GAO report on ‘Boeing’s bank:’ The US Government Accounting Office, a non-partisan investigating agency, completed a study of the funding and guarantees provided by the US ExIm Bank, which is under criticism from Congressional Republicans, and concluded non-US airlines do benefit from what amounts to subsidies.
These put US competitors at a disadvantage, GAO concludes. The full 29 page PDF may be found here.
The study period covered the global financial crisis, during which a good deal of private capital funding dried up. Airbus and Boeing each relied more heavily on export credit agencies for customer financing–ExIm in Boeing’s case and collectively European Credit Agencies, or ECAs, for Airbus.
The GAO found that ExIm funded or guaranteed financing for 789 Boeing wide body aircraft while the ECAs supported 821 Airbus wide-bodies.
Parenthetically, this statistic alone should demonstrate to Congress the need for ExIm to continue to be available for Boeing airplanes.
As could be expected, export credit support spiked in 2009, the year immediately following the global financial meltdown.
PDF page 14 in the GAO report segments the dollar amounts received by countries. Airlines operating in the United Arab Emirates, India and South Korea each received more than $3bn in US support. Customers from 34 countries were backed by ExIm financing support.
Delta Air Lines is leading the fight against ExIm practices because it believes it’s at a competitive disadvantage to carriers whose airplanes are funded by ExIm. Tea Party Republicans in Congress want to kill ExIm entirely, calling it corporate welfare. Although ExIm funds a wide variety of industries, the largest chunk of backing goes to Boeing, hence the moniker that it is “Boeing’s Bank.”
Long time readers of this column know that we support reauthorization of ExIm and view its termination as something that will put Boeing at a competitive disadvantage. We call attention to the number of airplanes ExIm and ECAs financed, noted above.
During the Air New Zealand Boeing 787-9 event July 9, we had the opportunity to speak with Boeing’s head salesman, John Wojick, for a few minutes. Although the event was for ANZ, we talked about ExIm. Wojick told us Airbus is using the cloud over the continued existence of ExIm in its sales campaigns against Boeing.
While Delta’s campaign is directed at wide-body funding, ExIm also supports 737 sales. When Asia’s LionAir ordered hundreds of 737NGs and 737 MAXes, President Obama–who was present for the announcement in Indonesia–pledged ExIm support. If the Bank is not reauthorized, this funding support goes away, putting at risk billions of dollars in sales by Boeing.
Wojick told us Boeing is looking at alternatives, though he declined to be specific. Rating agency Standard & Poor’s concluded that Boeing would have to dramatically step up customer financing in the event ExIm is not reauthorized.
ExIm’s current authorization expires in September. We think the Bank will be reauthorized, but in Congress, nothing is a sure bet. What is a sure bet that failure to do so will harm Boeing, American jobs and American exports.
COMAC C919: While Boeing is fending off allegations of US government subsidies for its airplanes, China’s government-funded competitor, the COMAC C919, continues to make progress. French news agency AFP has this report detailing the current status of China’s competitor to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320.
Airbus’ wide-body strategy: Flight Global has a rather damning analysis of the Airbus wide-body strategy compared with Boeing’s. Flight Global’s incredibly annoying and cumbersome free registration is required.
to bad the GAO didn’t provide an historical graph of ECA vs ExIm exposure to aerospace in dollars.
We know it’s a 50/50 divided market, but what about the gov’t support. it should be similar also.
“Tea Party Republicans in Congress want to kill Exim entirely, calling it corporate welfare.”
Not all in the Tea Party want to close the Exim Bank. I see it as a self supporting field leveler for exports from the US competing against other country’s products.
But it does cost some government up front money. But, unlike the GM bailout, the taxpayer does get all the money repaid, with interest, over time. The default rate at Exim is very low, lower than most other financial lending institutions. The Exim only has about 400 employees, so it is not a huge government agency.
Closing the bank will not effect the federal deficit one bit. The Exim’s funding is very small compared to almost any other government agency. We would save more money by not spending money to studying the sex habits of some teasey fly and other worthless pet projects, including the infamous “bridge to no where”.
In other words, cut out all government waste project funding before you go after something that provides a real benefit to the country.
ExIm and ECAs often facilitate financing to less credit worthy customers in developing countries so they can buy new aircraft. If these credits were closed the passengers in those same counties would not stop flying, instead those airlines would have to look to the second hand market, so old airframes would suddenly be worth a lot of money. Now who has a lot of old airframes? Closing ImEx and the ECAs would have a detrimental effect on air safety in what is already the most dangerous part of the world to fly.
HOWEVER the above argument, while valid, only applies to a part of ImEx and ECA backed sales, so maybe there is room to limit it on both sides of the Atlantic?
Think Flightglobal might be drinking the same tea I am. Glad someone with some industry respect has the guts to say what is pretty clear. Thanks for being willing to share something is different than your view Scott.
Didn’t Delta (and Northwest) benefit from ECAs from Airbus?
While the registration is annoying, Flight Global has done some very good reporting including the current 787 overview.
Its well worth any annoyance (which I find minimal but I am not fast paced analyzing lean mane texting machine as it were, grin)
“ExIm’s current authorization expires in September. We think the Bank will be reauthorized, but in Congress, nothing is a sure bet. What is a sure bet that failure to do so will harm Boeing, American jobs and American exports.”
I think there is a lot more that has been done to the US by its failure to use legitimate policy (such as tax structure) and tariffs than this does.
Huge parts of the 787 are made overseas, 767, 777.
There is a legitimate production need to have those products made in the US at Everett and Charleston and Boeing could have made that mandatory and did not.
Having China make stuff while spewing massive pollution that we get back as well does what for us?
World wide competition is one thing, aiding and abetting outflow of job s is another and I don’t think the US government needs to encourage anything in that regard. Making outflow of jobs as a result of policy falls into that same category. Our government should fight tooth and nail to keep any job we can in the US, all other countries do.
Delta complaint is nothing more than an example that you create both benefits and deficits when you do that sort of ex import thing.
If another country want to compete in the US they should damn well earn it, not have it handed to them on a silver policy platter
If you can have farm susidies, why not aircraft subsidies. Delta should get the same financing that is available to foreign airlines.
From the Runway Girl Network article on the new Boeing 737 interiors:
Long-time industry consultant Scott Hamilton says the A320 cabin has faced a competitive disadvantage ever since Boeing unveiled BSI in 2009. “Obviously Boeing has responded to the Zodiac interior. Airbus has a good functional interior but it’s outdated now. I don’t think passengers are going to choose their flights based on an interior of an airplane, but you don’t know what influence that will have on the purchases of the airplanes.”
He adds, “I really feel – and have felt for years – that Boeing is a step ahead of Airbus when it comes to the passenger experience.”
But Scott, don’t you know that some Airbus seats are 8/10th of an inch wider than Boeings, which is about the width of my thumb? Passengers will pay higher fares and fly at Inconvenient times, add connections, and hours to their trip, just to get that extra thumb width. That extra thumb width with makes ALL the difference between a luxurious and comfortable flight, and living hell! This is Airbus gospel.
Funny thing is no one has actually even claimed some of the nonsense you wrote in your last paragraph. I mean I’ve seen people state their preferences, but never to your inane extremes. But hey, whatever makes you feel better I guess.
Careful: you are getting personal. Stop it.
I do like the seating and comfort better in Airbus than Boeing, but Boeing has been more innovating on overall pax ex.
“That extra thumb width with makes ALL the difference between a luxurious and comfortable flight, and living hell! This is Airbus gospel.”
Didn’t you know that this MUST be true? After all, Airbus backs this up with real “scientific” research. I mean, they have view graphs and everything!
@Rick, you might want to try wearing pants/trousers with a waist size 2″ smaller (about 0.8″ less width) than your usual size. It just might make ALL the difference …
If your butt cant fit into a 17.2″ seat, I feel sorry for you.
My butt is not the widest part of my body — my shoulders and elbows need more width than my butt.
My shoulders are about 17″ wide and I’m not particularly broad-shouldered, either. Sitting in the middle seat between two other people is definitely tight. If your shoulders are much narrower, you may not have any trouble, of course.
Excellent points thysi. And here is Randy’s own little picture to prove it.
Rick- interesting POV The only thing I find different between the two interios is the number of times I get hit by a cart on the A320 is less than I get hit on a 737. The trip is in a tube and my eyes are always facing forward. I do enjoy the continued passing of humanity as we each find our personal space in the tube. Oh yeah, that wonderful smell from the rear can sometimes be overpowering depending on time of travel. You know what, all of those things are the same on either a A320 or a 737. But the carts, well they hurt less.
There are a lot of factors that go into a comfortable flight. Id rather be on a new 737, than an old A320. I’d rather be on a new A320, than an old 737. The cleanliness of the aircraft and the quality of service is important too. An extra thumb width of seat? I’ve never picked a flight based on that.
Seat width can’t be a passenger comfort issue because the 787 and 777 need 9 and 10 abreast to be competitive and Boeing can’t widen the fuselage. That is why 😉
If you go with that logic, try this on. You can dress it up with new wings, take it to market with new engines, but when you sit inside you will still be sitting in a dated tube. Wish I could wink back at you, but you can’t see me through the small windows.
Seat width is indeed a comfort issue. However, it’s just one of many comfort issues, and it’s a bit ridiculous to claim, as Airbus does, that less than an inch of seat bottom width is the magical difference between a comfortable interior and an uncomfortable one.
Interestingly enough, one never hears Airbus talking about the knock-on effects of higher weight and drag for the extra little bit of seat width.
I know the Airbus campaign is rather pointless since it is up to the airline to determine the seat sizes. But for anyone who says that a “thumb width” of seat space is not significant enough:
Would they fly long haul on a 9 abreast A330 for a cheaper price compared to a 10 abreast 777? At 0.5″ in difference, that’s even less than the “thumb width”.
“Would they fly long haul on a 9 abreast A330 for a cheaper price compared to a 10 abreast 777? At 0.5″ in difference, that’s even less than the “thumb width”.”
Well, personally I would be miserable either way, so I might as well pay less for my misery. So, if the 777 costs less than that is what I’d choose. Other considerations like times and connections would come into the equation as well.
I you think an inch of seat width isn’t important, lets try 16 inch wide seats on a 14 hour flight and see what happens. Boeing and Emirates defending 10 abreast on the 777 has nothing to do with passenger comfort but all with CASM.
My favorite flight between Frankfurt and Madrid was LAN with an A340. Due to technical problems the A340 was replaced once with an 8-abreast B767. Just by walking in I did feel the difference. Contact at shoulders height with seat neighbors…
People often forget that the one thumb more space is just correct for an endless row. With just 4 seats in the middle row everyone gains two thumbs more space! The middle seat with 3 seats in a row gains 3 thumbs more space. His own thumb and the thumbs from the person to the left and right of him.
The 787 needs 9x to be competitive with the A330? I don’t think so. it’s competitive at 8x. It’s even more competitive at 9x. At least 787 buyers have the option to outfit the 787 at 9x if they desire.
The reason the first A350 attempt failed is because it was based on the narrow A330 fuselage.
“At least 787 buyers have the option to outfit the 787 at 9x if they desire.”
Which almost everyone does.
The 8 across on the 787 was almost DOA save for the two Japanese carriers. One of them is now moving towards 9 across too. Any remaining hopes for an 8 across Y on the 787 would be put to rest by the economics of the A330neo.
“Any remaining hopes for an 8 across Y on the 787 would be put to rest by the economics of the A330neo.”
You’re probably right about this. However, the fact that most operators currently go 9 across on the 787 is more a result of the fact that passengers don’t mind enough for it to significantly affect their buying decisions. Absent a passenger revolt, airlines are going to go with what maximizes their profits.
Any remaining hopes for an 8 across Y on the 787 would be put to rest by the economics of the A330neo.
Let’s compare apples to apples, shall we? How will the A330neo economics compare to the 787-10?
“Let’s compare apples to apples, shall we? How will the A330neo economics compare to the 787-10?”
Apparently, the Airbus apples come in two sizes…
A330 have the option to outfit the A330 at 9x if they desire too.
You won’t find them in Randy’s creative CASM based comparisons. Never.
[Edited as a violation of our Reader Comment rules.]
Is Flight Global’s article really ‘damning’? Well I suppose it does read like a long line of negatives for Airbus, but frankly it reads to me like a bit of a lazy jaunt through some old stories, spiced up with a recent headline and a quote or two from an analyst.
For those who don’t want to register, the key points I took away are: The A380 is struggling; Emirates cancelled the A350 / ordered 777X; Airbus emphasise greater comfort but a low cost carrier selected narrow seats; Not clear if Airbus will launch A330neo; Airbus could be in a worse position if they launch the neo; An analyst thinks neo would not be a long term solution; A350 is being developed; The plan for the A350-800 remains uncertain; Boeing’s three programme strategy is better; VLAs aren’t selling but the 777 and 787 are.
Reading it like that, its kind of the same old refrain of ‘Airbus has gambled everything on the A380 and the rest of its widebody line is in tatters – Boeing wins’. The only new thing is the recent Emirates cancellation and the discussion of the A330neo, largely just a bit of recent headlines to make the ‘analysis’ look fresh.
One would think there were many new angles for journalists to take these days. How about: Why has the 787-10 had so few new orders since its flurry of launch commitments?; What are the implications for Boeing’s finances if Airbus launches a competitive A330neo and makes it hard for Boeing to maintain a price premium on the 787?; Which is the better bet in the long-run, the 777-9X’s revenue advantage, or the A350-1000’s cost per trip savings?
I like your comments, but here’s the big one. Why would a company knowingly bring a product to market that is going to push all prices down? The NEO will not only hurt Boeing but it will also hurt the A350 program. Let’s say for grins that Boeing drops prices on all deals being offered by through a NEO option and NEO loses because the technology choice wins. Has the bar not been lowered for the A350 too? You sell 200-300 more at rock bottom prices only because you think it keeps a dated profitable program going? WHy not produce the -800 and offer it at competitive rates so the -900 and the -1000 benefit from the price premium all product gain from the technology upgauge? Rolls goes in on the deal to make 600 engines and it impacts the XWB program because resources are drawn away from optimizing the higher value opportunity? Suppliers are dragged in to this pricing war at price points that are unhealthy for all in the chain, but Airbus has made a major point for the rock bottom world of wide body sales. This is a bad idea for the industry but Airbus wants to prove a point that the 787 was a bad idea and anything can beat it. Got my popcorn for this because the blood and guts from this will be felt throughout the industry. For the sake of the industry I hope demand for the program is low because the food chain has carried too much of the pain of these airframer price wars.
You are right, there are risks on cannibalising A350-900 sales with the A330-300neo or whatever it will he called. Perhaps Airbus will clarify its thinking soon. But if we take your question, ‘why launch it if it hurts your A350 pricing?’. Perhaps the answer is, to prevent the 787-8 having a niche to itself in small longhaul WB, and to ensure the A333 defends its place in the regional WB market vs the -10.
As far as pricing goes, the A350 Regional is the Airbus aircraft competing the most with the A330-300neo. Perhaps Airbus would prefer to sell less A350R and more A330neos, in order to get more revenue from long-haul A350 variants.
On top of that, remember that Airbus put the price up for the A320neo vs the ceo. They could do the same again with the A330neo, improving their own cash flow, and still having lower prices than the 787.
Another key point is that the 787 programme has cost Boeing 36b USD or so, right?However, the A330neo is reportedly planned to cost 2b. Who has the most room to manoever in that price war?
Finally, the A350 programme has not exploded its budget, and is a long way through its development expenditures. However, Boeing has the 777X to fund to the tune of 8b USD. Meanwhile the KC-46 is estimated at 1b USD overbudget already.
Frankly, my final take on all this is that applying squeeze on Boeing’s 787 revenues may be exactly what Airbus hopes is needed to force them to reconsider discounting on other products such as the MAX.
None of you get the point of all this. Neither Boeing nor Airbus lose in this stupid NEO war. Both companies have dropped their prices to win sales/share. The suppliers who are generally the same are forced to drop costs at extreme levels to support this grab. So Boeing sells a 787 for $180 Mil while Airbus comes in at $150 Mil. Rolls makes the engines for both, but to make the Airbus deal happen Rolls sells their engines for 20% discount. Airbus says they have $2 Bil in the development and Rolls has $2 Bil in their engine development. How will Rolls make the 20 % up they gave up to support one engine program over another? For suppliers like Rolls this is tough. If Airbus pushes the A350 Rolls gets the development cost back and the $2 Bil will never be spent. NEO spreads the industry thin.
“Airbus says they have $2 Bil in the development and Rolls has $2 Bil in their engine development.”
– Where did you get that Rolls and Airbus are each spending 2 billion for the A330neo?
The total neo dev cost is stated to be $2 billion. This includes engines plus airframe mods. Ridiculous to say that it costs a separate 2 billion to develop a bleed derivative of an already existing engine.
Let’s not be hasty with making bold statements (either way) about the A330neo development costs. There is some talk now that the wings are going to be seriously touched, not just a structural beef-up to hang the heavier engines. I get the feeling that things are not so well off in neo land as we have been led to believe.
“The NEO will not only hurt Boeing but it will also hurt the A350 program.”
If you try and think about it, you would see how Airbus can use the neo to dent the 787 AND the 777X market share. The A350 profitability could remain unaffected or be even better.
You are again hearing the story frm Airbus prospective right? Total development cost $2 Bil. Any engine program is in no way static. Material testing and validation are being done by Rolls and their suppliers. So will Airbus cover all development costs up to $2 Bil? Engine mods are not cheap. GE pushed for the NEO because they knew Rolls should pay for a bastard program too, like the 747-8 program.
“Any engine program is in no way static. Material testing and validation are being done by Rolls and their suppliers.”
Material testing and validation are an on-going process that you can’t attribute to any specific engine program. RR has stated that it is spending around 1 billion GBP every year in enhancements, R&D and projects such as the ALPS, “Advance” and the “Ultrafan” regardless of whether they have a useful application. Some of that technology, when matured, maybe adopted across several different engine programs. Even if they didn’t do a neo engine, they would still be incurring those costs in a bid to keep their other projects competitive and for future needs. In fact, the neo would give them another avenue to recover those costs.
Question 1) With that logic one could equally say why has the A351 had such slow sales since its launch? 787-10 backlog since its launch stands at 132. A351? 169 in 8 years Vs 7 months.
Question 2) It’s hard to say. Boeing will sell the value of the 787 (newer plane, cheaper maintenance, better economics) while Airbus will sell the price points because everyone wants a deal and it’ll be cheaper. In the end it’s hard to tell.
Question 3) Equally good question. This depends on the operator and it’s route network. We see by the behavior of other airlines that the 777x and the A351 can fly together rather than against each other. Over the long run I see the A351 in a better position because you may not be able to get the loads you alwAys need but the trip costs for the missions the A351 will serve should be consistent. That’s my take on it.
“With that logic one could equally say why has the A351 had such slow sales since its launch? 787-10 backlog since its launch stands at 132. A351? 169 in 8 years Vs 7 months.”
– Airbus could have launched the A351 20 years ago and would still have had the same number before EIS as long as it is production constrained. As it stands, the A351 will have to be produced at around 3-4 a month as the rest of the slots are taken up by the A359. They have no room to accommodate more orders until the backlog is whittled down or until they invest in upping the production rate.
“They have no room to accommodate more orders until the backlog is whittled down or until they invest in upping the production rate.”
The same could be said of the 787-10, which is why Boeing is talking about going to a 787 program rate of 12/month in 2017 and 14/month in 2019 ( if my memory serves).
“The same could be said of the 787-10”
I don’t dispute that. Just pointing out that the argument “X has been on offer so many years more than Y” as being insignificant given the context.
With regard to the A330NEO I’m not sure who gains and who looses here. Boeing are probably relieved that Airbus are doing a TRENT NEO and not holding out for an Advance/GTF next generation wing etc solution. They would be forced to re-engine the B787 which bluntly they can’t afford. Looks to me like the good old duopoly will solder on, A330 for shorter ranges and less capital, B787 for longer ranges but less discounts, again Boeing can’t afford to discount too much on it.
A350-900&1000 look pretty healthy to me, the 1000 will take the 773 market, which is a proven sweet spot, while an A350-1100 is possible to equal the B779 in the event it proves popular. Personally I think Boeing are making a big mistake with the B777-X and they should go for a larger clean sheet, an aircraft that the A350 can’t/doesn’t compete with. When two types have the same CASM usually the smaller one wins out, ie B748i vs B77W. Boeings biggest plus with the 777-X is that the ME3 will support it to get the B778 built, which they need and has no competitor, range wise, on the horizon, but I don’t think that is enough.
“Boeing are probably relieved that Airbus are doing a TRENT NEO and not holding out for an Advance/GTF next generation wing etc solution.”
I’m not so sure the A330neo is going to be the slam dunk lots of people here think it will be. Rumors are that the wing might get significant work, but those could be wrong.
” They would be forced to re-engine the B787 which bluntly they can’t afford.”
On the surface this appears to be so, but who really knows what Boeing can or can’t afford. Apparently they are currently affording a HUGE cost overrun on the 787-8 development. If the rumored wing changes on the A330neo prove to be true, a 787 re-engine looks like it could be simpler and cheaper.
I wonder how much the A350 stuck to its budget. Remember the first 200 orders for the original A350 were converted to the new more expensive version. Was Airbus forced to covert these at the old price? That would eat into the profitability of the new program.
Where did you come up with the $36 billion figure for the 787? I’ve never seen anything that high.
“Was Airbus forced to covert these at the old price?”
– Likely so.
Fabrice Bregier has stated that profitable A350s should be shipped toward the end of the decade, when production costs decrease. As to when exactly they mean, is anybody’s guess.
Where’s your source for Bregiers comments?
I don’t think the link would work here but here’s a try.
Or just Google the WSJ article “Airbus is Testing, Testing, Testing”.
Pingback: Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? - Page 16245 - Airline Pilot Central Forums
Airbus can try to cut below the 787-8 with a lighter A350-5. New 55m wing x 55m long, 5000nm range.
Where’s McNerney in the public debate on ExIM? It is like “where’s waldo?” Reminds me of when the 787 was grounded. Doesn’t he understand how important it is for Boeing. Contrast his low profile approach with that of Richard Anderson of Delta – a real leader. Why Boeing pays McNerney $20+ million a year, I will never know.
An A330NEO overlapping with the A350-800 is a kind of luxery problem.
Boeings long haul gap between the 787-9 and 777-9X is a more serious one.
I’m afraid the payload restricted 787-10, discounted 777W’s and heavy 777-8x’s are a bit of a substandard solution for in the center of the market, that won’t be powerpointed away. Ask the airlines.
Seems to me the airlines are much more interested in the B-77W, B-778, and B-787-10 than they ever were with the A-330-200Lite and A-330-500 Airbus was pushing about 10 years ago. They have actually ordered the Boeing models. No one ever ordered the A-335 or A-33L.
The A-330NEO will kill the ROI for Airbus on the A-358. They still have to build those airplanes still under contract if they are not converted to another model.
What long haul gap are you talking about between the B-778 and the B-779? The bigger model carries 50 more pax compared to the smaller model. The B-778 has about a 1200 nm range advantage.
You do know both models of the B-77X have a slightly wider interior cabin than the B-777CLASSICs, don’t you?
I firmly believe that the A358 will never be built. The existing orders will be converted to A359 or A330 NEO — or canceled.
Contracts that are signed require the manufacturer to build planes, and the airline to buy them. Either one can typically get out of the contracts by paying the penalty specified in the contract. Anyway, given how few orders remain, Airbus can likely afford to offer the remaining customers an A359 at the same price and make those A358 orders go away.
“What long haul gap are you talking about between the B-778 and the B-779? The bigger model carries 50 more pax compared to the smaller model. The B-778 has about a 1200 nm range advantage.”
– The 778 is in the same position as the A358 as it is. Airlines may order it as a niche plane, but it won’t be a big seller. Only Emirates has shown interest in the model so far.
EY has ordered it as well.
“What long haul gap are you talking about between the B-778 and the B-779”
?! not sure where you are referring to. I’m am pointing out the 300-380 seat market, that Boeing has to fill with 3 compromised aircraft, with the 777-8i coming available only after 2021. While the A350 line ramps up from 2015.
Why will Airbus not totally dominate the 320-380 seats to/from Asia segment for the next 7 years? Because it simply just ain’t gonna happen?
777-8i? That’s news to me. I wouldn’t bet money on the projected 2015 ramp up. Granted it is documented that it is planned but it’s two planes a month to “close to three” http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-braced-for-a350-ramp-up-as-msn5-nears-flight-400364/ Mind you this is predicated on if the supply chain can keep up.
P. S. KC was referring to the point you tried to make 4 replys ago. The one were you emphatically made your sentence in bold.
Don’t be afraid, just go with it. If you can give me another regional aircraft similar to the 787-10 I’d really like to know. Sure the 777W’s will be discounted but let’s not forget everyone gets discounts. Furthermore starting tomorrow there will be “name your price” sale on A330-8/9’s. Heavy, bloated, overweight, fluffy, obese, full figured, corpulent, husky, pudgy, tubby, portly, plump, chubby and metobolically challenged could all describe the 778 and the 779. But why does this even matter? These descriptions won’t show up on the PowerPoint presentation because they don’t have to. EY has the A351 and the hefty 778 and 779. So does CX (-9), NH (-9), LH (-9).
Its pointless to bring up the weight or price of aircraft since none of us are buying the planes anyway. Substandard is not a way to describe the best selling twin engine jet ever made, and what will likely be one of best Regional twin engine jets out there.
“”Don’t be afraid, just go with it. If you can give me another regional aircraft similar to the 787-10 I’d really like to know.””
Easy…the A350-900 Regional. With some software to de-rate the motors and some different paper, the A350-900 become just like the 787-10. But…if someone who owns a A350-900 Regional wants the full-blown awesomeness of the A350-900, then all they got to do is change the software and the paper and….Viola! The A350-900 Regional becomes Super-Plane…again!
Thus…upgrading the A350-900 regional is like a princess kissing a frog and having it turn into a prince. Whereas no matter how many times the princess kisses the 787-10: it will remain a toad, and she’ll get nothing but warts all over her lips.
If I didn’t know any better I would agree but I know that the 900R was a reaction to the 787-10. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-launches-lower-weight-39regional39-a350-388540/ I don’t doubt the 900R will be good but not as good as the -10. You mention getting the 900R back to its original form but I’d hate to do that for a fee. I’m not sure where the sales for the 900R stand but I’d wager they’re not selling to much of them. Other than the mixed order placed by SQ and the 9 by Aer Lingus, the 900R has been in hibernation. If the 900R is as good as you make it out to be, I’m curious why it’s not even in the RFP for EK. We’ll see where the pendulum swings. I’m curious if the 900R can make the same claim the -10 does about covering 90% of the routes served by wb twin aircraft. So much for your toad/princess analogy. Lol
EY has orders for 24 A350 regionals. This comes on top of their order for 787-10s.
“I’m curious why it’s not even in the RFP for EK”
– How did you conclude that? They just said that they will look at the A350 again. Airbus may pitch them the regional.
“EY has orders for 24 A350 regionals. This comes on top of their order for 787-10s.”
Missed one. My general point was the 900R seems to be selling at a slower pace than the -10. Why? I really don’t know but can guess that the economics aren’t all there.
“How did you conclude that? They just said that they will look at the A350 again. Airbus may pitch them the regional.”
I’m On the side that EK has already made up its mind. If I was Airbus I’d try whatever it takes to not lose the order. The 900R was certainly pitched before it was cancelled. What would have changed between then and now in order for the 900R to suddenly be appealing?
“The 900R was certainly pitched before it was cancelled.”
– Once again, how do you conclude that with certainty, when all that they’ve said was that they were “reviewing their fleet requirements”?
The only other thing I’ve heard was that EK saw the A350-900 as being too small for their needs.
That’s the conclusion I’m reaching. If I’m about to lose $16 bills you better believe I’m showing all my cards.
It seems Airbus has moved Hawaiian (finally) to go for A330 NEO’s, that will likely be named A330-800 and -900 and powered by Trent 7000’s with 112 inch fans. Wingtips will be A350 style rumours go. Range would be boosted by 400NM for both models. It would be interesting to see if the nose gear is stretched.
A330 NEO eating in the A350 order book
As an example of the fact that by trying to compete with the B767, in case to be successful Airbus would eat into the A350 market, I cited (wrongly) that this already has happened at UNITED.
Really it was HAWAIIAN, which didn’t accept to change the order for the 6 “late” A358 for A359 and issued a Letter of Interest (which Airbus calls “provisional order”) for
“Original order for 6 A350-800s; cancelled 22 July 2014 and replaced with 6 A330-800neos”
with a List price equal as pf the B787, in spite of the propaganda that this aircraft is “much cheaper”
KEESJE: Mr. Bregier told us emphatically that the neo would also be re-ENGIBED and provided with some new winglets. But the bloggers are not deterred by facts: comments regarding changes of the wings (or noses) swirl around
It’s not really “eating the order book” if Airbus is making a big effort to move the few remaining A358 customers to A338.
As discussed in a recent post, list prices are meaningless. In reality, A330s are sold for significantly less than the 787.
Why they do not lower the List Price then?? By selling the A330neo in future which unusual high discounts, Airbus would confirm that it is an desperate intent to attain some WB sales, but, as I wrote separately, by trying undercut the B787 would be undercuting their own A359!!!
By the way: If as the A330neo supporter insist, the re-ENGINING achieves 12-14% fuel burn improvement, then obviously it is not factual that the present A330ceo engine was not improved much from the venerable old original and not com even near to the B787 efficiency!!
THYSI Pls correct WHERE I WROTE NON FACTUAL, IT SHOULD SAY “FACTUAL”
Please correct my Post. Instead B767, it is obviously B787