Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:03 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger.".


Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 268 seats ~1.08m2/seat
Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 337 seats ~0,89m2/seat

Not sure how one gets a meaningful comparison out of that..... and that the 787-10 will burn less per passenger is a given under those circumstances.

best regards
Thomas


You are wrong SQ has 3 configurations ULR 161 pax LR 253 pax, regional 303 pax

Regional is close to 78X configuration but still 34 pax less but 4 more J class. There is clear 78X may burn less fuel.per pax, but A359 should be more confortable. Two aircrafts for diffrent market.
 
majano
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:16 pm

heavymetal wrote:
morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
My tentative guess ( Revelation! ask for proof! ) is that Boeing's cost reduction
centers on "leaning on suppliers, heavily" and "snitching on required paperwork proving (and) inspections".

scaling and experience do not create step changes. pressing on suppliers has the potential though.


And of course you would never admit that Boeing (and it's Partners) maybe were able to design the airplane to require less labour hours to assemble.

It's Barrel process seems to be more automated and it's wing maybe as well.

One of the benefits of all electric design for subsystems may be faster assembly as well. Electrical Connections may take a lot less time than bleed air systems.

I'm sure Airbus just takes whatever price it's subs demand for there work.

You might have a point on the inspection thing - but that is not going to save millions per frame - you might be talking tens of thousands at most - no where near what is needed to help explain Boeing's sales advantage which does seem to come down a lot to price.

The list price might be higher on 787 but reports on here are that 787's are selling for millions less than A350's - possibly in the ten's of millions or at least 10 million less. This is from memory - but I seem to recall actual transaction values at less than $100 million for an 787 and more than $100 million for A350.


Your last point on pricing is not correct. Perhaps you are thinking about OEM build costs, but no new-build 787's are being sold for less than $100M. As per the data from the Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Spring 2019 thread (https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705), whose source is IBA (an aircraft appraiser) and ISTAT (aircraft trading industry trade group), new build 787-9's are transacting around $142M, and new build A350-900's are transacting around $148M, a gap of $6M. There is not enough market data to build consensus around 787-10 values, but it's more than reasonable to assume that the 787-10 is more expensive than the 787-9, so the gap vs. the A350-900 will either be smaller than $6M, or perhaps even negative.

From the thread:
B787-9 - $102.0 - 142.0, $850-1,150,000
A350-900 - $109.0 - 148.0M, $800-1,140,000

A valuation of an asset and a transaction price at the factory gate are not the same things. I am sure you already knew that?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
It's Barrel process seems to be more automated and it's wing maybe as well.

One of the benefits of all electric design for subsystems may be faster assembly as well. Electrical Connections may take a lot less time than bleed air systems.


There isn't much info around how Mitsubishi does the 787 wings. Can you help?

I am partial to how Boeing does the barrels. But I still see combining skin and ribbing
as easier for a segmented fuselage section. Outer surface quality is superior for outer mold lines.
Advantage of barrels is in conical sections. The A380 started that.
Inserting the frame hoops into the fuselage sections should be interesting.
Upright integration as tested for the 777X doesn't seem to be the perfect solution either.

IMU bleed air vs electric is overstated. bleed has never been the primary energy source on an airliner.

787 still has 3 hydraulic systems. Vs. 2 on the last 2 civil Airbus from scratch designs.
Murphy is an optimist
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:59 pm

majano wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
morrisond wrote:

And of course you would never admit that Boeing (and it's Partners) maybe were able to design the airplane to require less labour hours to assemble.

It's Barrel process seems to be more automated and it's wing maybe as well.

One of the benefits of all electric design for subsystems may be faster assembly as well. Electrical Connections may take a lot less time than bleed air systems.

I'm sure Airbus just takes whatever price it's subs demand for there work.

You might have a point on the inspection thing - but that is not going to save millions per frame - you might be talking tens of thousands at most - no where near what is needed to help explain Boeing's sales advantage which does seem to come down a lot to price.

The list price might be higher on 787 but reports on here are that 787's are selling for millions less than A350's - possibly in the ten's of millions or at least 10 million less. This is from memory - but I seem to recall actual transaction values at less than $100 million for an 787 and more than $100 million for A350.


Your last point on pricing is not correct. Perhaps you are thinking about OEM build costs, but no new-build 787's are being sold for less than $100M. As per the data from the Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Spring 2019 thread (https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705), whose source is IBA (an aircraft appraiser) and ISTAT (aircraft trading industry trade group), new build 787-9's are transacting around $142M, and new build A350-900's are transacting around $148M, a gap of $6M. There is not enough market data to build consensus around 787-10 values, but it's more than reasonable to assume that the 787-10 is more expensive than the 787-9, so the gap vs. the A350-900 will either be smaller than $6M, or perhaps even negative.

From the thread:
B787-9 - $102.0 - 142.0, $850-1,150,000
A350-900 - $109.0 - 148.0M, $800-1,140,000

A valuation of an asset and a transaction price at the factory gate are not the same things. I am sure you already knew that?


Go on - I'm listening.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:19 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB is the PIP source for the other 2 engines in the family. Far as I'm aware they have nothing planned for the XWB in the next year, whereas we know GE has something for the next calendar year.


SQ is the first airline to get the XWB-84 EP, it features technology from the -97 and Advance3.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... tomer.aspx
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:20 am

Interesting discussion. Both are good planes that are optimized differently. Every operator of the 787-10 has praised it enormously, generally stating both range and fuel burn are better than advertised.

The A359 has gotten good comments except for alleged deficiency in range attributed to DL which I am not sure I believe, and comments made by Al Baker with Qatar about the A359 upon delivery i am not sure I believe either.

Bottom line: each has their place. I would say the 787-10 is better optimized for 2500-5500 nm missions while the A359 is better optimized for 5500-7500 nm missions, all things being equal.

Both should get major pieces of the 77E and 77W replacement cycle.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:30 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Bottom line: each has their place. I would say the 787-10 is better optimized for 2500-5500 nm missions while the A359 is better optimized for 5500-7500 nm missions, all things being equal.

That's the problem though for Airbus.

There would easily be 10 times as many passengers, routes and aircraft flying between 3500-5500nm than between 5500-7500nm.

5500nm is Los Angeles to Rome.
London to Japan is only 5100nm
5500nm allows for 90+% of Europe can connect with 90% of North America.
5500nm allows for 90+% of Europe to connect with 90% of Asia.
5500nm allows 90+% of North America to connrct with South America.

Airlines would be better off stretching the 787-10 on the handful of routes above 5500nm and have fuel savings on the rest of the network. Or just buy a 787-9's to do the long routes with high commonality. That is the strength of the 787 family.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:40 am

Mrakula wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger.".


Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 268 seats ~1.08m2/seat
Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 337 seats ~0,89m2/seat

Not sure how one gets a meaningful comparison out of that..... and that the 787-10 will burn less per passenger is a given under those circumstances.

best regards
Thomas


You are wrong SQ has 3 configurations ULR 161 pax LR 253 pax, regional 303 pax.


yup, i left out the ULR as it is super low density and would make the 787-10 burning less fuel per passenger even more guaranteed. With those density difference a DC10 would have better fuel burn per passenger. Even if one just compares regional with regional it is obvious that the 787-10 will come out on top with its very high 0.89m2/seat vs. the Airbus 0.96m2/seat and should have some 6-7% fuel burn advantage per passenger if the fuel burn/mile is actually the same.

It remains a meaningless comparison.Its however interesting how much space Singapore Airlines is wasting behind the L1 door, with just 8 J-seats in enough space for 36 - 45 Y, instead of doing the -10 as Premium heavy and the A359 as Y-heavy. Could be 32 J / 299 - 308 Y.....

RJMAZ wrote:
and have fuel savings on the rest of the network.


ah.. the imaginary fuel burn advantage of the 787-10 again. It doesn´t have any. As we know from the other thread it doesn´t even have any meaningful fuel burn advantage as a -9, that is ~10% smaller.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:58 am

majano wrote:
A valuation of an asset and a transaction price at the factory gate are not the same things. I am sure you already knew that?


Mostly timing, isn't it?

price building happening
when ordering from the factory ( long lead time to delivery, final payment )
versus
short time haggling on an offered existing frame.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Bottom line: each has their place. I would say the 787-10 is better optimized for 2500-5500 nm missions while the A359 is better optimized for 5500-7500 nm missions, all things being equal.

That's the problem though for Airbus.

1. If its true, there are reasons to believe that the 787-10 may be cheaper to produce and so there could be potential direct operating cost advantages swaying in favor of the B78X but I see no evidence that the B78X has any cash operating cost advantage, the decisions are likely based as much around expected utilisation as they are around fuel burn.
2.Can the BB78X even fly all missions at 5500nm? Its probably better to judge/compare aircraft fuel burn performance and optimisation around average flight weight than distance but then thats much less easy for the common observer to grok the situation. Full pax A359 flights 5500nm-7500nm would have similar average weights to MZFW flights 2500-5500nm (go figure).
RJMAZ wrote:

There would easily be 10 times as many passengers, routes and aircraft flying between 3500-5500nm than between 5500-7500nm.

5500nm is Los Angeles to Rome.
London to Japan is only 5100nm
5500nm allows for 90+% of Europe can connect with 90% of North America.
5500nm allows for 90+% of Europe to connect with 90% of Asia.
5500nm allows 90+% of North America to connrct with South America.

Airlines would be better off stretching the 787-10 on the handful of routes above 5500nm and have fuel savings on the rest of the network. Or just buy a 787-9's to do the long routes with high commonality. That is the strength of the 787 family.


Like most things it probably depends more on things that we don't (can't) even know about the market right now, let alone after a re-engine.

Fred
Image
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:26 pm

zeke wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB is the PIP source for the other 2 engines in the family. Far as I'm aware they have nothing planned for the XWB in the next year, whereas we know GE has something for the next calendar year.


SQ is the first airline to get the XWB-84 EP, it features technology from the -97 and Advance3.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... tomer.aspx


Yup, but this is old news. The XWB 97 was already souped up somewhat. The family as a whole has been light on upgrades because it IS the newest engine they have in service and active sales. Including the TEN upgrade, the T1000 has had 5 PIPs in total if I counted correctly, though the TEN, some on her claim, is apparently a 95% different engine and thus shouldn't be called a PIP at all...?

RR COULD integrate their new Titanium-Carbon fan blades from the Adv.3/Ultrafan work, but otherwise they don't have any major innovations in compressors, seals, or blades from that program which are immediately applicable to the XWB family. We don't even know if the Ultrafan is intended to allow for both bleedless and bleed air designs. I imagine the answer is yes in the age of "more electric aircraft", but I don't think we have official word on that yet.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:35 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Interesting discussion. Both are good planes that are optimized differently. Every operator of the 787-10 has praised it enormously, generally stating both range and fuel burn are better than advertised.

The A359 has gotten good comments except for alleged deficiency in range attributed to DL which I am not sure I believe, and comments made by Al Baker with Qatar about the A359 upon delivery i am not sure I believe either.


Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:31 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Interesting discussion. Both are good planes that are optimized differently. Every operator of the 787-10 has praised it enormously, generally stating both range and fuel burn are better than advertised.

The A359 has gotten good comments except for alleged deficiency in range attributed to DL which I am not sure I believe, and comments made by Al Baker with Qatar about the A359 upon delivery i am not sure I believe either.


DL did not complain about A350 performance. That is conclusion of a.net because DL left sometimes cargo or pax but that is not fault of A/C performance. Lifting around 50t on 12h flight is not shame.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:37 pm

Mrakula wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Interesting discussion. Both are good planes that are optimized differently. Every operator of the 787-10 has praised it enormously, generally stating both range and fuel burn are better than advertised.

The A359 has gotten good comments except for alleged deficiency in range attributed to DL which I am not sure I believe, and comments made by Al Baker with Qatar about the A359 upon delivery i am not sure I believe either.


DL did not complain about A350 performance. That is conclusion of a.net because DL left sometimes cargo or pax but that is not fault of A/C performance. Lifting around 50t on 12h flight is not shame.

If you type "[email protected]" into GCMAP you get this out.

Image

Weird!

Fred
Image
 
majano
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:39 pm

WIederling wrote:
majano wrote:
A valuation of an asset and a transaction price at the factory gate are not the same things. I am sure you already knew that?


Mostly timing, isn't it?

price building happening
when ordering from the factory ( long lead time to delivery, final payment )
versus
short time haggling on an offered existing frame.

Timing is one of the factors, but there are several others. Discounted cash flow (dcf) is the most commonly used valuation method. Using that method, what you and I could see as meaningless variations in the assumptions (such as the discount rate, the tenor and terminal value) can have a huge swing on the final outcome.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:37 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.

Chinese airlines don't usually comment on aircraft in the style of AAB. However, CA recently placed an follow-on order of 20 A350s after their initial 10, surely this is a sign of endorsement.
No way will EK/Tim Clark let their fleet become beholden to a single manufacturer. Apart from geopolitical reasons, they lose the leverage of playing A&B, GE and RR against each other.
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:42 am

Cerecl wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.

....
No way will EK/Tim Clark let their fleet become beholden to a single manufacturer. Apart from geopolitical reasons, they lose the leverage of playing A&B, GE and RR against each other.


:checkmark:
Unless economics are truly compelling, no airline large enough to have subfleets would do that. Aside of the bit of why does it have to be Boeing/GE and not Airbus/RR if Tim Clark suddenly becomes stupid.....? Because reasons i guess...

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Scotron12
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:31 am

And then you have DL taking up 14x A350s from LATAM. Shocking ha?? :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's.


I would hope that would be the case. All SQ 787-10s are regional only aircraft, they have no crew bunks which should lower the empty weight by about 5 tonnes.

All SQ A350s in contrast to the best of my knowledge are fitted with crew bunks.

Jetstar also have no crew bunks on their 787s.

RJMAZ wrote:
It is not surprising that Airbus gives an empty weight range between 135t and 145t. Zeke will of course pick the lightest empty weight to prove an argument.


Airbus does not say “empty weight range between 135t and 145t” in any document or website that I am aware of. In their contracts they use MEW, manufactures empty weight which is around 120 tonnes. The cabin is optional buyer furnished equipment which changes between airlines depending on the options they select.

If Airbus did make such statement you could
show the source.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:36 pm

Cerecl wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.

Chinese airlines don't usually comment on aircraft in the style of AAB. However, CA recently placed an follow-on order of 20 A350s after their initial 10, surely this is a sign of endorsement.
No way will EK/Tim Clark let their fleet become beholden to a single manufacturer. Apart from geopolitical reasons, they lose the leverage of playing A&B, GE and RR against each other.


Why bother with feigning leverage? RR has effectively ruined their own product on the 787 and has failed to fix a known issue for the better part of, what, 4.5 years now? GE has proven to be nearly infallible with the GE90 and GEnx. And EK would not lose access to the European markets over selling Airbus frames that they already paid for. It's money in the European economy either way thanks to EK. Though, how long the E.U. lasts after Brexit goes through... 4 years tops.

CA is the odd man out, but they're also expanding much more slowly and deliberately with long-term plans, so the long wait on new frames seems logical.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:40 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Cerecl wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.

....
No way will EK/Tim Clark let their fleet become beholden to a single manufacturer. Apart from geopolitical reasons, they lose the leverage of playing A&B, GE and RR against each other.


:checkmark:
Unless economics are truly compelling, no airline large enough to have subfleets would do that. Aside of the bit of why does it have to be Boeing/GE and not Airbus/RR if Tim Clark suddenly becomes stupid.....? Because reasons i guess...

best regards
Thomas


Boeing & GE because they'll have the 777-300ER and 787-10 around after the A380, and at least the GE engines have never failed EK. RR has failed them on the A380, and RR has shown grave engineering weakness or apathy WRT the T1000, to the point even the TEN version is having the SAME compressor issue as the previous versions.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:23 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:

Boeing & GE because they'll have the 777-300ER and 787-10 around after the A380, and at least the GE engines have never failed EK. RR has failed them on the A380, and RR has shown grave engineering weakness or apathy WRT the T1000, to the point even the TEN version is having the SAME compressor issue as the previous versions.



So according to your logic, MAX operators should never order another Boeing again because it failed them?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:24 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Cerecl wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Tough to say. The Chinese carriers are pretty silent on the A350. We'll have to see what Tim Clark does with his Airbus order. It wouldn't shock me if, in the end, he just turned around and sold the frames to others in an effort to consolidate into an all-Boeing, all-GE fleet between the 78X and 777-9/8.

....
No way will EK/Tim Clark let their fleet become beholden to a single manufacturer. Apart from geopolitical reasons, they lose the leverage of playing A&B, GE and RR against each other.


:checkmark:
Unless economics are truly compelling, no airline large enough to have subfleets would do that. Aside of the bit of why does it have to be Boeing/GE and not Airbus/RR if Tim Clark suddenly becomes stupid.....? Because reasons i guess...

best regards
Thomas


Weird logic indeed. The 2 good engines RR does have, are mounted on the A350 and A330neo. On the other hand, GE isn't without issues on the 777Xs engine...
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:30 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

Boeing & GE because they'll have the 777-300ER and 787-10 around after the A380, and at least the GE engines have never failed EK. RR has failed them on the A380, and RR has shown grave engineering weakness or apathy WRT the T1000, to the point even the TEN version is having the SAME compressor issue as the previous versions.



So according to your logic, MAX operators should never order another Boeing again because it failed them?


Engine reliability is a completely different ballgame. I'm not denying Boeing royally screwed up by rushing a single-sensor design out the door and hiding it from pilots, but the overall architecture of the solution is sound, and the deficiencies are solvable within months. RR has had 7 years now to get the T1000 correct and still can't, which smacks either of apathy to customers, incompetence in management/engineering, or a deliberate sabotage of the design. Given the A350 and A330 NEO have, combined, sold as much as the 787, and both planes are RR exclusive with engines from the same family, it is highly suspicious that RR can't seem to thread the needle. It's like that it just doesn't want to at this point and would rather focus on its exclusive planes.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:31 pm

majano wrote:
WIederling wrote:
majano wrote:
A valuation of an asset and a transaction price at the factory gate are not the same things. I am sure you already knew that?


Mostly timing, isn't it?

price building happening
when ordering from the factory ( long lead time to delivery, final payment )
versus
short time haggling on an offered existing frame.

Timing is one of the factors, but there are several others. Discounted cash flow (dcf) is the most commonly used valuation method. Using that method, what you and I could see as meaningless variations in the assumptions (such as the discount rate, the tenor and terminal value) can have a huge swing on the final outcome.


Lessors commonly use DCF's to value aircraft with assumed lease rates and future residual values. Their DCF is not going to produce a purchase price that is up to $40M above the price "at the factory gate" as you say. And even if it hypothetically were, most of this profit from the sale would be passed through via lease rates that are exceptionally higher than if the aircraft had simply been sold at the factory price.

The only real instance where we are seeing DCF's inflate asset values today are on narrowbodies like the 737-800, A320, and A321, where certain desperate Lessors are wiling to take lower returns (a lower discount rate) in exchange for putting money to work. Even so, this inflates values by at most $5M, and as stated above, a large chunk of that is then passed back through in the lease rate. There is too much residual value risk on widebodies today for leasing companies to do the same.

Boeing is not selling 787-9's and 787-10's for less than $100M, period. The quoted values in the Aircraft Values thread are much closer to actual transactions values than the outrageous claims thrown around on a.net.
 
majano
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:36 pm

heavymetal wrote:
majano wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Mostly timing, isn't it?

price building happening
when ordering from the factory ( long lead time to delivery, final payment )
versus
short time haggling on an offered existing frame.

Timing is one of the factors, but there are several others. Discounted cash flow (dcf) is the most commonly used valuation method. Using that method, what you and I could see as meaningless variations in the assumptions (such as the discount rate, the tenor and terminal value) can have a huge swing on the final outcome.


Lessors commonly use DCF's to value aircraft with assumed lease rates and future residual values. Their DCF is not going to produce a purchase price that is up to $40M above the price "at the factory gate" as you say. And even if it hypothetically were, most of this profit from the sale would be passed through via lease rates that are exceptionally higher than if the aircraft had simply been sold at the factory price.

The only real instance where we are seeing DCF's inflate asset values today are on narrowbodies like the 737-800, A320, and A321, where certain desperate Lessors are wiling to take lower returns (a lower discount rate) in exchange for putting money to work. Even so, this inflates values by at most $5M, and as stated above, a large chunk of that is then passed back through in the lease rate. There is too much residual value risk on widebodies today for leasing companies to do the same.

Boeing is not selling 787-9's and 787-10's for less than $100M, period. The quoted values in the Aircraft Values thread are much closer to actual transactions values than the outrageous claims thrown around on a.net.

Please respond to those people who made "the outrageous claims" and not me. My comment is about valuations, not Boeing pricing of any aircraft.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:46 pm

majano wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
majano wrote:
Timing is one of the factors, but there are several others. Discounted cash flow (dcf) is the most commonly used valuation method. Using that method, what you and I could see as meaningless variations in the assumptions (such as the discount rate, the tenor and terminal value) can have a huge swing on the final outcome.


Lessors commonly use DCF's to value aircraft with assumed lease rates and future residual values. Their DCF is not going to produce a purchase price that is up to $40M above the price "at the factory gate" as you say. And even if it hypothetically were, most of this profit from the sale would be passed through via lease rates that are exceptionally higher than if the aircraft had simply been sold at the factory price.

The only real instance where we are seeing DCF's inflate asset values today are on narrowbodies like the 737-800, A320, and A321, where certain desperate Lessors are wiling to take lower returns (a lower discount rate) in exchange for putting money to work. Even so, this inflates values by at most $5M, and as stated above, a large chunk of that is then passed back through in the lease rate. There is too much residual value risk on widebodies today for leasing companies to do the same.

Boeing is not selling 787-9's and 787-10's for less than $100M, period. The quoted values in the Aircraft Values thread are much closer to actual transactions values than the outrageous claims thrown around on a.net.

Please respond to those people who made "the outrageous claims" and not me. My comment is about valuations, not Boeing pricing of any aircraft.


I already did respond to those who made the outrageous claims, in my initial post. You then came in with the discussion about valuations. I am responding to you in that the values from the Aircraft Values thread are much closer to actual sales and transactions values than you initially brushed off.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: askr and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos