SIA Cuts A350 Orders From 70 To 63 Airbus' Request

tommy1808 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:01 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 98):
The payment recognised in SIA's accounts may be more in the nature of deposit refunded.

a deposit refund shouldn't show as a profit. 10 Million down payment on an aircraft vs. 10 Million in the bank doesn't really change much on the balance sheet.

Best regards
Thomas

ap305 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:14 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):
Well IB is going to order additional A350s.

I think we have a winner..... Ties in well with the number of airframes.

777Jet · Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:14 pm

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 84):
From what I can tell by reading between the lines of commentary on this website, it also appears that the A359 has a slight advantage over the 789.

Depending on what 'deal' QF makes with either A or B one 'slight advantage' that turns out to be the deal sealer could involve $$$

par13del · Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:24 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
This sounds like an order cancellation where communication is being managed in a way that does little harm to SQ and Airbus.

So you are saying PR plays an important role in business profitability in addition to the underlying raw data of the OEM........A.Net had some heated discussions on this in relation to the numerous A380 and A380NEO threads related to comments by OEM management personnel........
Interesting.

scbriml · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 100):
a deposit refund shouldn't show as a profit. 10 Million down payment on an aircraft vs. 10 Million in the bank doesn't really change much on the balance sheet.

Only if both events happened in the same accounting period. In SQ's case, the deposits would have been paid years ago and refunded this year, so the refund will show as income in the current accounting period.

Hamlet69 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting Prost (Reply 85):
Hamlet, so are you saying that the first 7 A350s on DL's delivery list were only able to be achieved by taking over another carriers slots

As others have said, I'm sure Airbus had been talking to SQ on what SQ wanted to do. At the same time, they were in discussions with DL about their own RFP. And Airbus was able to work out a deal that worked for everybody. Kind of a win-win-win.
And BTW - I also didn't say it had to be the first 7 slots. Contracts usually cover a set time period that covers the whole order. That's why I said "delivery timeframe."

Quoting speedbored (Reply 88):
Given that SIA are quoted saying that their revenues for the 3 months to June are up on last year, partly due to "revenues from the sale of the seven production slots", I would be very surprised if they have not been paid.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 92):
I think he's suggesting that this was all negotiated and agreed by the time DL ordered their A350s and that SQ has only just recently been paid for what they gave up.

Thank you, scbriml, that's exactly what I meant.

speedbored, I apologize if my wording was confusing. What I mean is = according to their own statements, SQ has already been paid for these slots. It's highly unlikely (although not impossible) that Airbus would have paid for them without already having a firm contract in hand for their replacement. The fact that SQ has been paid tells me that the replacement order has already been signed and announced. And my bet is DL. Otherwise, we probably would not be hearing about this officially until after the whatever future deal Airbus is hoping to win (EK, QF, IR, etc.) was completed.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Polot · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:41 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 94):

RR engines are available on both the A350 and 787 so EK can pressure RR no matter which one they choose. In fact they would probably have more leverage with the 787 because they can threaten to order GE while with the A350 they have no choice. But I don't think EK will make a decision on that order based on A380neo possibilities.

moo · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 105):
It's highly unlikely (although not impossible) that Airbus would have paid for them without already having a firm contract in hand for their replacement. The fact that SQ has been paid tells me that the replacement order has already been signed and announced. And my bet is DL. Otherwise, we probably would not be hearing about this officially until after the whatever future deal Airbus is hoping to win (EK, QF, IR, etc.) was completed.

I can see where you are coming from, but the bit I find iffy with attributing it to DL is the 9 month delay between the DL order and this freeing up of A350XWB slots - thats an awful long time for something to go wrong with the SIA end of the deal...

Another airline could easily have said "we won't be placing an order unless these early delivery slots are 100% guaranteed" and the only way to actually 100% guarantee them is to close the deal for SIA to hand them back. Anything else means Airbus is hanging on a promise and thats not a good situation to be in, whereas if Airbus have them in hand then they can still be resold to other airlines if the original deal falls through in the end.

jacobin777 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:51 pm

Quoting migair54 (Reply 76):
it must be EK or TK,

Can't say about TK but contacts in EK just a few days ago have still stated its the B787...of course, that could be incorrect still as we have this:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 19):
I've spoken to a guy at EK management and he mentioned that they will receive the A350... so EK is very likely.

Maybe Clark is having a field day playing everyone off of each other and making people guess..including both OEM's..

Quoting UKtoOzFlyer (Reply 79):
I've always said that with QFi the A350 would make a better fit than the 787.

Management doesn't agree so far.

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 84):
then A359's for Asia and thinner trans-pacific routes, with the larger A351 for heavier routes, and the A380 for trunks.

The B789 for Asia and thinner trans-Pacific routes with the larger B779X for heavier routes. The A380CEO and potential A380NEO would work for trunks.

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 84):
From what I can tell by reading between the lines of commentary on this website, it also appears that the A359 has a slight advantage over the 789.

We haven't heard anything from QR which flies both.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 93):
Maybe, but my money is on EK

My money is its not EK.

jfk777 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:59 pm

Is Delta some how involved in the A350-900 thing with Singapore Airlines since they have ordered 25 A359's.

rotating14 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:19 pm

I'm of the opinion that since the 1st_____ A359's will be over weight and not to spec, SQ will 1) receive better performing frames, 2) Airbus can allocate heavier frames to carriers who don't mind and 3) SQ gets fresh cash.

ap305 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:30 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 110):
I'm of the opinion that since the 1st_____ A359's will be over weight and not to spec, SQ will 1) receive better performing frames, 2) Airbus can allocate heavier frames to carriers who don't mind and 3) SQ gets fresh cash.

SQ is getting MORE early frames now as a result of this cancellation. SQ's first bird is msn 26 which is a batch 3 aircraft and hence has no weight issues.

Stitch · Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:43 pm

Of the various airlines thrown out there, to me, Delta makes the most sense.

Delta said that part of the decision swaying them to the A350-900 over the 787-9 was delivery positions and the delivery positions SQ is giving up directly mirror into the initial delivery positions DL is getting (2017-2018).

In 2014, Qantas pushed back their first tranche 787 options from 2016 to 2017, so it sounds like they are in no hurry to add new widebody twins to their fleet. As such, I don't see them behind this order - especially in a role where they pushed Airbus to get them early delivery positions.

As for Emirates, they're not going to get a 787-10 in 2018, so I do not believe they are looking to get an A350-900 in 2018, much less 2017. Also, with how Emirates likes to take planes, I do not seem them agreeing to take 7 A350-900s in 2017-2018 and then wait until after 2020 for the other 43 (assuming they order 50). IMO, their RFP is for deliveries in 2020 and beyond and therefore this slot move was not to win that RFP.

JerseyFlyer · Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:52 pm

If there is a new order soon with an early delivery date, we will know that it is a new client or a top up.

If not, there will be no order announcement, and we will be left to assume it is Delta. But there should be a SQ cancellation announcement of 7, unless there is a more or less concurrent SQ order for 7 later frames (e.g. a ULH version)

par13del · Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:07 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 107):
I can see where you are coming from, but the bit I find iffy with attributing it to DL is the 9 month delay between the DL order and this freeing up of A350XWB slots - thats an awful long time for something to go wrong with the SIA end of the deal...

If the issue was ensuring the DL did not select a Boeing product - 787-10 versus the Airbus - by getting early delivery slots - which DL is on record as saying played a role in Airbus favour - the length of time would be inconsequential as the OEM would be resolving financial issues between the receipt of DL funds and the payment of refunds to SQ.
This is a long term deal which can end up being for much more than 7 a/c.

SEPilot · Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:14 pm

My suspicion is that SQ over-ordered and now realize it; Airbus approached them about deferring some of them for another airline (which one does not really matter) and SQ said "We will cancel them without penalty; otherwise no deal." And Airbus accepted.

moo · Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 114):
the length of time would be inconsequential as the OEM would be resolving financial issues between the receipt of DL funds and the payment of refunds to SQ.

And my point is, the fact that there was several months between the DL deal being sealed and the SQ deal being sealed also means there was several months where the SQ deal could potentially have fallen through and left Airbus unable to deliver on any promise made to DL.

Which costs more to the OEM - going on on a limb and ensuring they have the early slots in the bag, including a firm signed contract done and dusted with the current slot owners, or making a promise to a new customer that they could potentially not fulfil?

And that is why I view the opinion that these are for DL with a pinch of salt. The timescales involved just leave too much up in the air for me.

JerseyFlyer · Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:46 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 116):
there was several months between the DL deal being sealed and the SQ deal being sealed

We do not know that.

What we know is there were several months between the DL deal and SQ telling us about the SQ deal

moo · Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:52 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 117):
We do not know that.

What we know is there were several months between the DL deal and SQ telling us about the SQ deal

There were at least 4 months between the DL deal (done in November 2014) and the SQ deal, as SQ announced their sale of the slots as part of their second quarter results, which covers the period of April 2015 to June 2015.

So the deal with SQ was done during that period, no earlier. If it were done earlier, the first quarter results would have included the news.

Stitch · Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:30 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 118):
There were at least 4 months between the DL deal (done in November 2014) and the SQ deal, as SQ announced their sale of the slots as part of their second quarter results, which covers the period of April 2015 to June 2015.

So the deal with SQ was done during that period, no earlier. If it were done earlier, the first quarter results would have included the news.

Just because the funds transfer did not take place until Q2 does not mean the deal was made in Q2.

As you have argued, if Delta (assuming it is Delta) signed the RFP only because they could get seven A350-900s between 2017 and 2018 (itself also an assumption, IMO) it stands to reason Airbus would not have done the deal on the hope that Singapore would release those slots.

I find it much more likely - and logical - that Airbus and Singapore had a binding agreement in place at the time Airbus submitted their RFP to Delta that those slots would be returned to Airbus and Airbus could re-assign them to Delta. Sure, Singapore could have backed out of the deal, but to do so would have cost them money and would have cost them face (both with Airbus and others). So Airbus would have been very confident in giving Delta those slots in their RFP.

And considering how long it took Emirates to formally cancel their A350 order (June 2014) after agreeing to (no later than November 2013), I do not find it beyond belief that SQ would have taken a similar time period to do the same, officially.

[Edited 2015-07-31 09:32:11]

Sooner787 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:11 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 115):
My suspicion is that SQ over-ordered and now realize it; Airbus approached them about deferring some of them for another airline (which one does not really matter) and SQ said "We will cancel them without penalty; otherwise no deal." And Airbus accepted.

That makes as much sense as any theory I've read thus far

tortugamon · Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:10 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
So you are saying PR plays an important role in business profitability in addition to the underlying raw data of the OEM

Why give analysts and institutional investors negative PR if it can be avoided. Coming from the OEM it sounds like SQ made money and Airbus has so much demand for their products; a potential bad thing into a good thing.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 105):

All solid points.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 108):
We haven't heard anything from QR which flies both.

Actually VN is the only one that flies both. QR has the 788 but does not yet have the 789 on order.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 115):
My suspicion is that SQ over-ordered and now realize it; Airbus approached them about deferring some of them for another airline (which one does not really matter) and SQ said "We will cancel them without penalty; otherwise no deal." And Airbus accepted.

I could even see them even getting paid more than the their deposits if Airbus did already have a customer in place. It just depends on how the negotiations worked out and who approached who. Its only 10% of SQ's A350 order.

tortugamon

Prost · Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:32 pm

Any reason that SQ couldn't have sold the planes/slots directly to the other airline?

Stitch · Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:22 pm

Quoting Prost (Reply 122):
Any reason that SQ couldn't have sold the planes/slots directly to the other airline?

It's possible their contract with Airbus prohibits re-sale before a certain period of time. And if there was not, SQ would have to shop the planes themselves, which will not be delivered for years.

Much easier to work with Airbus.

MIflyer12 · Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:56 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 104):
Only if both events happened in the same accounting period. In SQ's case, the deposits would have been paid years ago and refunded this year, so the refund will show as income in the current accounting period.

A returned deposit shows on the balance sheet but it shouldn't be income - not under U.S. accounting rules, anyway.

SInGAPORE_AIR · Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:19 pm

Looking at the financial statements for Q1 released on 29th July, Singapore Airlines has booked S$110.1m "compensation for changes in aircraft delivery slots" which is around US$80.2m

jacobin777 · Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:04 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 121):

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 108):
We haven't heard anything from QR which flies both.

Actually VN is the only one that flies both. QR has the 788 but does not yet have the 789 on order.

My apologies if I wasn't clear - I was talking about both QR having the B787 and A350 in the fleet. Of course, QR doesn't have any B789's. It would be interesting to see how the B789 and A359 "stack-up" against each other.

As we've previously discussed regarding SQ, it ostensibly seems that they can and will use both the B787-10 and A359 for their mainline fleet.

tortugamon · Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:57 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 126):
My apologies if I wasn't clear - I was talking about both QR having the B787 and A350 in the fleet. Of course, QR doesn't have any B789's. It would be interesting to see how the B789 and A359 "stack-up" against each other.

Sorry for misinterpreting bud. We have heard QR really praise the A359 for its maturity and its efficiency. We have also heard STC say that AAB has called him to rave about it. I don't think that anyone will be surprised to find out that it is a superb aircraft. For those flying A333 and 77Es and don't want any growth or could even use a small step back in capacity the 789 will be a good choice (along with the A339) and for those that had no problem filling the 77E or the A343 will probably lean toward the A359/78X. I expect the A359 to have better casm, rasm, and cargo volume and payload than the 789 in most configurations so if you think you can fill it than it really is the obvious choice and if you don't need its range than the 78X will be a solid choice as well.

tortugamon

777Jet · Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:02 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 115):
My suspicion is that SQ over-ordered and now realize it; Airbus approached them about deferring some of them for another airline (which one does not really matter) and SQ said "We will cancel them without penalty; otherwise no deal." And Airbus accepted.

And then the current excuse was used for PR reasons and to avoid any negative share market reaction

Ruscoe · Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:26 am

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 89):
Its not just a few more seats difference between 789 and A350. The A350 can carry greater payload over longer distance. Take a look at the payload / range charts. Something that could be very useful for an ariline with a geographic location like QF has

I am looking at them right now and that's not what they say. I admit to not having an up to date 350 payload/range, mine is from the 2012 global investors forum and it shows that at 30T payload they fly a similar distance of 7750nm and at 50T the ranges are similar at around 5500nm..

All this assumes a 126T OEW for 789.
The 789 has more cargo space, and similar payload range, and it is not until you get to the high extremes or lower payloads of just over 20T that the 359 range starts to pull away.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
I expect the A359 to have better casm, rasm, and cargo volume and payload than the 789 in most configurations so if you think you can fill it

Since payload range is similar up to 50T and the 787 has more LD3 capacity than the 350, and since there is no way you don't pay a penalty for the extra thrust and weight, I would be surprised.

Those who argue the 350 can carry more pax further are correct at the extremes, but you could also compare it to the 747 which carries more pax further but obviously at a much higher cost.

So what has this to do with QF. The 787 will do everything and more than their 330 and that leaves the 747, where the 77X is a closer replacement, and the 380, which I doubt they will replace.

If someone has a more recent payload range for the 350 published by Airbus, please pass it on.
Ruscoe

enzo011 · Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:54 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 129):
Since payload range is similar up to 50T and the 787 has more LD3 capacity than the 350, and since there is no way you don't pay a penalty for the extra thrust and weight, I would be surprised.

Those who argue the 350 can carry more pax further are correct at the extremes, but you could also compare it to the 747 which carries more pax further but obviously at a much higher cost.

So what has this to do with QF. The 787 will do everything and more than their 330 and that leaves the 747, where the 77X is a closer replacement, and the 380, which I doubt they will replace.

If someone has a more recent payload range for the 350 published by Airbus, please pass it on.

How can the 787-9 have more LD3 capacity when the aircraft is shorter by 4 metres? Is it the chosen design by Airbus that it loses all that space that Boeing uses? It makes sense to me that the 789 has a lower MTOW, it is a shorter aircraft than the A359 and the extra length carries extra weight, but with the extra weight should come more revenue potential.

Edited to add to post.

[Edited 2015-08-01 02:56:01]

Polot · Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:13 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 130):

According to Wikipedia they have the same LD3 capacity, so if the A350 has more pax the 789 has more room for revenue cargo. Remember that while the A350 may be longer it also has a larger wing box cutting through the cargo space.

Also I agree with everyone that it is likely DL. No one seemed to mention how in the press release DL claimed they will get their first A350 in Q2 2017. That was November of last year. Are we expected to believe that Airbus still had slots for the first half of 2017 back in November but now ~9 months later are sold out til 2020 something, despite having only a firm order for 1 (yes one) A350 so far this year? Airbus definitely cut a deal with other airlines for the DL slots, and the evidence is pointing towards SQ.

[Edited 2015-08-01 05:01:17]

Stitch · Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:50 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 131):
No one seemed to mention how in the press release DL claimed they will get their first A350 in Q2 2017.

*cough* *cough*

Quoting Stitch (Reply 112):
Delta said that part of the decision swaying them to the A350-900 over the 787-9 was delivery positions and the delivery positions SQ is giving up directly mirror into the initial delivery positions DL is getting (2017-2018).

kmz · Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:10 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 131):
Airbus definitely cut a deal with other airlines for the DL slots, and the evidence is pointing towards SQ.

what about the TAP order?

tortugamon · Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 129):
Since payload range is similar up to 50T and the 787 has more LD3 capacity than the 350, and since there is no way you don't pay a penalty for the extra thrust and weight, I would be surprised.

I have the cargo volume as identical but the A359 will lift more weight further. Larger size and more efficient engines should mitigate some of the A359s added weight vs the 789.

tortugamon

jacobin777 · Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:40 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
Sorry for misinterpreting bud.

No worries.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
We have heard QR really praise the A359 for its maturity and its efficiency. We have also heard STC say that AAB has called him to rave about it. I don't think that anyone will be surprised to find out that it is a superb aircraft.

I haven't really heard QR talking too much about their B788's. Of course, if he wasn't crazy about them we probably would've heard about it by now.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
For those flying A333 and 77Es and don't want any growth or could even use a small step back in capacity the 789 will be a good choice (along with the A339) and for those that had no problem filling the 77E or the A343 will probably lean toward the A359/78X. I expect the A359 to have better casm, rasm, and cargo volume and payload than the 789 in most configurations so if you think you can fill it than it really is the obvious choice and if you don't need its range than the 78X will be a solid choice as well.

Sounds quite rational and reasonable to me.

I guess EK's order will be quite interesting to see. We do know Udvar Hazy is a big fan of the -10X.

"Steven Udvar-Hazy, the self-proclaimed godfather of aircraft leasing, said Boeing Co.’s stretched Dreamliner has better fuel economy over Airbus SAS’s A350-900, making the new 787 attractive to airlines. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...boeing-787-10-beats-airbus-on-fuel

"“We essentially have an airplane (B787-10) now that has almost the capacity of a 777-300ER, but with substantially lower trip costs and [direct operating costs] on a seat-mile basis,” Udvar-Hazy says. “So it’s really a quite easy equation, which results in a superior airplane in terms of economics for the airlines.”"

http://aviationweek.com/awin-feature...l-set-787-10-apart-udvar-hazy-says

IndianicWorld · Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:14 am

One thing to consider is that SQ has not really been growing much with its main brand of late, but has been expanding its other offerings, including Scott, Silkair, Tigerair and also Vistara in the Indian market.

They may see this as a better fit for their medium term fleet requirements, which made such a deal with Airbus attractive at this point in time.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 135):
"Steven Udvar-Hazy, the self-proclaimed godfather of aircraft leasing, said Boeing Co.’s stretched Dreamliner has better fuel economy over Airbus SAS’s A350-900, making the new 787 attractive to airlines. "

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 135):
I guess EK's order will be quite interesting to see. We do know Udvar Hazy is a big fan of the -10X.

I expect that range and other operating considerations will need to come into the equation though, as they both have their pros and cons.

Given the -10 has not even flown yet, we will need to wait and see what results they actually get out of the aircraft.

From reports that have come out so far about the A359, it seems to have performed above spec so that would be a positive, but it would all depend on the missions the airlines have for each type and operational compatibility with its other fleet members may also come into play.

[Edited 2015-08-01 20:18:38]

scbriml · Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:46 am

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 124):
A returned deposit shows on the balance sheet but it shouldn't be income - not under U.S. accounting rules, anyway.

It must be reported as income in one form or another, no?

coolian2 · Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 137):

Wouldn't it just be considered a reversal of a previous debit?

mjoelnir · Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 137):

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 138):

If the returned deposit is income, but it cancels a corresponding asset.

coolian2 · Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:52 pm

So glad I'm no longer a banker

mffoda · Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:02 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 137):
Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 124):
A returned deposit shows on the balance sheet but it shouldn't be income - not under U.S. accounting rules, anyway.

It must be reported as income in one form or another, no?

Yes, it is reported in the income period (qtr/yr) that it is earned.

If the income was previously recorded / taxed (say Q4-2012) and later used for deposits (say Q1-2013) and then returned, it would not be reported as new income. It would simply be a balance sheet transfer, liability to asset.

Correct me if I'm wrong? Its been decades since my last accounting class.

airbazar · Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:06 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 131):
Also I agree with everyone that it is likely DL. No one seemed to mention how in the press release DL claimed they will get their first A350 in Q2 2017. That was November of last year. Are we expected to believe that Airbus still had slots for the first half of 2017 back in November but now ~9 months later are sold out til 2020 something

What they say is never the absolute truth. Manufactures always find a way to get slots for key customers. In addition, the "cancellation" of the A358 must have freed up some slots. Yes some customers exchanged them for A359 slots but others like HA were freed slots. Asiana's A358's are still in the books also, and I would be surprised if Thai, Libyan Airlines, and Afriqiyah Airways ever takes delivery of their A359's. Those are all early delivery slots.

sealand · Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 141):

Yes, the deposit is not an income at all. Likewise, when a company buys a plane, it is capitalised as an asset instead of an expense in the income statement. The asset (plane) will be expensed to the income statement yearly as depreciation based on the number of useful life.

The deposit will be shown as a prepaid expense (asset) originally and the refund will simply be a reversal of the original transaction. Hence, the refund of deposit will not affect the income statement at all. The other income that is recognised in SQ's income statement is for the compensation from Airbus for release of slots, not refund of deposit.

jacobin777 · Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 136):

I expect that range and other operating considerations will need to come into the equation though, as they both have their pros and cons.

According to another article I read Hazy stated the vast majority of flights will fall under the B77-10 range envelope. That being said, the A359XWB is no slouch either!

I guess its akin to the B757/A321NEO/B739MAX situation where the vast majority of B757 flights will be able to be handled by the A321NEO and B739MAX.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 136):

Given the -10 has not even flown yet, we will need to wait and see what results they actually get out of the aircraft.

I'm sure Boeing has a very good idea of the performance details of the -10.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 136):

From reports that have come out so far about the A359, it seems to have performed above spec

Yup, I assume the A359XWB is doing fantastic for QR. I've heard great reviews about the plane.

MrHMSH · Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:24 pm

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 144):
According to another article I read Hazy stated the vast majority of flights will fall under the B77-10 range envelope. That being said, the A359XWB is no slouch either!

The A350 is more flexible, it will work on medium haul sectors, not as well as the 78X, but the reverse isn't true. The 78X has already (reportedly) lost an order on this: I can't remember the source but LH passed over the 78X for this reason, it couldn't operate 40% of the routes they wanted do.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 144):

I guess its akin to the B757/A321NEO/B739MAX situation where the vast majority of B757 flights will be able to be handled by the A321NEO and B739MAX.

Not as extreme though, even allowing for proportion. The number of current 757-only routes that the A321neo or even the MAX 9 can't do is very few, whereas the A350's portfolio allows it to comfortably operate Far East-Europe, Transpacific, Middle-East to Australia or the USA, amongst the most popular long haul flights. The 78X will have the edge on TATL which is the biggest long haul market, but again, the A350 is not a bad choice for TATL.

tortugamon · Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:42 pm

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 135):
I guess EK's order will be quite interesting to see. We do know Udvar Hazy is a big fan of the -10X.
"Steven Udvar-Hazy, the self-proclaimed godfather of aircraft leasing, said Boeing Co.’s stretched Dreamliner has better fuel economy over Airbus SAS’s A350-900, making the new 787 attractive to airlines. "

Yes, and we have a quote from Sir Tim Clark saying that the 787-10 beats the A359 on fuel so we know he is still interested but what we don't know is just how many routes above 3,500nm he is envisioning on flying with this aircraft on hot days, during the hot part of the day, outbound. The more substantial that demand the demand the better the A359 looks. As he said this is just for regional missions I don't think its that high. But is it enough?

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 136):
Given the -10 has not even flown yet, we will need to wait and see what results they actually get out of the aircraft.

As its 95% the same as the 789 and that aircraft is showing to be substantially better than the 788 I think there is enough clarity around that. I actually think there is more uncertainty for the A359 actually. Not in a bad way but in a good, how much better can it get before EK takes possession. With only ~4 in service there isn't that much clarity there yet.

Quoting sealand (Reply 143):
The deposit will be shown as a prepaid expense (asset) originally and the refund will simply be a reversal of the original transaction. Hence, the refund of deposit will not affect the income statement at all. The other income that is recognised in SQ's income statement is for the compensation from Airbus for release of slots, not refund of deposit.

Hear, hear. Well said. That is precisely it.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 145):
The A350 is more flexible, it will work on medium haul sectors, not as well as the 78X, but the reverse isn't true.

STC has said this is for regional missions.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 145):
The 78X has already (reportedly) lost an order on this: I can't remember the source but LH passed over the 78X for this reason, it couldn't operate 40% of the routes they wanted do.

It wasn't the routes that was the problem I took it to mean payload. There is not a flight that LH flies that the 78X could not do with every seat filled.

I believe the 78X won orders against the A359 at SQ, BA, and UA so it does not lose them all.

BR recently said they are leaning toward the 78X over the A350 especially because they could get their GE engines, which they prefer. A lot of factors need to be considered for sure.

tortugamon

MrHMSH · Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:03 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
STC has said this is for regional missions.

I was talking about in general.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
It wasn't the routes that was the problem I took it to mean payload. There is not a flight that LH flies that the 78X could not do with every seat filled.

My wording was off, I meant that the 78X doesn't have the payload/range for those 40%.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
I believe the 78X won orders against the A359 at SQ, BA, and UA so it does not lose them all.

Obviously not. But there will be ones in the future where airlines want the A350's better flexibility.

sealand · Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:09 am

Many people are talking about how SQ has over ordered and this is a PR move by SQ to make it sound like Airbus wants to cancel the order. But it isn't. Airbus needs the 2017 slots desperately to secure a contract. As for why SQ is doing the deal instead of other airlines, you simply have to take a look at the airlines that have 2017 production slots. The number shrinks dramatically. QR needs the aircraft to expand, while other airlines needs it to replace their fuel guzzling A340, B747 or old B772. (AY, CX, VN comes to mind). That leaves SQ pretty much one of very few options for Airbus. Airbus knows SQ needs the A350 to replace their old B772 and A330 (which is still very new and in excellent condition). The A330 are leased on excellent rates as compensation from Airbus due to A380 delays.

SQ, sensing that Airbus is desperate in concluding the contract, managed to get compensation for release of production slots while extending the A330 leases, and brought forward some of its latter A350 deliveries forward (from open slots due to EK's cancellation) to replace the A330 that has been extended now. As for the cancellation of 7 orders instead of deferring it, don't forget that SQ still has options for 20, and they most probably won't utilise all the options if they didn't cancel the 7 planes. The net order impact will be negligible.

However, Airbus is not at the losing end. This arrangement would most probably be a precursor for the extra long range aircraft that SQ's CEO is talking about over the past few months.

Stitch · Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:21 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 147):
But there will be ones in the future where airlines want the A350's better flexibility.

True, but I really don't see the A350-900 and 787-10 being pitched against each other in such RFPs. Airlines would be more looking at the 787-9 from the Boeing portfolio.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net