March 6, 23018 © Leeham Co.: It’s official: Boeing and Hawaiian Airlines announced an order for 10+10 787-9s. It’s a letter of intent and purchase rights.
The airline also confirmed it canceled an order for six Airbus A330-800s.
LNC was the first to report the transactions Feb. 20.
Separately, Embraer confirmed it’s looking at an airplane smaller than the E175, but denied a report originating in another media that it’s a small jet.
Instead, EMB sees the need for an airplane smaller than the E175, but the airplane referred to is an electric airplane of fewer than 50 seats.
Embraer is studying future market opportunities for smaller electric airplanes and turboprops, a spokesman wrote LNC, but not that Embraer will develop either of them any time soon.
“The only focus is the E2, with the current three platforms,” he wrote. The E190-E2 enters service next month and the E195-E2, now in testing, next year. The E175-E2 EIS is 2021.
So now its official, let the conversation being.
2nd First post of the day. Yippee
Anyone know if Hawaiian are going with RR or GE for the engines?
Has dumping been mentioned yet 😉
Build it and they will come
After going thru mths of the BBD vs Boeing trade dispute case in such great details, I’m surprised some folks commenting here are still clueless about the legal definition of dumping.
Under U.S. law, it’s perfectly legal even if Boeing give away 787, a domestic product, to HA completely free of charge(let alone a ridiculously steep discount) and therefore directly hurt the sales of 330Neo, an imported product….
So AB can give away 338’s for free to IAG and it will be fine? Not a bad idea.
“So AB can give away 338’s for free to IAG and it will be fine?”
It “will be fine” under U.S. domestic law which obviously has jurisdiction re sales transaction only within that nation.
Notice I didn’t mentioned anything in regards to WTO int’l trade rules re subsidy which is outside the technical definition of dumping(Do some reading and U will know what that is about).
I know, its just the mirth of it all! 🙂
As always, we will never know the full details of the deal but im sure how despetate boeing where to secure this deal that the the ac costs where very very reasonble!
Im sure mr walsh has taken notice of this as level need new ac!
No, its the A380 that Willie wants for freee!
Maybe confusion, 330-800, 380-800, 787, 80Million US$, Euro’s Pounds, or what? Its 2018 as well.
Even at the most optimistic price in the range quoted by Leeham’s source. even at the highest estimate of production cost of the 787, Boeing still makes a profit of at least 10 million per plane but going with the middle of the estimates the profit goes to over 20 million per plane.
Hardly dumping or desperate or desperate dumping! 🙂
“Boeing still makes a profit of at least 10 million per plane but going with the middle of the estimates the profit goes to over 20 million per plane.”
Some folks here incorrectly believe unit production cost for a 787 largely stay the same forever.
They fail to realize that as production mature for any new type(doesn’t matter if it’s a 787 or 350), per unit marginal production cost will keeping coming down….@ least until reaching a certain theoretical minimum.
This is fundamentally why Boeing is beginning to offer killer price on 787 for certain deals. Technically, the type has been in production for over 10yrs since assembly of the 1st prototype. A few yrs later after production mature further, Airbus will be able to do similar on 350 deals.
Interesting info on the 797. Asia wants more cargo (10 tons cited) US wants only 5.
GE has come up with a fix on the flaking coating on the A320 LEAP.
They say no real safety issues but listed was 40 engines pulled.
Regarding the cargo preferences of US and Asian carriers for the Boeing NMA, see the quote below from the Bloomberg article at the link after the quote.
The big three U.S. carriers and their counterparts across the Pacific have very different views on how much baggage and freight the airliners should haul, with Asian carriers pressing for greater below-deck capacity, Slattery said. The disagreement potentially calls into question the distinctive oval-shaped fuselage that Boeing is planning for the 797, which sacrifices space for goods in favor of improved aerodynamics and passenger comfort.
“The U.S. majors have an appetite for less cargo in the belly than the Asians. Typically in the states, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo,” he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. “The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?”
Here is another quote from the Bloomberg article that I provided a link to above.
“Avolon sees a large potential market for mid-sized Boeing and Airbus aircraft: between 3,500 and 4,000 potential sales, particularly as Chinese and Indian consumers start to stretch their wings, Slattery said. Boeing officials have predicted about 4,000 potential sales.”
AB a bit between the devil and deep blue water with the 787 and “797”.
Maybe launching the “A322” (with Ultrafans) as an NSA and getting the 350-800 of the shelf are ways of gain lost ground?
Regarding who to build for, there’s a way more than one billion people in China, east / south eastern Asia, another billion+ in the sub-continent, and only 300million USAians. I’d have thought that the sheer size of the Asian population would make the choice a no-brainer…
If Boeing optimise too much for the North American market, Airbus can get the cream of the rest of the world market to themselves. Again.
I always felt that the 767/757 were heavily US oriented with relatively few operators in Europe from my experience. I would fly them a lot with BA but can’t recall using the anywhere else but for a mightily tired 757 on transaero with the BA logo showing through the emulsion. Whereas in the states they seemed to be everywhere.
I agree that it would be foolish to plan an aircraft around what is now a parochial backwater of aircraft purchasing such as the states. The question may be whether other world airlines would be willing and able to operate a sub fleet that is relatively small in order to benefit from the fit for a small segment of their operations.
The 752 seems to have been popular Transatlantic, US to South America and with leisure airlines. My personal view is that AB should not burn to much money on the 322 and over cook it as the market could be limited. It will also be competing with the smaller NMA and the 321/LR itself.
Maybe stretch the 321 to bring back the 2nd door in front of the wing, revised gullies/bathrooms for higher capcity, 20-25+ pax. The entire A32X family needs an updated wing and is possibly the main priority?
Maximum thrust of 35Klb (and wing) will restrict the 322’s MTOW and range. If it is developed for higher density short-medium range (<3500Nm) applications with 2 door access in front of the wing it could potentially do well.
Wing and other improvements to give the 321LR a comfortable range (3800+Nm) with only 2 Aux tanks to accommodate more pax/luggage/freight could be important.
Thanks. Looks like the key takeaway’s at the end; essentially, “Cost rules!” Therefore, ovoid’s the way to go!
“The disagreement potentially calls into question the distinctive oval-shaped fuselage that Boeing is planning for the 797, which sacrifices space for goods in favor of improved aerodynamics and passenger comfort.”
This clearly looks like de javu.
I recall about 4 decades ago shortly after a major global oil crisis initiated by OPEC, Boeing faced a similar key design dilemma for the impending launch of the 7X7 program(later renamed 767). At the end, Boeing basically chose aero efficiency(via a smaller cross-section to minimize drag) over space efficiency(lost the ability to hold LD3 x2 side-by-side) for 767 program.
““The U.S. majors have an appetite for less cargo in the belly than the Asians.”
By the same token, we saw the same preference+divergence in design priority among potential 767 customers worldwide 40yrs ago. N.American customers won over European+Asian customers back then which was not surprising as the potential mkt demand for 767 fm N.America was far larger than the rest of the world combined. It’s fundamentally why aside fm Japan, almost no airline in E.Asia(especially S.E.Asia where geog prevented any other shipping mode to be competitive with air freight) has ever acquired /operated 767 in any significant quantity. Most of them rather took the more cargo friendly 300/310 despite its higher frontal drag+lesser range than 767….this is how important cargo capability is to Asian widebody operators.
This time around for the 797, I’m not so sure N.American customers hv as much say in defining cargo capability as 40yrs ago for the 767…..
The BA MoM’ster …
Going to be a funny looking burd.
TA top half and SA capacity bottom half.
8 abreast — hopefully 18” wide — on top.
With 2 x LD3 – 45’s down below.
Then on the range front it is going to be a bit of a wimp.
Looking like 50T usable fuel is the top limit.
55M long fuselage to get in the 270/300 standard sized seats.
Focusing on real estate / floorspace rather than range or capability.
Looking like a very expensive programme that is very squeezable.
However at least they are spending money on product than share buybacks.
Well My truck only hauls about 3000 lbs.
I don’t need a tractor trailer, nor do many airlines.
You buy the aircraft the works for your routes, not the biggest longest range thing in the quiver.
Yep, wasted range is wasted weight and wasted revenue. The market is going to determine the range Boeing goes for.
Congratulations, Scott! Take a (rhetorical) bow, and thanks!
Considering the s[tuff] I took in some quarters, I have more than a little satisfaction.
Yes, my apology for doubting U earlier re HA cancelling 338.
Essentially, what happened was HA publicly denied what they already planned to do all along with their 338 order.
That will learn you to listen to Scott.
Why would Hawaiian do that? That’s terrible. I hope they get charged a huge cancellation fee.
Not great but still encouraging that AB continues with the 338’s certification program. We will hopefully see a very different 338 order book in 2 years from now?
Must admit the 789 looks good in HA’s livery.
Five will get you 10 Boeing covered the CXL fees
“Why would Hawaiian do that?”
Why not? If U are the only customer for a type, there’re major risks in terms of the following just off the top of my head:
1) Find financing source willing to provide funding @ sustainable/reasonable interest or leasing rate for the purchase.
2) The lack of demand for new build frame will be a reasonable guide to project a low residual value in 2ndary mkt…..a major consideration for financier/lessor to decide the risk level of providing capital to finance a particular asset…it’s safe to say 338 won’t be a very liquid asset in the mkt relative to other widebody types.
3) Given total sales for all 330Neo today, not just 338, the expected worldwide maintenance+parts support network scale for T7000 will be relatively smaller than almost any other widebody type still in production.
That’s being realistic.
“I hope they get charged a huge cancellation fee.”
Why? So that U can feel justice is done for sacred Airbus? Is that how U feel Airbus dealt with the 380 cancellation by Skymark which indirectly caused NH to invest in 380 – its 1st 380 customer in Japan after Airbus tried so many yrs?
We’re talking about an Airbus customer still with 321Neo x14 not yet delivered plus who knows how many more still sitting on that contract in the form of options+rights which I’m sure Airbus would luv to convert into firm later on….
If there’s any consolation, I didn’t doubt your reporting. Some of those clowns on a.net did, much to their eternal chagrin after this announcement.
Additionally, I don’t understand the sheer amount of hand-wringing over this 10 airplane order by some. It isn’t like the 787 will completely displace the “vaunted” A330 at Hawaiian, at least in the near-term. By reading some of the posts after your initial reporting, Hawaiian’s non-denial “denial”, and later confirmation by Hawaiian of your reporting, you would think that the 787 murdered some folks’ family pet…….
If Embraer is looking at an electric plane, they must not have seen Bjorn’s general debunking of the electric airliner concept some months ago.
Ah, Brazilian dreams!
Stick a jet engine on there to supply the electrical power!
Who knows. Should something dramatic happen to battery capacities, electric aircraft are a real possibility.
On that topic, Toyota seem to think they’ve got a hold on solid-state lithium-ion batteries. That is, batteries whose electrolyte is solid (and not some kind of gel). This is quite significant; it removes memory effects, allows deeper cycling, very fast charging times (5 minutes), greater capacity. I don’t think that it goes far enough to mean we’ll be ditching our kerosene tanks any time soon. However it does count as the biggest advance in battery technology in many a year.
Toyota say they’ll have this in production cars sometime in 2023, 2025. If so, it means that Tesla are building the wrong battery…
And those batteries can be certified.
His analysis came down to the comparative cost of battery pack replacement vs. Engine overhaul cost for short range flying. Battery Life and cost might improve to tip the scale in favour of short hop battery powered commute flights.
That does not include the possibility to make the whole structure into a large battery as well. Some car comapnies are expermenting with making the “non primary structure” hood, roof and cargo door into dry batteries.
Hawaiian might be a launch customer for such an Island hopper charged by 6-10MW wind mills.
Toyota say they will be doing fuel cell cars at the same price as hybrids in a few years. It would be interesting if Bjorn could have a quick look at a hydrogen-electic layout.
Chevy Volt is the place to start.
Hybrid / composite powertrain.
Mainline / two spool engine for cruising.
Big geared fan up front with electric augmentation for take-off.
The Big geared fan could be so big it starts to resemble the business end of a turbo-prop.
Take off — battery helps power the geared fan.
Variable geometry blades could also come into play.
Cruise — battery switches off and it is powered by the low pressure turbine only.
Aux engine up the back then can re-charge the battery.
You can top up on the ground using a feed from the supply.
You could also use a wind turbine as you descend.
Take off power — 10 minutes enough?
Or does a full climb take 15 minutes.
30T MTOW — how much power for take off / climb vs cruise?
Maybe I am to old school but practical things like weather diversions, holding patterns, etc.
Could however be the perfect city hopper for 300-500Nm to smaller destinations/airports.
Was wondering about aux power, won’t be nice if you have a flat battery and you have fly-by-wire, etc.
RAT (and a much smaller backup battery)
I don’t buy a battery is ever going to work, no matter how light the battery is alwyas going to weigh.
Fuel burns off, not a big part of a car but a bit part of the load of an aircraft.
At least the HA situation sorted, good news for DAL that will be flying more comfortable aircraft to Hawaii.
Time for AB to review their 350-“800” option/s? Like urgently, to EIS with Advantage 3 engine updates.
HA originally ordered 358’s, fairly sure this wouldn’t have happened if the 358 was there?
Regarding: “At least the HA situation sorted, good news for DAL that will be flying more comfortable aircraft to Hawaii.”
For US West Coast to Hawaii Delta uses primarily 757’s. Are you saying that you think 757’s are more comfortable than 787’s, or were you thinking that Delta might be using some other aircraft for US West Coast to Hawaii? As far as I can see from my armchair, it is not the Delta way to often expend capital to acquire aircraft with 6000 nm plus range (like A330’s), to operate a 2200 nm route if they have cycles and hours left on already paid for aircraft that can be used to operate the route. Pretty much everyone except Hawaiian is mostly narrow bodies for US West Coast to Hawaii.
According to Expedia and Delta’s booking website, here is the equipment lineup for Los Angeles to Honolulu on 4-6-18.
Alaska/Virgin: A320 x 1
American: A321 x 4
Delta: 757-200 x 2, 757-300 x 1, 767-300ER x 1
Hawaiian: A330-200 x 4
United: 737-900ER x 2, 757-200 x 1, 757-300 x 1, 777 x 1.
As usual, the two wide body up-gauge flights on a mostly narrow body route for the US big three (Delta’s 767 and United’s 777) are for early morning departures, 8:25 AM and 8:45 AM for Delta and United, respectively.
Hi AP, to be honest, as examples, I enjoyed flying in the back of a 752 (DAL) more than on 788’s (UAL, ME airline).
You would know the details but I would suspect that DAL could introduce 321 (NEO’s?) on the Hawaii routes for example.
Which is kinda funny since the seat widths are the same. So this means: 1) seat width isn’t a major factor, 2) Your anti-Boeing bias trumps any real differences, 3) There are other factors in play. Grey Goose anyone?
Seems to me that people with strong anti-Boeing bent seems to rely upon the last standby argument of “Airbus are more comfortable to fly”, as if that is the default for every jet out there flying.
Never minding the fact that in many cases, the seat width (their only argument, apparently, since the Airbus “18in seat width” astroturf campaign is in full effect) is airline dependent and many airlines stick the same seats across different aircraft….
AP I am probably known by now about going on about the 787’s comfort in the back. Premium economy offerings are generally limited.
If an airline such as HA for example have 7 rows at 2-4-2 (56 seats) with 34″ pitch in E+/Comfort with the same on board service and check in as standard economy on 787’s it could prove very popular.
Pricing could be based on additional space, (9/8)x(34/32)=1.2. The airline may then charge 20-25% more for this ticket, they will also have a weight saving of 20% from the same floor space. In the 56 seat example it is ~1T?
It’s even more narrow body centric on the nonstop flights from US west coast to all the other islands/airports in HA.
Not sure about the HA’s long term strategy. The 332 fleet is “new” with the oldest being 8 years and the latest arriving last year. If they keep them that could be a big increase in capacity over the next couple of years.
Starting an LLC serving the most popular visitor areas such as Japan crossed my mind.
1) The first 787-9s don’t start to arrive until 2021. Hawaiian has three A330s coming off lease in 2020, and another eight expiring between 2022 and 2027. My guess is that HA will extend or buy some of those aircraft off lease, but others may be returned and replaced with Dreamliners. There will also be some growth. By 2020, HA will operate 24 A330s and at least 18 A321neos, plus the short haul fleet. Adding two 787-9s annually with no retirements would give it a mid-single digit growth rate.
2) I don’t expect to see the 787-9 operating West Coast-Hawaii routes on a regular basis anytime in the foreseeable future. It’s best suited to long-range flights and slot-constrained routes, i.e. HNL to JFK, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, and any other new longer-range destinations.
Thanks, was wondering about leased and owned. The 10 B789’s effectively takes care of the 9 leased 332’s?
Was also thinking about the 10 options, converting it to “797’s”, HA must be a prime customer for such an aircraft.
Anyone that does Hawaii West Coast with a single aisle has to be looking at it.
Harks back to the days when it was nothing but 4 engines, then 3, now two in a single aisle. Never though I would see the day a 737 goes from US to Hawaii other than delivery.
@Anton: I agree that the 797 might make sense for HA at some point. But after the current fiasco with delayed A321neo deliveries, I doubt Hawaiian will want to be near the front of the line. It can wait and see how the 797 does and maybe add it to the fleet in the 2030s.
Must add, an A350-“800” to be really good will have to be nearly a clean sheet aircraft with new centre section, wing box, wing, landing gear. This will be effectively be a 330 replacement aircraft. In such form it could be called A355 for example, 280 seats, 7500Nm effective/real range.
Just to remind you, the smallest A350, the -800 was canceld due to low demand and insufficient effectivity.
The A350 is the most modern widebody available, why should Airbus built a new wing?
“the -800 was canceld due to low demand and insufficient effectivity.”
Which apparently are not factual enough to yank Anton out of his alternate reality/fantasy.
“A350 is the most modern widebody available, why should Airbus built a new wing?”
Because despite Anton keep including the term “35?” to label his brilliant airplane redesign idea, what he refers to is no longer a 350 in practice.
May be he hopes by calling it a 350, folks subscribing to his 350-800 with new wings+wingbox+engine+fuselage idea will believe it’s simply a 350 derivative and therefore will burn fewer cash @ Airbus to develop than it really will be…..
“…good news for DAL that will be flying more comfortable aircraft to Hawaii.”
Totally baseless /bs claims fm U again….
“Time for AB to review their 350-“800” option/s?”
How many times hv U been repeatedly harping about Airbus should resurrect the 358 over the past few days? It’s getting really really boring..
Oh by the way, Airbus did not killed the 358. Officially, it still exists on ‘paper’ within the 350 program…it just get postponed indefinitely a la 380F. It was 358 customers who killed the 358 by abandoning that variant in droves yrs ago after Airbus made a U-turn and decided the best way(a.k.a. most cost efficient way to build) to design a 358 is to shrink a 359. Therefore, it’s not really upto “AB to review their 350-“800” option/s?” It’s upto the potential customers to review such.
“HA originally ordered 358’s,”
Yes, they did but way before Airbus decided to heavily revise the 358 design fm the one originally ordered by HA.
“fairly sure this wouldn’t have happened if the 358 was there?”
Why “fairly sure”? Most importantly, which 358 design? The one which collected 200+ firm order or the one which ultimately managed to lose all those 200+ firm order?
AB persuaded customers of the 358 to move to the 359 or 339 as they saw developing the 350-1000 as higher priority.
FLX if you read closely I see the 350-800-New as nearly a clean sheet aircraft based on the 350 fuselage and systems to “replace” the 330’s. At around 280 pax it will slot in between 338 and 339. A theoretical stretch of the 35X will be closer to the 78J in range.
“AB persuaded customers of the 358 to move to the 359 or 339…”
And Airbus started such persuading only when 358 order dropped to a dangerously low level unsustainable for its development.
Chicken 1st of egg 1st? We can play this game all day long. Bring it on.
“the 350-800-New as nearly a clean sheet aircraft based on the 350 fuselage and systems”
A300 and 330 also hv the same fuselage and share many systems. Yet, Airbus did not labelled the 330 as a A300-900 or similar instead…..likely because they were totally diff animals intended for diff mkt segments /mission types.
“…to “replace” the 330’s.”
So U think it’s a good idea for Airbus to start development work on a replacement for the entire 330 product line+supply chain when the 339 is about to cert and 338 is about to 1st flight but total 330Neo sales is still below 250units?
As an airline/lessor, would U consider to invest in any 330Neo anymore if Airbus start work on a 330 line replacement today? What do U think if U were the T7000 program mgr @ RR(e.g. Airbus screw us gain after T500 on 345/6) and now asked to seriously accelerate Advance/UltraFan development?
Don’t say they must launch it today but what’s wrong with phasing in an A350-800X, engines a major consideration;
1) 338-250 seats, longer range,
2) 358X-280 seats (7500Nm),
3) 339-300 seats, shorter range,
4) 359-325 seats, longer range.
One of my stupid comments again, wont rule it out that the 338 could out sell the 339?
Building a jet liner is a configuration, planning and production problem. Try figure out what the market wants and what price, find the best way to package it up, assemble the best components to support the goals put it all together and get it certified, then ramp up production and sales. All hard problems with lots of things that can go wrong, but all more or less know problems.
Building a commercial electric aircraft is a different business completely and involves research to solve as yet unsolved engineering problems, configuration unknowns, followed by certification unknowns for a bunch of new technology, then convincing anyone to buy it. I doubt this is serious, Embraer is just dabbling with some discretionary research funds.
Well that gets IAG some great pricing for Level [or EI/IB]… do a deal with some a380s for BA at IAG prices, and a321lr’s and we could see a solid customer with large a330 history and a good news story for AB/BA press rooms. AA is looking at buying the 800-neo also, so fingers crossed.
A loss is a loss, but the new sales chief at AB will likely be keen to move quickly to fill up slots. Nice to the TAP frames all painted and shiny… get’em in the air and get real-world/use numbers ASAP Airbus.
Good real world numbers is what the 330NEO needs. The 789 has gained almost unstoppable snowball momentum.
IAG in Transworld’s words also seems to be kicking the ball down the runway.
The AA decision is going to be interesting!
“do a deal with some a380s for BA at IAG prices,”
Wait a minute, did some folks just commented a while ago that Boeing is effectively committing financial suicide by offering 787 to HA @ super attractive/crazy low price? And now, sell 380 to IAG @ super attractive/crazy low price is a brilliant idea as Airbus mkt strategy?
Do these 2 companies operate on 2 diff planets?
“we could see a solid customer with large a330 history”
Which IAG outfit has “large a330 history”? The entire IAG empire operates less than 35 frames today. In contrast, DL alone operates 330 x42.
“Nice to the TAP frames all painted and shiny..”
And still without any T7000 attached…..but I guess that’s a minor thing to qualify as nice and shiny because it is an Airbus.
“..get’em in the air and get real-world/use numbers ASAP Airbus.”
U are kidding yourself if U think any potential customers now deciding whether to buy a 339 do not already know enough about what to expect fm a production std 339 thru simulation /testing via its flight test campaign and now @ the end of it nearing cert.
What’s your problem? Take a pill or learn some manners.
“What’s your problem?”
Double standard is the problem.
” Take a pill or learn some manners.”
Below link to AB’s comment on HA’s 338’s cancellation in FlightGlobal’
It’s very much where my head is at… Especially the final paragraph regarding the near identical production process, sole engine etc. of both models… so… no biggie. Plus… The -900 commands a higher price and the -300ceo has been the model of choice for some time over the -200 as AB keep getting so much more out of the frame. Gotta give it to them for Development.
Pretty amazing the ‘older tech’ -800 has more range than a new-tech 787-9. Show’s it’s legs.
“The -900 commands a higher price”
Which is possibly why the 339 bid lost against the 789 @ HA recently:
“The company selected the 787-9 as part of a competitive bid process that also included the Airbus A330-900.”
“Pretty amazing the ‘older tech’ -800 has more range than a new-tech 787-9. Show’s it’s legs.”
Not difficult when:
1) Diff in payload, pax count, belly cargo capability, etc. between these 2 types are ignored.
2) The underlying data are skewed /defined under 2 vastly diff config rules i.e. a classic apple vs orange comparison.
If these are ignored, an even older tech 762ER can also fly further than a 332 with ease.
More amazing to me is that I thought even Airbus cheerleaders here could see thru this statement as purely designed for consumption by the general public who has no idea about basic stuff like aircraft config /mission rule definition.
…and an A359 ULR can fly further than 777-200LR.
By the way whats the range of the 762ER and the 332?
“and an A359 ULR can fly further than 777-200LR.”
Yes, @ almost half the seat count in a similarly sized cabin. Enjoy Bjorn’s story if U hv subscription particularly in regards to “Airbus says the aircraft has a range of 9,700nm, but without saying under what conditions”:
FLX guess you would say Wikipedia is giving incorrect data/information but;
1) 767-200ER, 181 pax, 6600 Nm,
2) 330-200, 247 pax, 7200Nm range.
If incorrect please let me know.
I suggest you tone it down and make your points more politely.
Off topic, but is there a change of heart at United, looking at CS and E2’s? Can you afford to fly less efficient aircraft than the competition (DAL)?
You would think not but somehow Delta manages that mongrel fleet just fine and United can’t manage to compete with a cohesive fleet.
Many years ago I edited a Computer new letter (no guffaws, it was early days)
We did not have the fancy setup for Word Processor, had to make hacks.
To make it column form, I wrote it narrow column and many pages and then to print I shifted page 2 up parallel with page 1, then 3 next to 2. In short it looked like a newspaper setup.
I had a lady tell me that I could not to it that way.
While she was looking at the Publication. Ahh mam, I think the evidence says otherwise. She continued to insist I could not do it that way.
My wife (many years in the future) could have done it in 3 dimensions (good for me this was two dimensional)
Those who can figure out a way to do it, those who can’t scratch their heads.
If I were laying betting odds, I would go with UA picking up the CSeries. Why? The old NWA and the old UA, were one of the most competitive rivalries in the industry (IMO.) It might cost ’em more, but because of this and other things like the CS300 being the best in the sector, I think this plane is in the lead.
If the NMA has a circular 16′ fuselage, they can build a container to fit the specific space . That fuselage is still smaller than the 767 at 16’6″x17’9″. If they go with an oval bottom, what are the costs and benefits? What about the wing center, which probably needs the depth anyway. I’m voting for circular, 2-3-2 at 16′, or 2-2-2 at 14’4″ outside diameter.
Well I am voting for the folks who design aircraft for a living and have to live with whether it sells or not.
The NMA idea has not been done and it has to have different economics than a tube like all others.
If you want a desperation on Generators I can give you all sorts of insight.
I don’t know what they have in the aircraft design tools other than knowing the outer shape and that they think its the way to make their idea work.
Oh, it will sell, just like the MAX naysayers saw.
NMA 2025, 787NEO 2030, 737 replacement 2035.
I wonder if BA’s aggressive pursuit of this order was a little payback to AB for coming to the rescue of the Bombardier CSeries program. But I guess the answer to that is in the pricing details… BTW, I never doubted you for a minute, Scott.
I doubt it, the strategic goals outweigh any other issues. I don’t think Boeing figured they would win either, probably dropped their Delta price to make Airbus have to beat it.
Scott was clearly right on the HA deal, all the other stuff was spin from HA they were not ready to announce.
The always wanted the A358, this is just as close as they can get. A338 is smaller and has shorter legs, 339 even less range. It’s the aircraft HA needed, and it appears that by holding out they got it at a Dreamprice.
Meanwhile, IndiGo, India’s biggest airline, plans to order as many as 50 A330-900s.
No, it looks like it’s for the A330-800! It reads “the smaller of the two variants”. There was a reason airbus built it anyway and it wasn’t Hawaiian! Sorry Hawaiian, it wasn’t about your 6 orders.
And in this order for 50 planes, the 787 lost to the A330-800.
“And in this order for 50 planes, the 787 lost to the A330-800.”
And as per the story, the 350 also lost to the 338 or 339…..
Turkish Airlines finalizes 359 and 789 orders.
Can see them taking 350-1000’s in the long term.