Delta Orders 75 CS100's
Oct 17, 2017, 12:36 pm
#301
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: ATL
Programs: SPG, DL
Posts: 307
I realize I'm OT from the C-series, but I had not seen this commitment and, in fact, had read rumors (stress: rumors) in these communities that the 777 would go 10-across in Y when Premium Economy is installed. Is their a written commitment to keep 9-across (I would be thrilled by that)
Oct 17, 2017, 12:39 pm
#302
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SEA
Programs: Hilton/Marriott Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 2,036
Apologies for abbreviating - I assumed most people would figure it out without overthinking and overanalyzing the nuance and if they had a question, they would ask - I am happy to answer questions or clarify if needed. I understand the difference, but how many times do people need to spell out Bombardier and Embraer in a 20 page long thread? Do we all need to spell out Delta instead of using DL and spell out Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport instead of using ATL?
Oct 17, 2017, 1:02 pm
#303
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,884
To be fair, JL's stuck with 2-4-2--and it's quite comfy.FlyerTalk is big on its abbreviations, but they're common and established. You're referring to Boeing as "BA" despite not only the fact that everyone here is first going to think of British Airways, since it's their IATA code, but also that if you're trying to abbreviate "Boeing Aircraft," that's not even the name of the company. The Boeing Company or Boeing Commercial Aircraft--take your pick.
In all fairness, the common and established abbreviations in my line of work (finance) for companies are their ticker symbols so the ticker symbol is the first thing I jump to as an abbreviation; the Boeing Company is "BA" and Embraer SA is "ERJ". In the context of this thread, I don't think anyone would be misinterpreting BA for British Airways and not Boeing. The only one that you should quibble with is my use of CRJ for Bombardier but that one gets messy since there are multiple tickers associated the company. It is an extremely difficult habit for me break to just refer to Delta as DL and not DAL or American Airlines as AA instead of AAL.
Oct 17, 2017, 1:04 pm
#304
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 3,276
Embraer still has the E170/175 market to themselves. Bombardier doesn't have anything decent in that seat range.
Oct 17, 2017, 1:52 pm
#306
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
In all fairness, the common and established abbreviations in my line of work (finance) for companies are their ticker symbols so the ticker symbol is the first thing I jump to as an abbreviation; the Boeing Company is "BA" and Embraer SA is "ERJ". In the context of this thread, I don't think anyone would be misinterpreting BA for British Airways and not Boeing. The only one that you should quibble with is my use of CRJ for Bombardier but that one gets messy since there are multiple tickers associated the company. It is an extremely difficult habit for me break to just refer to Delta as DL and not DAL or American Airlines as AA instead of AAL.
Yet it as absurd here to refer to Boeing as BA as it would be to refer to Delta as DL (NYSE: DL is China Distance Education Holdings Ltd) in a financial industry setting. You definitely seem to be capable enough to sort out which is appropriate for which situation
Oct 17, 2017, 2:53 pm
#307
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSN
Programs: Delta DM, Bonvoy LT Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,987
In all fairness, the common and established abbreviations in my line of work (finance) for companies are their ticker symbols so the ticker symbol is the first thing I jump to as an abbreviation; the Boeing Company is "BA" and Embraer SA is "ERJ". In the context of this thread, I don't think anyone would be misinterpreting BA for British Airways and not Boeing. The only one that you should quibble with is my use of CRJ for Bombardier but that one gets messy since there are multiple tickers associated the company. It is an extremely difficult habit for me break to just refer to Delta as DL and not DAL or American Airlines as AA instead of AAL.
Oct 17, 2017, 5:13 pm
#309
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,877
Haha, I cheated. I took a screen capture of the tweet and put that in my post as an image. Then I wrapped a URL tag around the image and set it to link back to the tweet. So it looks like an embedded tweet, but it's not
Oct 17, 2017, 6:47 pm
#310
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
Mitsubishi is working on various commercial aircraft designs (including an RJ that has been ordered by two US airlines), and don't under-estimate Chinese Comac. The growth in this industry will continue to come in developing countries, where the source of the plane matters less.
good luck taking that history to the bank. The 777 was a great plane, and it was done by prior management in a different era. The 787 is also a good plane, but its promise was undercut by horrible management errors. It has sold 1283 vs. 858 for the 350XWB. Given the massive lead that Boeing had (boieng starting selling in 2004 vs. 2007 for Airbus) Boeing should have a much larger lead, Boeing squandered it.
Side note, I'm not a Boeing fanboy, but just thought the anti-Boeing tirade was over the top. The reality is that Boeing is in a much better position in the widebody market and Airbus is in a much better position in the narrowbody market, especially with the CSeries acquisition as it is a fantastic aircraft. The 787 alone has a larger backlog than the A350, A330 ceo + neo, and the A380 combined. Add in the 777 + 777X, cargo 767, and the handful of 748 orders and Boeing is killing Airbus in the widebody segment. And this lead will only get bigger when the 2-3-2 MOM 797 debuts.
Oct 17, 2017, 7:46 pm
#312
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
The A330ceo competed held its own, but the A330neo is a mess. The A338 has one customer (Hawaiian) with an order for 6 aircraft, and they openly discussed canceling their order last month because they don't want to be the only customer. This order only exists because Airbus canceled the A358. Hawaiian is looking at the Dreamliner and thinking about ditching Airbus widebodies all together.
Boeing hasn't been selling 787s as quickly in recent years because they are out of delivery slots for the next few years. Airlines generally don't want firm orders for planes that won't be delivered for 5+ years. As a result, many airlines have 787 options so they can secure slots as soon as they become available. Off the top of my head, I know UA has 35 options and Qantas has 45.
The Neo is beating the MAX, that is true (although it did have a head start). However, it can easily be argued this lead is due to LCC's which may not need all of the aircraft they ordered. Do Lion Air, AirAsia, and IndiGo need 1000 A320neos in the next 7 ish years? The A321neo is more efficient than the MAX9 and is about the same as the MAX10, but with greater range. The MAX8 is more efficient than the A320neo, but many airlines don't want different narrowbody products and it makes more sense to just go all Airbus or all Boeing. AA is large enough to do this, with two huge MAX8 and A321neo orders.
Side note, I'm not a Boeing fanboy, but just thought the anti-Boeing tirade was over the top. The reality is that Boeing is in a much better position in the widebody market and Airbus is in a much better position in the narrowbody market, especially with the CSeries acquisition as it is a fantastic aircraft. The 787 alone has a larger backlog than the A350, A330 ceo + neo, and the A380 combined. Add in the 777 + 777X, cargo 767, and the handful of 748 orders and Boeing is killing Airbus in the widebody segment. And this lead will only get bigger when the 2-3-2 MOM 797 debuts.
Boeing hasn't been selling 787s as quickly in recent years because they are out of delivery slots for the next few years. Airlines generally don't want firm orders for planes that won't be delivered for 5+ years. As a result, many airlines have 787 options so they can secure slots as soon as they become available. Off the top of my head, I know UA has 35 options and Qantas has 45.
The Neo is beating the MAX, that is true (although it did have a head start). However, it can easily be argued this lead is due to LCC's which may not need all of the aircraft they ordered. Do Lion Air, AirAsia, and IndiGo need 1000 A320neos in the next 7 ish years? The A321neo is more efficient than the MAX9 and is about the same as the MAX10, but with greater range. The MAX8 is more efficient than the A320neo, but many airlines don't want different narrowbody products and it makes more sense to just go all Airbus or all Boeing. AA is large enough to do this, with two huge MAX8 and A321neo orders.
Side note, I'm not a Boeing fanboy, but just thought the anti-Boeing tirade was over the top. The reality is that Boeing is in a much better position in the widebody market and Airbus is in a much better position in the narrowbody market, especially with the CSeries acquisition as it is a fantastic aircraft. The 787 alone has a larger backlog than the A350, A330 ceo + neo, and the A380 combined. Add in the 777 + 777X, cargo 767, and the handful of 748 orders and Boeing is killing Airbus in the widebody segment. And this lead will only get bigger when the 2-3-2 MOM 797 debuts.
(2) also agree that Boeing has a major issue in the narrow body area. The smallest plane they have is the Max8 (seating about 164). The Max9 ( seating 180) and Max10 (seating 192) are just not very capable aircraft, and have not sold well. Both are stretched out.
The issue is that Boeing has a major project going on (the 77x) and has limited resources. Boeing now has two major holes in its product line up, below 150 seats, and the "MOM" from about 180 to 240 seats, but effectively its bigger since the B788 is not a very efficient aircraft and is over-capable for true MOM flying.
Airbus though with this deal, now has a plane that covers the 108 - 130 seat range, and very quickly I assume will do a c500, which BBD did not do before so as not to provoke Boeing and Airbus. See e.g. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/rep...beandmail.com& (discussing DL's request for such a plane).
The c500 will be a better aircraft fuel burn wise than the Max8 and 320neo, and opens up a lot of possibilities, while putting even more pressure on Boeing.
Airbus can then in turn, having basically bought its new composite single aisle 150-160 seater for the cost of a stretch ($1-2B) can focus on either (a) rewinging the A321neo to make a more efficient plane in the A3321neo size with a stretch for the A322neo (seating 222 or so in a typical US style configuration) or (b) just do a clean sheet MOM design.
Lots of possibility to really squeeze Boeing here, and I expect Airbus to do so quickly, to freeze out Boeing's MOM plans.
Good, but dated article on the MOM space here, btb: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/boeing-mom-nma-likely/
Last edited by spin88; Oct 17, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Oct 17, 2017, 8:02 pm
#313
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
(1) Agree on the 330-800neo. The economics, absent the stretch are just not good enough. Airbus has a hole in its line up below the size of the A350-9 (315) and the A330-900neo (287ish passengers). While the A321neo seats around 192 in a "typical" (think DL, AA) layout, it is not really capable of TATL trips and is not a MOM plane.
(2) also agree that Boeing has a major issue in the narrow body area. The smallest plane they have is the Max8 (seating about 164). The Max9 ( seating 180) and Max10 (seating 192) are just not very capable aircraft, and have not sold well. Both are stretched out.
The issue is that Boeing has a major project going on (the 77x) and has limited resources. Boeing now has two major holes in its product line up, below 150 seats, and the "MOM" from about 180 to 240 seats, but effectively its bigger since the B788 is not a very efficient aircraft and is over-capable for true MOM flying.
Airbus though with this deal, now has a plane that covers the 108 - 130 seat range, and very quickly I assume will do a c500, which BBD did not do before so as not to provoke Boeing and Airbus. See e.g. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/rep...beandmail.com& (discussing DL's request for such a plane).
The c500 will be a better aircraft fuel burn wise than the Max8 and 320neo, and opens up a lot of possibilities, while putting even more pressure on Boeing.
Airbus can then in turn, having basically bought its new composite single engine 150-160 seater for the cost of a stretch ($1-2B) can focus on either (a) rewinging the A321neo to make a more efficient plane in the A3321neo size with a stretch for the A322neo (seating 222 or so in a typical US style configuration) or (b) just do a clean sheet MOM design.
Lots of possibility to really squeeze Boeing here, and I expect Airbus to do so quickly, to freeze out Boeing's MOM plans.
Good, but dated article on the MOM space here, btb: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/boeing-mom-nma-likely/
(2) also agree that Boeing has a major issue in the narrow body area. The smallest plane they have is the Max8 (seating about 164). The Max9 ( seating 180) and Max10 (seating 192) are just not very capable aircraft, and have not sold well. Both are stretched out.
The issue is that Boeing has a major project going on (the 77x) and has limited resources. Boeing now has two major holes in its product line up, below 150 seats, and the "MOM" from about 180 to 240 seats, but effectively its bigger since the B788 is not a very efficient aircraft and is over-capable for true MOM flying.
Airbus though with this deal, now has a plane that covers the 108 - 130 seat range, and very quickly I assume will do a c500, which BBD did not do before so as not to provoke Boeing and Airbus. See e.g. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/rep...beandmail.com& (discussing DL's request for such a plane).
The c500 will be a better aircraft fuel burn wise than the Max8 and 320neo, and opens up a lot of possibilities, while putting even more pressure on Boeing.
Airbus can then in turn, having basically bought its new composite single engine 150-160 seater for the cost of a stretch ($1-2B) can focus on either (a) rewinging the A321neo to make a more efficient plane in the A3321neo size with a stretch for the A322neo (seating 222 or so in a typical US style configuration) or (b) just do a clean sheet MOM design.
Lots of possibility to really squeeze Boeing here, and I expect Airbus to do so quickly, to freeze out Boeing's MOM plans.
Good, but dated article on the MOM space here, btb: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/boeing-mom-nma-likely/
Single engine 150-160 seater? What is the matter with you?
Oct 17, 2017, 8:48 pm
#315
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
but I'll go further....a stretched c500 will be an aircraft that not only has better CASM than the Max8/320neo, but due to having a wider profile per passenger gives 22" of width per passenger in Y. The A320neo gives 21.2" and the Max8 only provides 20"/seat. So the seats will be 2" wider on the c300. And the range will be similar if not slightly greater.
You can say Amerika 10 times and love on the 737's 53 year old design and its 17" wide seats (vs. 19" on the c300) but the bottom line is that the cSeries blows the doors off the clapped out MAX in every respect.
basically everything I have seen says that the A319neo (only 51 orders) was already dead, and that Airbus will simply offer those buyers the c300. But it also is such a better aircraft that it will kill off the 737Max7 (50, 35 to SWA, 15 to WestJet orders) as well. Boeing will cut SWA a deal to get them to take more Max8s.