-sized family of aircraft, whereas the 787 family is smaller. In my mind, 787 is a small to medium widebody, while the A350 is a medium to large widebody.

As I understand it Airbus carefully - and sensibly - designed the A350 to fit 'midway' between the B787 and the B777; and that is why it is selling well (595 orders for the A359 so far, 169 for the 1000).

However, I guess that they are now having to consider a larger version - or even a complete new design - to counter the forthcoming over-400-seat 'B779Xs,' which look like eventually putting both the B748 and the A380 largely out of business?

Quoting Phillyramp270 (Reply 1):

The 787 is cheaper than the A350 and A330 Neo's.

2015 List Prices

787-8 :218.3 mil
787-9: 257.1 mil
787-10: 297.5 mil

A330-800: 249.6 mil
A330-900: 284.6 mil

A350-900: 304.8 mil
A350-1000: 351.9 mil

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 2): They're not exactly direct competitors. In terms of range they more or less are,

They truly are not direct competitors as their payload at range varies.

789 wing: span: 60.1m, 325 m^2 wing area
A359 wing: span 64.8m , 443m^2 wing area

That immediately tells me the wings are optimized for two very different missions. The 787 is relatively undersized for a CFRP wing, which means it trade balance was to reduce costs for shorter (sub 5000nm) missions. The A350 is a wing that will cost more to fly on the shorter missions, but the added loft will pay off flying heavy fuel loads for a long time.

I'm not saying the 787 isn't good for long missions, but rather the two airframes were optimized for different missions. The 787 for replacing the 767, the A350 moved second is more for longer missions.

IMHO, they will both compete for TATL length missions, but the 787 will do better at those mission lengths. The A350 is for TAPC, EU to North Asia and other long missions. Both markets so large we'll be arguing here on a.net for decades. Both are much better with cargo than the airframes they're replacing. In particular the 78J and A35J.

For the A350 engines, the additions to the A350 will cut long haul fuel burn substantially. But at a cost of per overhaul expenses... So again, optimized for a longer mission.

Both will be very economical in their missions. Both will do the others missions. But take VS, due to their huge number of TATL missions, the 789 makes sense. More on thread, QR has equipped 787s without crew rests to further optimize for shorter (up to 10 hour) missions. Their A350s are equipped for ULH. Not that the 787 doesn't have legs... it is just small shifts in which is more optimal for which mission.

Lightsaber

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 4): 2015 List Prices

List prices mean little, if anything.

Not direct competitors. The 788 is smaller than any A350, even the A358. The A359 is admittedly close in size to the 78J, but then range comes into it. Need to fly far? A359. Want efficiency? 78J. The A35J is obviously the biggest. Important to note that some of the carriers you mention have ordered the larger A35J and the 787s (BA, UA are the big ones), so no real overlap.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 4): The 787 is cheaper than the A350 and A330 Neo's. 2015 List Prices 787-8 :218.3 mil 787-9: 257.1 mil 787-10: 297.5 mil A330-800: 249.6 mil A330-900: 284.6 mil A350-900: 304.8 mil A350-1000: 351.9 mil

List price means nothing. The A330neo costs less than the 787 to produce, by some distance. And because the infrastructure is paid off, only cost to recoup is the $2bn investment to make the Neo. Some of which is shouldered by RR. In practice, neither Boeing nor Airbus charge list prices, especially when it's a large order, there is no way that EK spent $400m on each A380. There is also no way that a 777 or A330 ordered today is charged at list price when A and B both want to sell to keep th line floring.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):

Weight also comes into it, the 787's narrower fuselage leads to a slightly lower weight, which (I think) lends itself to shorter routes. It seems to be the case that the lighter 737 is better on very short routes,

[Edited 2015-04-11 21:00:24]

Quoting AirFrance744 (Thread starter): To name a few: UA, AA, EY, BA, SQ, CA, etc.

In the case of American, the A350 was ordered by pmUS, while the 787 was ordered by pmAA. These orders were on the books long before AA and US started discussing a possible merger.

The UA A350 order was a result of a deal made regarding their outstanding A32S orders.

Quoting KGRB (Reply 9): In the case of American, the A350 was ordered by pmUS, while the 787 was ordered by pmAA. These orders were on the books long before AA and US started discussing a possible merger.

Similarly, for LATAM the 787 was ordered by LAN pre-merger and the A350 was ordered by TAM pre-merger before LAN's take-over of TAM was announced.

the 787-8.-9 =10 are designed for different missions IMO. While the 787-8 has legs it's a "pathfinder" airplane it's for 767 routes that are at then end of it's range and need a little headroom.
IAD-ACC and such. MSP-NRT, Den NRT, SLC- NRT IAH-FRA, IAH-MUC IAH-GIG, IAH-GRU, LAX- MVD Not that these aren't established routed but routed that Could turn into Major revenue streams.
The 787-9 is for the longer range routes where there is already a demand but no airplane to fly it profitably. Whereas the 787-10 will be used on established routes along with the A350-900 and A350-1000
The A330-800 and A330-900 will be on long established trunk Routes, ATL to all of Europe. SEA-NRT or SEA-HND, SEA ICN, SEA- PVG. where they'll be workhorses akin to "Mack Trucks" Nobody ever went wrong in buying a "Mack"
And it will be the same for A330-800, and A330-900. None will ever usurp the 777 but they weren't meant to either. With the 777-8 and 777-9 the 747 will rest in peace with her work accomplished.
As there IS no airplane now or later than will take her place . For those that want an Ultra large airplane there's still the A380. But that ship has already sailed IMO.
It will not meet the record of the 747.
It depends on the Need of the airline and what they see themselves doing.
Nobody can go wrong with any of the above airplanes IF they do what the airplanes CAN do and not what they wish they Could do.
That's a stupid reason to even BUY an airliner You buy it for what it can do NOW!!

It's pretty simple, actually: The 787 is a 767 replacement, and the A350 is a 777 replacement. Very many airlines had no issues operating 767s and 777s side-by-side, so why would doing the same with a 787/A350 be any different?

Quoting AirFrance744 (Thread starter): Some (if not most) of the aircraft Airbus & Boeing produce directly compete with each other

That is manifestly not true; neither offers a product with identical capabilities to the opposition. Sometimes the difference is quite subtle, other times less so, but both make a conscious effort not to offer a duplicate product.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): That immediately tells me the wings are optimized for two very different missions. The 787 is relatively undersized for a CFRP wing, which means it trade balance was to reduce costs for shorter (sub 5000nm) missions. The A350 is a wing that will cost more to fly on the shorter missions, but the added loft will pay off flying heavy fuel loads for a long time.

What about the A359 Regional version which EI has on order?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 7): Need to fly far? A359. Want efficiency? 78J

You will be surprised to hear that the A350 is an efficient aircraft. And to everybody who thinks Airbus is only selling aircraft because they are cheap or fit into a market niche not covered by Boeing ... dream on.

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 15): You will be surprised to hear that the A350 is an efficient aircraft.

Quite, but the 78J will win that contest probably on JFK-LHR-JFK. But if your airline only orders the 78J you might have trouble flying it from LAX to MEL.

There is a reason that many larger airlines are ordering both.

Airbus's real 787 competitor is the A338 to match the 788, and the A339 to match the 789.

Also, their families work differently. For Airbus, their size models are A338, A339, A359, A35J, A388. For Boeing, it's 788, 789, 78J, 778, 779, 748. Both manufacturers have all sizes covered.

The Airbus and Boeing sales guys are already 'sparring' about whether a 400-plus-seat 'big twin' is needed or not. “The 777-8X sits right on top of the A350-1000 in terms of size, but has a range advantage and is slightly more fuel efficient. And then we have the [larger] -9X, which gives us the ability to go into that territory that is unchallenged, which is really, really great,” says Boeing’s marketing vice-president Randy Tinseth.

“Boeing has been waxing eloquent about how impressive their widebody product line is. Well actually it looks like a bit of a dog’s breakfast to me,” says Airbus chief operating officer for customers John Leahy. “If they’ve got the sweet spot in the market, there are an awful lot of sweet spots.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...777x-mean-for-airlines-and-396751/

My own feeling is that Airbus would have to be crazy to let a comprehensive B777 upgrade go 'unchallenged.' But. like everyone else, I've been wrong before...........

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 15): You will be surprised to hear that the A350 is an efficient aircraft. And to everybody who thinks Airbus is only selling aircraft because they are cheap or fit into a market niche not covered by Boeing ... dream on.

I know, but the A350 is similar to the 789 on efficiency, and with a stretch, the 78J becomes more efficient, at the cost of range.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): List prices mean little, if anything.

Well I thought it was used as a base for the starting negotiation price, you have to start somewhere, if no list price then what, pick a number out of a hat?

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 15): You will be surprised to hear that the A350 is an efficient aircraft

Why, Airbus have said that the A350 is more efficient than the 777 on comparable missions even though its payload is slightly less, or did I miss read the Airbus promotions?

Quoting par13del (Reply 19): Well I thought it was used as a base for the starting negotiation price, you have to start somewhere, if no list price then what, pick a number out of a hat?

You may start somewhere, but if you can make a tidy profit on an aircraft even with a lower price tag then why not do that? List price rises over time with inflation, but as more aircraft are produced and the development costs and infrastructure costs are paid off, it becomes cheaper to manufacture. An A330 or 777 made now could probably sell for $100m-$150m and A/B will make a profit on it because they have been so successful until now. Everything has been paid off, only cost is that to manufacture. COmpare it to the 787 and A350 which will eventually pay offdevelopment and infrastructure, but probably not until after 2020, at the earliest.

There's also economies of scale, a large order guarantees a lot of production, and thus A and B usually lower the price. Any press release not directly from A or B will say something like: 'The deal is worth $xx Billion at list prices, but discounts are typically given for larger orders'.

Several combined fleets of A350 and 787 came from mergers like AA & US plus TAM and LAN. IAG is getting both for different missions. JAL is perhaps the most interesting A350 order since its the first big Airbus order in Japan, long before JAL had 787 ordered. Air France KLM ordered 25 of each 787 & A350's. Singapore Airlines has ordered 70 A350-900 plus 787-10 and 20 787-8/9 for Scoot its LCC airline. These are just some airline flying both planes.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 13):

 the A350 is a 777 replacement

The A350 (A358, 359, 3510) was designed to replace the A330 and A340 series (A332, 333, 343, 345, 346). That plan has been changed since with the A338 and 339 displacing 358.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 7):

If list prices do not mean anything, then why have them? It's a list price, nobody is saying that is what you are going to pay, but to say that 50 A350's is cheaper than 50 787's is factually wrong as not a single 787 variant lists for more than an A350.

It doesn't matter what the production costs are for a given frame, the airlines are not building them and this thread is about airlines buying them, not manufacturers selling them. The large airlines will be receiving discounts from both manufacturers, so it's not a one way street as far as discounts go and there is so much variability that you can't compare prices at all except for list prices.

It's like buying a house. If you are looking for a house, you look for houses within your price range to compare. You don't find one house that is considerably out of your range and then just expect to be able to get the price NEGOTIATED down into your budget and then compare it to a house at full list price.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 3):

Oh my god once again you need come here and put this rubbish on these forums. I love how you write 'My own feeling is that Airbus would have to be crazy to let a comprehensive B777 upgrade go 'unchallenged.' But. like everyone else, I've been wrong before........... '

Because you're always wrong, right? Like you were in 2005 about the A380 never taking off and crashing (what a sad thing to suggest) to today where the A380 was dead but we are still seeing sales, I just laugh at you. If both companies created a direct challenger to each other, both would be out of business. Do Australians understand how to run businesses like yourself or are they materialistic or what?


To those who are able to write with common sense: airlines have different missions and profiles, and if large enough can warrant both because they cover their own niches in themselves. CA have ordered the 787 and A350 for different missions. 787-9 provides less capacity than their A359 and augments their A330-200s for international routes. They are going to be used for further international expansion, mostly into Europe, where it is more difficult for patronage but they find the need to operate. The 789 is one step above their A332 and fits nicely between that and their A333. The A359 covers more denser long haul routes and is likely for American and European routes where capacity and range is required, but not to the point of their 77W or 748. CA currently has the problem where they only have A332s and 77Ws operating their long haul international routes as their A333s lack the range (and also frame capacity because they're needed for domestic routes) therefore the A359, and 789 play great role for the carrier.

We also see SQ ordering A359s and 787-10s for different missions like the 787-10s for regional flying, which is absolutely sensible.

I am sure that both manufacturers know how to price their products attractively to airline companies so the cost isn't too much of a concern for larger carriers. If the product fits the area they need it to operate in, they'll have it. Why not.

At the end of the day, both the 787 and A350 represent a new phase of airliners and both are highly efficient in themselves and play an important role for modernising fleets for carriers irrespective of which aircraft they choose.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 7): List price means nothing. The A330neo costs less than the 787 to produce, by some distance.

Two things from this sentence.

1. We all expect that the 330neo will cost less to produce than the 787s when it is in fact in production. However, right now, the 787s are being produced and the 330neos are not (yet). So it is not actually true, right now.
The 787 has now passed 1100 orders, being the current programme accounting benchmark (I know, I know - let's not go into that again; just give me some space, OK?). The programme appears to have a huge hill to climb before it is truly profitable; however it is also apparent that output now stabilised at the very high rate of 10/month should mean that 787 production costs are falling fast.
2. It seems to me to be somewhat cavalier to simply brush-off the list prices in this way. If they are so meaningless, why publish anything? If I were negotiating for a airline, you bet I would be looking at list prices.

As would you.

cheers, Bill

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 23):

The level of aircraft completion is different is another difference between Boeing and Airbus list prices.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 23): If list prices do not mean anything, then why have them? It's a list price, nobody is saying that is what you are going to pay, but to say that 50 A350's is cheaper than 50 787's is factually wrong as not a single 787 variant lists for more than an A350. It doesn't matter what the production costs are for a given frame, the airlines are not building them and this thread is about airlines buying them, not manufacturers selling them. The large airlines will be receiving discounts from both manufacturers, so it's not a one way street as far as discounts go and there is so much variability that you can't compare prices at all except for list prices. It's like buying a house. If you are looking for a house, you look for houses within your price range to compare. You don't find one house that is considerably out of your range and then just expect to be able to get the price NEGOTIATED down into your budget and then compare it to a house at full list price.

They mean nothing because in practice no one ever pays them. A and B will both bid lower and lower until one reaches the limit, and then the airline weighs price vs performance, availability etc.

Different to houses though, Airbus and Boeing bid to the airlines, not the other way around. The seller bids to the buyer. Whereas with a house, you the buyer bid to the seller, the houseowner.

Quoting brindabella (Reply 25): Two things from this sentence. 1. We all expect that the 330neo will cost less to produce than the 787s when it is in fact in production. However, right now, the 787s are being produced and the 330neos are not (yet). So it is not actually true, right now. The 787 has now passed 1100 orders, being the current programme accounting benchmark (I know, I know - let's not go into that again; just give me some space, OK?). The programme appears to have a huge hill to climb before it is truly profitable; however it is also apparent that output now stabilised at the very high rate of 10/month should mean that 787 production costs are falling fast. 2. It seems to me to be somewhat cavalier to simply brush-off the list prices in this way. If they are so meaningless, why publish anything? If I were negotiating for a airline, you bet I would be looking at list prices. As would you. cheers, Bill

OK, it's not true now, but that's a technicality. Unless the A330Neo goes 787-style t*ts up (unlikely given Airbus' experience with the A350 and A320neo), it will cost less to produce.

787 costs are reducing fast, it will not be long before each 787 sold costs less to produce than sell. BUT the development and infrastructure costs will not be paid off for a while.

As for Part 2, publishing list prices tends to suggest something about perception of the public (this is speculation on my part). Big list prices yield big headlines, notice how all major deals have 'worth $xx billion at list prices' as headlines. That's a possible theory. On more solid grounds, list price may have some meaning for a new buyer, but when an airline like EK turns up negotiating for 50 A380s, you can bet your life that Airbus and EK don't start at list price. For that bulk, that guarantee of orders and production, Airbus wouldn't contemplate starting at $400m per aircraft.

Linking to Leeham News is a default on here, and I'll do it now:

http://leehamnews.com/2012/02/14/mor...ft-list-prices-airline-break-even/

Leeham has good contacts in the industry, and while not always spot on, their arguments are well-reasoned. The comments also throw up some facts and figures that are useful.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): Quite, but the 78J will win that contest probably on JFK-LHR-JFK.

Interesting then to reflect on the recent comments from 'Delta', that when they considered aircraft in the recent competition for TATL operations won by Airbus, that Boeing "did not have a suitable aircraft".

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): They truly are not direct competitors as their payload at range varies. 789 wing: span: 60.1m, 325 m^2 wing area A359 wing: span 64.8m , 443m^2 wing area That immediately tells me the wings are optimized for two very different missions. The 787 is relatively undersized for a CFRP wing, which means it trade balance was to reduce costs for shorter (sub 5000nm) missions. The A350 is a wing that will cost more to fly on the shorter missions, but the added loft will pay off flying heavy fuel loads for a long time.

It'd be interesting to be able to see how the A350's wing span and area have changed since the A350 MkI to present.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 20): You may start somewhere, but if you can make a tidy profit on an aircraft even with a lower price tag then why not do that? List price rises over time with inflation, but as more aircraft are produced and the development costs and infrastructure costs are paid off, it becomes cheaper to manufacture.

Sure, but as A330 is now cheap to produce it's profits (and A320s) are what allow Airbus to be building A350s at a loss and A380s just about at break even plus or minus a few quid.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29): Sure, but as A330 is now cheap to produce it's profits (and A320s) are what allow Airbus to be building A350s at a loss and A380s just about at break even plus or minus a few quid.

Maybe, the bottom line is... the bottom line. But it's temporary. The A350 has to pay its own way fairly soon.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 4): The 787 is cheaper than the A350 and A330 Neo's.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): List prices mean little, if anything.

Agreed. It is like looking at the rack rate for a hotel room.

What about slot availability? It is my understanding that orders have been placed for a competing aircraft because the desired slots were simply not available for the first choice and the wait would have been many years. This kind of intelligence is never public so I have no examples.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 23): If list prices do not mean anything, then why have them? It's a list price, nobody is saying that is what you are going to pay, but to say that 50 A350's is cheaper than 50 787's is factually wrong as not a single 787 variant lists for more than an A350.

In previous threads where the issue of " what list prices mean" has been discussed it has been pointed out that Airbuses come standard with equipment that Boeing makes the customers pay as an additional cost. Similar pricing strategy to eg the Detroit 3 vs the Japanese car makers.Till you know exactly what equipment is being provided any list price comparison is nothing more than a ball park estimate. Then there is the whole issue of discounts.

Thank you all for the great answers. It appears that the consensus is that the A350 and 787 were designed for different missions, and that many of the airlines with orders for both aircraft came from mergers.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 4): The 787 is cheaper than the A350 and A330 Neo's. 2015 List Prices

List prices are irrelevant. Boeing's usually contain a variety of after sales items, which obviously increase the price. The Airbus prices are virtually bare bone.

The fact of the matter is, every plane has a different ideal mission profile. They all perform differently on individual airlines' route profiles, and if an airline is large enough to disregard commonality to a certain extent, it will just go with the plane that suits their route profile best.
This is also why Delta ordered the A330neo - it simply is the superior performer on short long haul routes like transatlantic missions. That order also came down to availability - a major issue for large airlines that have ordered both 787 and A350, as they can draw from two lines instead of waiting forever to get their order from a single line.

[Edited 2015-04-12 08:26:56]

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 34): Boeing's usually contain a variety of after sales items, which obviously increase the price. The Airbus prices are virtually bare bone.

And your source is? You must have insight in every Boeing and Airbus contract. Wow!

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 28): Interesting then to reflect on the recent comments from 'Delta', that when they considered aircraft in the recent competition for TATL operations won by Airbus, that Boeing "did not have a suitable aircraft".

Incorrect. The DL RFP was decided by delivery slots.

To the untrained mind and eye, Airbus has to be better than Boeing and vice versa. The fact is that the A350 and the B787 can coexist in harmony rather than a duel. Various carriers like QR, BA, LH, TAM, CA, UA, AA, SQ, JL, ET, EY are some to name a few.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 36): Incorrect. The DL RFP was decided by delivery slots. To the untrained mind and eye, Airbus has to be better than Boeing and vice versa. The fact is that the A350 and the B787 can coexist in harmony rather than a duel. Various carriers like QR, BA, LH, TAM, CA, UA, AA, SQ, JL, ET, EY are some to name a few.

A nice benefit that the A330's optimal ranges are transatlantic (around 3000nm) and the A350's is transpacific (about 5000nm).

But for DL, it was either the 787-9 with some 77Ls thrown in, or the A330 and A350. They needed medium haul and long hail aircraft for 2 different missions, they chose the one that was available and matched their requirements.

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 35): You must have insight in every Boeing and Airbus contract.

Contract prices have very little to do with the actual list prices, but I am sure with your negative and mocking attitude you were just being ironic.

Quoting AirFrance744 (Reply 33): Thank you all for the great answers. It appears that the consensus is that the A350 and 787 were designed for different missions, and that many of the airlines with orders for both aircraft came from mergers.

I would not put too much weight into airlines operating both types due to mergers, since most of those mergers took place in a timeframe that would have allowed the merged entity to cancel one model if it was not suited for them. That they kept them is, IMO, a sign that the original airline decision continued to make sense in the post-merger analysis.

For we have seen a number of major airlines (British Airways, Japan Airlines, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines) pursue a program of purchasing both models for their fleet. As noted up-thread, many airlines operated a mixed fleet of 767s and A330s, 767s and 777s or A330s and 777s due to the operational efficiencies and effectivenesses of the models within those families and we are seeing the same now with the 787 and A350.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 37): But for DL, it was either the 787-9 with some 77Ls thrown in, or the A330 and A350. They needed medium haul and long hail aircraft for 2 different missions, they chose the one that was available and matched their requirements.

Again, what Airbus offered was on par with what Boeing offered. What pushed the envelope was the fact that DL could get their hands on said aircraft sooner than Boeing could (77W's and 787-9's, not 77L's ). That simple. In Boeing's eye's it was bad to lose the order but having a backlog of over 1,000 planes is a problem most OEM's would love to have.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 40): Again, what Airbus offered was on par with what Boeing offered. What pushed the envelope was the fact that DL could get their hands on said aircraft sooner than Boeing could (77W's and 787-9's, not 77L's ). That simple. In Boeing's eye's it was bad to lose the order but having a backlog of over 1,000 planes is a problem most OEM's would love to have.

They were 77Ls:
http://leehamnews.com/2014/11/19/airbus-wins-delta-wide-body-order/

It's a nice problem to have that you're so successful that you can't make availability, but it glosses over the fact that DL are a major Boeing operator and they went all Airbus, which is useful now and in the future because Airbus have their foot in the door, any future 767, 777 or 747 replacement bids are well-placed to be won by Airbus. Also, it's not as if the A350 isn't a hot seller. Airbus found the slots somewehere, they're too early to be the vacated EK slots.

Oh yeah and there's the slight public shame that DL's Seattle hub will be populated with A350s. The Seattle Times paper I read was collectively apoplectic.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 41): Oh yeah and there's the slight public shame that DL's Seattle hub will be populated with A350s. The Seattle Times paper I read was collectively apoplectic.

To be fair I don't think the A350s will be all that common at SEA. DTW will be packed with them, and they'll show up at MSP, JFK, ATL, etc., but I see the A330s and 767s continuing to fill most of the SEA-Asia roles for the foreseeable future.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 27): A and B will both bid lower and lower

..........lower than what????? does each OEM give the airline their starting price at the start of negotiations?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 41): but it glosses over the fact that DL are a major Boeing operator and they went all Airbus, which is useful now and in the future because Airbus have their foot in the door, any future 767, 777 or 747 replacement bids are well-placed to be won by Airbus.

If they are all Airbus which foot in which door are we talking about???????
Hopefully Airbus will be better at keeping DL all Airbus than Boeing was at keeping them all Boeing.

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 42): To be fair I don't think the A350s will be all that common at SEA. DTW will be packed with them, and they'll show up at MSP, JFK, ATL, etc., but I see the A330s and 767s continuing to fill most of the SEA-Asia roles for the foreseeable future.

OK fair point, but whether A330s or A350s, Seattle is Boeing's homeland, and the number of Boeing widebodies is winding down, which will make 767 a very interesting battle, one that Boeing dare not lose.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 44): OK fair point, but whether A330s or A350s, Seattle is Boeing's homeland,

Did Europeans make such a fuss wen AF bought the 777?

Synergy Aerospace Group of Brazil, the owners of Avianca are the only airline group in Latin America that have ordered both airplanes, 18 Boeing B788's and 10 Airbus A359's.

AV757

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 41): It's a nice problem to have that you're so successful that you can't make availability, but it glosses over the fact that DL are a major Boeing operator and they went all Airbus, which is useful now and in the future because Airbus have their foot in the door, any future 767, 777 or 747 replacement bids are well-placed to be won by Airbus.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

You are saying DL just showed that they are not bound by loyalty, yet in the future they're going to be loyal?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 41): Also, it's not as if the A350 isn't a hot seller. Airbus found the slots somewehere, they're too early to be the vacated EK slots.

Now you're saying A350 is a hot seller that Airbus is able to find early slots for?

[Edited 2015-04-12 12:08:33]

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 37): A nice benefit that the A330's optimal ranges are transatlantic (around 3000nm) and the A350's is transpacific (about 5000nm). But for DL, it was either the 787-9 with some 77Ls thrown in, or the A330 and A350. They needed medium haul and long hail aircraft for 2 different missions, they chose the one that was available and matched their requirements.

Honestly, once the A339 became available, I think the 789 lost it's footing for DL TATL ops. DL seems to try and right size their WBs for the mission, and the 789 is too much plane for DL's TATL ops. Now for TPAC it's an excellent aircraft, and about on par with the A359. So the 789 had a real chance to win that part of the order. However, it sounds like Airbus offered DL a better all around deal with very competitive pricing and earlier delivery slots. However that said it does irritate me when someone mentions that the only reason Airbus won this RFP is because of earlier deliver slots. I highly suspect that's only part of the story!

Quoting par13del (Reply 45): Did Europeans make such a fuss wen AF bought the 777?

I don't know about France, Germany or Spain, but we don't really care here. There definitely isn't a 'Boycott Delta and fly Alaska' type movement. BA is still a big Boeing operator, and I don't think people really notice. But Seattle is probably more conscious of its status as a aviation manufacturing hub. The Airbus plants are more spread.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 47): You are saying DL just showed that they are not bound by loyalty, yet in the future they're going to be loyal?

Not about loyalty, about commonality. They will have A359s, and if they decide they want anything larger, they weigh up the cost of introducing the 777X, they may have 77Ls, but it's not a huge fleet against A35Js for example. There's also the issue of 767 replacement. Commonality of pilot pools would be a big thing at a big airline, especially in light of potential pilot shortages in the USA

Quoting Revelation (Reply 47): Now you're saying A350 is a hot seller that Airbus is able to find early slots for?

The A350 is a hot seller, but Airbus were able to 'move the A350 skyline' about a bit to get a prestigious customer. They probably asked a couple of troubled airlines (Libyan? Afriqiyah? Yemenia?) to shuffle their own orders back.

The point I'm trying to make? It's not just availability. The A350 and A330 clearly met Delta's requirements, but I don't like attitude that no one actually wants to buy Airbus aircraft, the only reason Airbus exists is because Boeing charge too much and can't deliver enough. Airbus make very capable aircraft that I don't think get enough credit from some on that side of the pond.

Quoting par13del (Reply 43): ..........lower than what????? does each OEM give the airline their starting price at the start of negotiations? If they are all Airbus which foot in which door are we talking about??????? Hopefully Airbus will be better at keeping DL all Airbus than Boeing was at keeping them all Boeing.

They aren't all Airbus, 767 replacements are largely undecided. Foot in the door to compete strongly for that replacement segment. And the 777s as well.

I don't know where negotiations start, my guess is that it depends on whether they are a new airline, a new Airbus customer, a big Boeing customer or a huge Airbus customer. And then it depends on how many, because bulk orders get more discounts due to the security they provide to Airbus. The reverse is true for Boeing.