Newsstand - SQ orders 20 A350, 9 additional A380, leases 19 A330

Talk about a big bang at the end of the airshow, and endorsement of Airbus aircrafts.

I don't want to brag, but I had predicted the lease of A330 a few months back, and said the timing of A350/787 rollout will contribute to the interim solution.

A330 is a wonderful aircraft, and I have flown enough of them to list it as one of my all them favorites.

A350 is a stunner; however, SQ's 787 and A350 orders are only LOIs and non-binding. It will be interesting to see the negotiations in the next a few months between both manufactureres and SQ.

What does this leave 748-I, and the SQ evaluation of ULR aircrafts (772LR and A345)?

Interesting development indeed!!!


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aXpZ_brG1Hts&refer=germany

Airbus must have been able to show SQ that the A380 can do SFO-HKG 365 days a year. That should push CX into buying the A380, as well. And BA will probably be forced to buy the A380, as well.

This might mean the 748I is stillborn, but the freighter is going to record a good deal of sales since the A380F only competes when you need to carry max payload over 5000nm and most cargo carriers don't do that.

Airbus must have been able to show SQ that the A380 can do SFO-HKG 365 days a year. That should push CX into buying the A380, as well. And BA will probably be forced to buy the A380, as well.



SQ guys are simply amazed by the cabin design and space according to some quotes from Finkenwerder, HKG-SFO range was never a problem with the SQ configuration...

Absolutely shocking news for Boeing, but considering that they could only win the Qantas order with shacky promises and by undercutting below economical sense, it is not surprising....they simply cannot offer the 787 any time soon and the first releases concerning the production delays are a first warning...as pointed out earlier, the big players want certain quantities and not increase their 787 fleet by 2 aircraft each year...

One of the major reasons why Boeing was able to sell more aircraft than Airbus so far this year, is the simple fact that they have ample production capacity available, expect for the 777/787. Airbus production lines are mostly sold out for quite some time...so if you want a big freighter soon you need to order a 747-8, if you like it or not...however Cargolux and NCA would not even take Airbus for free...

Absolutely shocking news for Boeing, but considering that they could only win the Qantas order with shacky promises and by undercutting below economical sense, it is not surprising...

Considering the discounts Airbus had to offer to existing A380 and A350 customers to get them to stay, that's laughable.

Airbus has admitted the first A380 frames will be sold at below production cost due to the compensation they have had to pay and I imagine it will be much the same for the A350 since the pre-existing customers who have reconfirmed their orders have said they are at a price lower then originally paid for an airplane tens of millions even more expensive at list.

Let's just see who's P&L statement looks better over the next few years, shall we? :D

I read it a press release that the A350 XWB is about 6 inches wider than the 787.

I believe that the 787 is supposed to have room for 8 seats across in economy. I wonder if the A350 XWB will have 9 seats in economy.

I read it a press release that the A350 XWB is about 6 inches wider than the 787.

I believe that the 787 is supposed to have room for 8 seats across in economy. I wonder if the A350 XWB will have 9 seats in economy.

The 787 was designed for eight across at 19 inch width or nine across at the typical 17.2 (the standard 737/757 coach seat width). So the new "extra-wide-body" design de jour would easily feature nine at 18 inches width or perhaps even 10 across at 16 inch width (for those "pack em in" charter operators). :)

I read it a press release that the A350 XWB is about 6 inches wider than the 787.

I believe that the 787 is supposed to have room for 8 seats across in economy. I wonder if the A350 XWB will have 9 seats in economy.

Most operators have ordered the 787 with 9 across, which makes it 17.1 inches I believe, same as a 747. The A350 should be a little more confortable, if they stick to 9.

That should push CX into buying the A380, as well.
Unfortunately CX is more commited to Boeing than Airbus. They (CX) were not totally satisfied with the A346 they got, saying airbus did not deliver some of the advantageous promises made before they got the 3 aircrafts.

Most operators have ordered the 787 with 9 across, which makes it 17.1 inches I believe

That is quite a narrow width. That certainly won't "sit" well with ever expanding buttocks of Americans.

Cinnabon, anyone??

That is quite a narrow width. That certainly won't "sit" well with ever expanding buttocks of Americans.

Cinnabon, anyone??

This has been a topic of great interest on the CO forum since Continental hasn't announced which configuration they'll use (8 or 9 across).

Considering the discounts Airbus had to offer to existing A380 and A350 customers to get them to stay, that's laughable.

Airbus has admitted the first A380 frames will be sold at below production cost due to the compensation they have had to pay and I imagine it will be much the same for the A350 since the pre-existing customers who have reconfirmed their orders have said they are at a price lower then originally paid for an airplane tens of millions even more expensive at list.

Let's just see who's P&L statement looks better over the next few years, shall we? :D

Really ? You should know better that the first planes will always be sold below production cost, cause on average the first frame comes at a 400-600 % premium over the expected average production cost...

So I guess every manufacturer sells the first few dozen aircraft below production cost... ;) ;)

Beside that I would not call it a discount, more a penalty which is part of pretty thick contract and if the manufacturer does not deliver on time, fees are going to be paid.
Same with Beoing and Qantas where it has become more or less common knowledge that Boeing had to sell below production cost ( and we are not talking about the very first frames )

Considering the relative success of the 787 so far, it was shocking that Boeing had to discount so much....

I read it a press release that the A350 XWB is about 6 inches wider than the 787.

I believe that the 787 is supposed to have room for 8 seats across in economy. I wonder if the A350 XWB will have 9 seats in economy.According to the official information on the Airbus site, it can be either.

(17.2") is quite a narrow width. That certainly won't "sit" well with ever expanding buttocks of Americans.

It is, however, the standard width of seats on the 737, 747, and 757 series of planes. Also, some operators of the 767 and 777 use that width. It is also available on the Airbus A300/A320/A330/A340 family (as opposed to the available 18" wide seats) to allow for wider aisles.


You should know better that the first planes will always be sold below production cost, cause on average the first frame comes at a 400-600% premium over the expected average production cost...

Yes, it is true that the first frames of any program generally are sold at a loss between the discounts (upwards of 40% off list) and the extra costs involved in building the first units before the production process is up to speed.

But that isn't what you said, which was - and I quote - "undercutting below economical sense" in regards to the QF order. And since details of the SQ order are starting to leak (Airbus offered the A350XWB at 50% off list and the A330s at below-market leasing rates), it appears Airbus is also perfectly willing to "undercut below economic sense".


Beside that I would not call it a discount, more a penalty which is part of pretty thick contract and if the manufacturer does not deliver on time, fees are going to be paid.

I am sure Airbus offered to apply any monetary fees and penalties towards new orders for any Airbus family member, but we also know they did not require that list price be paid for those orders. ;) So the new planes SQ ordered were indeed discounted, and then Airbus applied those fees and penalties to the discounted price (to cover the initital deposits, for example).


Same with Beoing and Qantas where it has become more or less common knowledge that Boeing had to sell below production cost ( and we are not talking about the very first frames )...

"Common knowledge" only amongst Airbus cheerleaders. :rolleyes: Much like it's "common knowledge" amongst Boeing cheerleaders that Airbus only outsold Boeing the last five years because they sell all their planes at below production cost, too. :rolleyes:

You truly do yourself and your opinions discredit by spouting this nonsense, whether or not you actually believe it or just say it to try and bait people.

Since both Boeing and Qantas have to publish financials with their respective Securities and Exchange commissions, if Boeing was indeed selling below production cost, the shareholders would be suing Boeing for fiscal malfeance. Since they're not...


Considering the relative success of the 787 so far, it was shocking that Boeing had to discount so much....

Considering the success of the A380 (Boeing hasn't sold a passenger 747 since November 2002), it could also be considered "shocking" how much Airbus had to discount to land A380 orders since that date. Or how much Airbus has had to discount to get existing A350 customers to convert their orders to the A350XWB.

But it isn't, really. It's just what it takes to win business in such a competitive environment between two companies with solid histories and excellent productlines.

It is, however, the standard width of seats on the 737, 747, and 757 series of planes. Also, some operators of the 767 and 777 use that width. It is also available on the Airbus A300/A320/A330/A340 family (as opposed to the available 18" wide seats) to allow for wider aisles.


The most comfortable coach seat I've experienced is the one on an AA 777; the width is a nice 18.5 inches.

I've also experienced some comfy coach seats that are 18 inches wide on some A330/A340 on some Asian carriers.

Now that both the B787 and A350 can be configured with both 8 and 9 seats across, I wonder if more airlines will create a separate premium economy class with 8 seats across with traditional economy with 9 seats across. BA and NH does it already with their B777s:



http://www.ana.co.jp/int/inflight/seatmap/b777_300er/index.html

Yes, it is true that the first frames of any program generally are sold at a loss between the discounts (upwards of 40% off list) and the extra costs involved in building the first units before the production process is up to speed.

But that isn't what you said, which was - and I quote - "undercutting below economical sense" in regards to the QF order. And since details of the SQ order are starting to leak (Airbus offered the A350XWB at 50% off list and the A330s at below-market leasing rates), it appears Airbus is also perfectly willing to "undercut below economic sense".



I am always wondering where you hear all the rumours, it is absolutely amazing what you come up with, but I fear it is either from the infamous Seattle Times or airliners.net

If I have the time, sometimes I read some topics there and I am always amazed what they talk about, especially when I read: “ I heard it from a cousin of my car dealer who met a former colleague from the night shift at Mickey D who was married to a former UAL FA…

Please….







"Common knowledge" only amongst Airbus cheerleaders. :rolleyes: Much like it's "common knowledge" amongst Boeing cheerleaders that Airbus only outsold Boeing the last five years because they sell all their planes at below production cost, too. :rolleyes:

You truly do yourself and your opinions discredit by spouting this nonsense, whether or not you actually believe it or just say it to try and bait people.



It is obvious that you belong to the Boeing cheerleaders, which is understandable given your history with the company. I consider it a great advantage not to work for Boeing or Airbus and to post objectively. Boeing was outsold in the last years simple because their 757 line is old-fashioned, the 767 is as worse and the 744 is only sold as a Freighter.

Even worse, the US airline industry is in dire straits and most of the few bright carriers prefer Airbus… ;)

People bought the 777 because it is far superior to the A 340-500/600 and the 737 because of regular market dimensions. Even if all airlines would prefer the A 320, Airbus would not be able to sell as much as they could, same vice versa for some lines at Boeing. Even in the worst case, the balance between Boeing and Airbus will not shift below 40/60 or 60/40 depending on your point of view regardless if Boeing would offer a flying sardine can and Airbus the most advanced thing ever to leave the ground…

.

I am always wondering where you hear all the rumours, it is absolutely amazing what you come up with...

No less amazing then the rumors you post, so perhaps we both have the same sources. ^


If I have the time, sometimes I read some topics there and I am always amazed what they talk about, especially when I read: “ I heard it from a cousin of my car dealer who met a former colleague from the night shift at Mickey D who was married to a former UAL FA…

Yes, it is indeed very difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff on airliners.net, especially since there are about a dozen folks in each camp who constantly twist everything into "my team rulz, your team is lame" argument which usually drowns out the folks trying to offer at least somewhat informed speculation.


It is obvious that you belong to the Boeing cheerleaders, which is understandable given your history with the company. I consider it a great advantage not to work for Boeing or Airbus and to post objectively.

If there could be only one airline manufactuer then yes, I'd want it to be Boeing. But I stand by the objectivity of my posting history here. You may not like it because it does not universally praise Airbus, but it does not universally libel them, either. ;)

No less amazing then the rumors you post, so perhaps we both have the same sources. ^



The difference seems to be that I am not posting any rumours, but first hand knowledge... ;)

Fortunately I am not in the position to read airliners.net or the Seattle Times for most of the staff I am posting... @:-)

The difference seems to be that I am not posting any rumours, but first hand knowledge... ;)

I also have plenty of sources inside Boeing, Airbus, and many of the worlds airlines, too, who are willing to offer tidbits of first-hand information. ;) But I'm more interested in discussion then bragging rights. So if I post rumors to move a discussion along, I note it as such in my posting. Same when I am speculating.

And if you think the Seattle Times is biased against Airbus, you should read your own hometown paper - Der Spiegel (sic) - sometime. They love to regurgitate Airbus issues from months, even years, back and post them as new problems. :rolleyes:

Anyway, to quote Evil Willow - "bored now". :D

I also have plenty of sources inside Boeing, Airbus, and many of the worlds airlines, too, who are willing to offer tidbits of first-hand information. ;) But I'm more interested in discussion then bragging rights. So if I post rumors to move a discussion along, I note it as such in my posting. Same when I am speculating.




Unfortunately only tidbits... ;)

And with all due respect, but to compare a regional US newspaper with Der Spiegel is not really recommended...