Seattle Times ( http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... suppliers/ ) brings us a full article on RA's recent speech. Seems he feels the gravy days are over at Boeing, that the announced rate cut to 3.5/month for 777 needs to be 3 or less, the boost in 787 rate isn't going to happen, the widebody segment is awash in excess capacity, Boeing will have to subside on whatever it can make from the 737 and probably won't be in a position to do a new airplane till at least the end of the 77X program spending in 2020 whereas Airbus will be able to start something new in 2018.

For a nice red meat comment to end the piece:

Always fluent and funny in his exposition, Aboulafia came up with a novel metaphor for Boeing’s pushing out nearly $30 billion in 787 production costs to be paid back from future revenue.

“It’s like, ‘We can’t save the patient, but we can put his head in a jar and hope future generations can revive him,’ ” Aboulafia said.

Seems like RA has been reading a.net!

So much for all of you who call him a Boeing fanboy.

Revelation wrote:

So much for all of you who call him a Boeing fanboy.

That talk always said more about the posters behind it than about Aboulafia.

Revelation wrote:

Seattle Times ( http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... suppliers/ ) brings us a full article on RA's recent speech. Seems he feels the gravy days are over at Boeing, that the announced rate cut to 3.5/month for 777 needs to be 3 or less, the boost in 787 rate isn't going to happen, the widebody segment is awash in excess capacity, Boeing will have to subside on whatever it can make from the 737 and probably won't be in a position to do a new airplane till at least the end of the 77X program spending in 2020 whereas Airbus will be able to start something new in 2018.

I think Boeing should keep some of their test aircraft flying and actually improve on the products they have. The A320neo/A330neo did not come out of thin air, it came out of decades of investing money into R&D into aircraft they had already sold. It is a significant difference between how A&B operate.

Revelation wrote:

So much for all of you who call him a Boeing fanboy.

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day, as for calling him a Boeing fanboy, “The tiger cannot change its stripes” or “the leopard cannot change its spots” comes to mind.

Nothing new IMO, Leeham and other analysts have been predicting these production rates for years.

As for the fanboy talk, Boeing already announced production cuts on the 777 and warned 787 production may not go up. Fanboys now face reality and have no other choice than admitting the glory days are over... for now.

Which brings us to the real subject: sales have ups and downs, and we are clearly in bottomland for the moment. It may just be temporary, the next surge may come after 2020 when Boeing launches the MOM aircraft. The positive news is that Boeing sits on a huge narrowbody backlog.

And then there is this:

Analyst puts Sell on Boeing stock in unusally bearish report

In an extraordinarily bearish research note, boutique Buckingham Research Group (BRG) downgraded Boeing stock to Underperform (Sell) from Neutral (Hold) today.
BRG, which agrees with other aerospace analysts that Boeing stock is priced on free cash flow, sees FCF falling beginning next year. Buckingham predicts 737 production rates—which Boeing wants to boost to 57/mo to support FCF—will be short-lived.

Buckingham sees 777 Classic delivery rates dropping from Boeing’s target of 3.5/mo to “bottom out” at 2/mo.

Weak orders for the 787 means Boeing won’t increase production rates for the 787 from 12/mo to 14/mo. BRG predicts that in 2019 Boeing will announce a rate reduction from the current 12.mo to 7/mo on one production line, and this line will be only in Charleston (SC).

Revelation wrote:

Boeing will have to subside on whatever it can make from the 737 and probably won't be in a position to do a new airplane till at least the end of the 77X program spending in 2020 whereas Airbus will be able to start something new in 2018.

Why in the world would Airbus want to start anything new, ahead of Boeing when they already hold the lead? They'll be happy cashing in on what they have and wait to see what Boeing does, then hope to react with something better.

zeke wrote:

I think Boeing should keep some of their test aircraft flying and actually improve on the products they have. The A320neo/A330neo did not come out of thin air, it came out of decades of investing money into R&D into aircraft they had already sold. It is a significant difference between how A&B operate.

I don't think that's a fair comparison and a contradicting one at that. The A320/A330 platforms have far greater improvement potential than the B737/B767 platforms. And it's contradicting because the MAX is exactly the result of what you're suggesting they should do. IMO, Boeing's biggest problem was its complacency which lead to them loosing the lower and upper ends of the NB capacity market. They are essentially down to the 737-8MAX. It's crazy to think that a company that one completely dominated the NB market has fallen that far.

KarelXWB wrote:

Weak orders for the 787 means Boeing won’t increase production rates for the 787 from 12/mo to 14/mo. BRG predicts that in 2019 Boeing will announce a rate reduction from the current 12.mo to 7/mo on one production line, and this line will be only in Charleston (SC).

[/quote]

They have boxed themselves into a corner. They latest SEC filing they have made the statement they need in excess of 70 million per 787 in production costs built to cover deferred costs withing the program block. But today they dont even get 60 million per 77W built, why should they get more for a 787 ?

And now we see EK make an announcement that they are delaying new order as they dont want to pay Boeing to bail out the 787 differed costs. When Boeing announce the extension to the program block up to 2000, EK might order 100 at the right price.

zeke wrote:

And now we see EK make an announcement that they are delaying new order as they dont want to pay Boeing to bail out the 787 differed costs. When Boeing announce the extension to the program block up to 2000, EK might order 100 at the right price.

Lets be clear, the main reason why EK is deferring their decision is because they currently have nowhere to put the planes and won't until the middle of next decade.

zeke wrote:

I think Boeing should keep some of their test aircraft flying and actually improve on the products they have. The A320neo/A330neo did not come out of thin air, it came out of decades of investing money into R&D into aircraft they had already sold. It is a significant difference between how A&B operate.

Boeing (and Airbus) both continuously upgrade aircraft with improvements. They don't need test aircraft flying to do that.

airbazar wrote:

I don't think that's a fair comparison and a contradicting one at that. The A320/A330 platforms have far greater improvement potential than the B737/B767 platforms. And it's contradicting because the MAX is exactly the result of what you're suggesting they should do. IMO, Boeing's biggest problem was its complacency which lead to them loosing the lower and upper ends of the NB capacity market. They are essentially down to the 737-8MAX. It's crazy to think that a company that one completely dominated the NB market has fallen that far.

It is very fair, and the MAX is not the example to illustrate. Look at the 200 to classic 737, Boeing were advertising the 727/737-200 were better than the A320. I dont have the exact numbers, something like 50 737-200 airlines moved to the A320 because they failed to improve their existing product.

Boeing still think the 767 is money maker, why didn't they improve it significantly ? It is the MOM king (with new engines and 50% composites)
Boeing still think the 737 is a money maker, being squeezed at the bottom (below 150 seats) by Canada, Brazil, Japan, China, Russia (so is airbus ), at the top end the A321neo.
Boeing is being squeezed by the A330neo, not even as good as the original A350 which Boeing (Randy) said was junk. For many years in a row the ole common A330 outsold the 787 ......
Boeing is being squeezed by the A350, a program being laughed at by Boeing when announced as they said they need 7 years to develop it. End result it cut into their other cash cow the 777.

There is a culture of elitism in Boeing (and Boeing fanboys on this site) that think only good technology can only be developed in the US. One thing is developing technology, the other is implementing it which they scored a big F on the 787. The industry is expecting the same with the 77X.

The silly debate over the problems of program accounting focused on whether or no the public was fooled. What all but a certain few knew was that Boeing was not hiding anything. And largely ignored was that Boeing did not have another $20+ billion in the bank to design next generation planes. And of course the high mucky mucks made out like bandits (maybe because they are bandits?) and the engineers and builders are fleeing to other companies, if not fired and sent looking.

And..... A number of us suggested that we might be in a balloon of orders, but that view was somewhat derided on this site. Boeing's survival is likely not in doubt, but current policies do not suggest it will thrive.

Polot wrote:

Lets be clear, the main reason why EK is deferring their decision is because they currently have nowhere to put the planes and won't until the middle of next decade.

You are kidding me ?

Have you been to DWC ?

zeke wrote:

I think Boeing should keep some of their test aircraft flying and actually improve on the products they have. The A320neo/A330neo did not come out of thin air, it came out of decades of investing money into R&D into aircraft they had already sold. It is a significant difference between how A&B operate.

There's plenty of evidence of Boeing continuously investing in improvements for the current products such as 737 and 777. I do agree though that Airbus seems to be more willing to be ahead of the market with new models such as A320neo and A330neo rather than being reactive as Boeing has been with 737MAX and 77X. The main thrust of this piece is that things are probably worse than what the casual observer would think. In particular I think A330neo was not anticipated by Boeing and is really pressuring the 787 program.

zeke wrote:

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day, as for calling him a Boeing fanboy, “The tiger cannot change its stripes” or “the leopard cannot change its spots” comes to mind.

Thing is, he has been critical of 787 for quite a while as well. He draws the ire of Airbus fanboys here because he's an American that has taken shots at the A380, but he's been largely correct as shown by how the program has wallowed along the last several years never coming close to Airbus's original projections.

KarelXWB wrote:

Nothing new IMO, Leeham and other analysts have been predicting these production rates for years.

Yes, the Leeham link you posted yesterday had a lot of similar analysis, and even went beyond by showing that while oil has been relatively cheap and should be going forward, finance rates are slowly creeping up. Both trends make it a lot more favorable to keep current aircraft longer rather than buying new ones.

KarelXWB wrote:

It may just be temporary, the next surge may come after 2020 when Boeing launches the MOM aircraft.

I have a hard time seeing Boeing launching a MOM in the early 2020s. The finances should be pretty run down till the 77X is going full tilt, and the current environment might push that back a few years. RA's article suggests to me at least that if there really is a MOM market out there then Airbus is far better positioned to enter it than is Boeing.

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Lets be clear, the main reason why EK is deferring their decision is because they currently have nowhere to put the planes and won't until the middle of next decade.

You are kidding me ?

Have you been to DWC ?

Nope but someone posted to a.net recently saying that it seems work at DWC has ground to a halt. Do we have a realistic time table for when EK can move its operations from DXB to DWC? Seems every time I read about it there is a lot of doubt.

zeke wrote:

It is very fair, and the MAX is not the example to illustrate. Look at the 200 to classic 737, Boeing were advertising the 727/737-200 were better than the A320. I dont have the exact numbers, something like 50 737-200 airlines moved to the A320 because they failed to improve their existing product.

I doubt Boeing ever advertised that, considering at the time of the A320 Boeing already had the 737-300/400/500 out.

zeke wrote:

There is a culture of elitism in Boeing (and Boeing fanboys on this site) that think only good technology can only be developed in the US. One thing is developing technology, the other is implementing it which they scored a big F on the 787. The industry is expecting the same with the 77X.

I have never gotten the impression that Boeing thinks only good technology can be developed in the US. I do get the impression that you fall for marketing hook, line, and sinker with that comment however. Who is expecting the 77X to fail on its tech implementation?

zeke wrote:

You are kidding me ?

Have you been to DWC ?

The airport that currently has one runway? Yes they are building up fast but a split operation also goes against EK's business model.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So much for all of you who call him a Boeing fanboy.

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day, as for calling him a Boeing fanboy, “The tiger cannot change its stripes” or “the leopard cannot change its spots” comes to mind.

My problem with this is I suspect that if I went ahead and called you a total Airbus fanboy, you would object and insist that when you do it, it's somehow completely different.* (This mindset, by the way, honestly seems a lot more common among the pro-Airbus crowd than among their pro-Boeing counterparts around here.) And that's when it becomes just a tad laughable.

For the record, I don't have any real problem with the epithet "Boeing fanboy" being used on me. The shoe fits. Again, this attitude seems to be more common among those a.netters who undoubtedly are in the Boeing camp than the converse.

Now, just to equivocate for the sport of it, I should add that there are also many instances where I have had (and expressed) preference for an Airbus aircraft or way of doing things, as anyone eager to peruse my post history can see for themselves.

*My suspicion might have something to do with previous instances of precisely this happening.

ThReaTeN wrote:

My problem with this is I suspect that if I went ahead and called you a total Airbus fanboy, you would object and insist that when you do it, it's somehow completely different.* (This mindset, by the way, honestly seems a lot more common among the pro-Airbus crowd than among their pro-Boeing counterparts around here.) And that's when it becomes just a tad laughable.

I am happy to admit I an very knowledgeable on Airbus aircraft having flown most of them, and I have been called an Airbus fanboy by mainly USA based members who basically know nothing about them. Unlike most people I know a lot of technical knowledgeable about most A&B products, and my posts on most accident threads reflect that (be it A or B). People get pi$$ed with me when I can see a Boeing marketing gimmic as nothing more that that. Classic was on the 787 with the 6000 ft cabin pressure. You will hardly every get about 6000 ft cabin pressure on a A330/A340 on long flights.

ThReaTeN wrote:

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So much for all of you who call him a Boeing fanboy.

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day, as for calling him a Boeing fanboy, “The tiger cannot change its stripes” or “the leopard cannot change its spots” comes to mind.

My problem with this is I suspect that if I went ahead and called you a total Airbus fanboy, you would object and insist that when you do it, it's somehow completely different.* (This mindset, by the way, honestly seems a lot more common among the pro-Airbus crowd than among their pro-Boeing counterparts around here.) And that's when it becomes just a tad laughable.

For the record, I don't have any real problem with the epithet "Boeing fanboy" being used on me.

I think we should avoid the epithet. It's a classic example of the ad-hominum personal attack that our former forum rules used to explicitly disallow, yet the current forum regime seems uninterested in providing these rules on the current forum. It's somewhere on that nebulous list of improvements that might happen some time after pigs fly.

It's also just a very simplistic retort to throw around when the poster can't be bothered to refute the specific argument. For instance, if you don't like RA's take on the A380 just dismiss him by saying he's a Boeing fanboy, without dealing with the fact that he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he frequently criticizes Boeing programs too.

Revelation wrote:

ThReaTeN wrote:

zeke wrote:

Even a stopped clock is right twice every day, as for calling him a Boeing fanboy, “The tiger cannot change its stripes” or “the leopard cannot change its spots” comes to mind.

My problem with this is I suspect that if I went ahead and called you a total Airbus fanboy, you would object and insist that when you do it, it's somehow completely different.* (This mindset, by the way, honestly seems a lot more common among the pro-Airbus crowd than among their pro-Boeing counterparts around here.) And that's when it becomes just a tad laughable.

For the record, I don't have any real problem with the epithet "Boeing fanboy" being used on me.

I think we should avoid the epithet. It's a classic example of the ad-hominum personal attack that our former forum rules used to explicitly disallow, yet the current forum regime seems uninterested in providing these rules on the current forum. It's somewhere on that nebulous list of improvements that might happen some time after pigs fly.

It's also just a very simplistic retort to throw around when the poster can't be bothered to refute the specific argument. For instance, if you don't like RA's take on the A380 just dismiss him by saying he's a Boeing fanboy, without dealing with the fact that he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he frequently criticizes Boeing programs too.

I can understand why people want to avoid the term, as it carries a lot of negative connotation (though the word seems to be more "tainted" among others than for me). What I want to express is that I am skewed toward Boeing (basically since I was a kid), and I stand by it and I'm not ashamed of it. This sort of preference probably has a rather complex background (a lot more complex than just being born in the US or Europe - I am born in Scandinavia by the way). You can see parallels to the way some people are dog persons and other cat persons, where this division is clearly not random but follows a pattern involving many traits of personality and upbringing, but that's a discussion that, albeit interesting, could go on forever.

In any case, the resulting behavior (whether we call it fanboyism, underlying preference or whatever) tends to involve judging the other plane maker more harshly, consciously or unconsciously being more pessimistic (and expressing greater pessimism) about their business chances, and conversely applying - often systematically - what the Germans call "Zweckoptimismus" (loosely translated: "purposeful optimism" or "expedient optimism") toward the own team: I.e. expressing, even unwarranted, optimism in an attempt to hype them up and helping the team "win" precisely by portraying them as a winner. I see this behavior constantly on this forum, but what actually bothers me are the ridiculous attempts to deny its occurence. These are all human traits and quirks, and human behavior, and they don't make you some sort of war criminal. They also don't make you a simpleton or a moron. Just relax and be honest!

For instance zeke, a few posts up, insists that the only thing going on is that he simply knows a lot about Airbus planes from flying them, whereas those who disagree with him know nothing (and then presumably just can't understand how awesome Airbus' planes really are? which then raises the question: if only they did, they would be miraculously converted? give me a break!). I just think that kind of posturing is ridiculous and unnecessary and insulting to the intelligence of the other posters.

Polot wrote:

I doubt Boeing ever advertised that, considering at the time of the A320 Boeing already had the 737-300/400/500 out.

They did, the A320 did not appear on the scene overnight nor did the 737 classic. The 737-300 first flew in 84 (same year the 727 production finished), -600 in 85, -500 in 89, the A320 in 87. There is also another very telling chart I have seen comparing 737-300/400/500 operators switching over to the A320.

Polot wrote:

I do get the impression that you fall for marketing hook, line, and sinker with that comment however. Who is expecting the 77X to fail on its tech implementation?

GE for a start, the cannot build the engine in time that was promised (not can RR for that matter on the A330 neo). As for the rest of it, I will need to wait until the pull out a wooden 777X or a real 777X out of the hanger. Where you under the influence of flunitrazepam when the 787 was being built ?

The 777X is far from being a risk free project, there are more parts differences from the 77W to 77X than the 744 to 748.

Polot wrote:

The airport that currently has one runway?

So does LGW, does not mean the narrow body rate per hour per runway cannot be higher than current DXB rate per hour per runway dues to it being widebody dominated. There is lots of space and it is underutilized. The could have another runway built in 48 months if the demand was there. The have the design and land ready to go.

zeke wrote:

GE for a start, the cannot build the engine in time that was promised (not can RR for that matter on the A330 neo). As for the rest of it, I will need to wait until the pull out a wooden 777X or a real 777X out of the hanger. Where you under the influence of flunitrazepam when the 787 was being built ?

The 777X is far from being a risk free project, there are more parts differences from the 77W to 77X than the 744 to 748.

Ok gotcha. So the industry is not expecting the 77X to fail. You are. Or are you the industry?

zeke wrote:

So does LGW, does not mean the narrow body rate per hour per runway cannot be higher than current DXB rate per hour per runway dues to it being widebody dominated. There is lots of space and it is underutilized. The could have another runway built in 48 months if the demand was there. The have the design and land ready to go.

Except EK doesn't want a split hub. EK is not primarily flying flights for O&D traffic. They are flying to connect people across their hub. This will be especially true for smaller markets that the 787/A350 may find themselves in. So they want their 787/A350s to be connecting at the same megahub as their 777s and A380s...hence why EK is always mentioning how they won't move to DWC until they can fit all (or essentially all) of their operations there, and why FlyDubai is being kicked out of DXB and moving all flights to DWC this year.

BTW do you realize that you are basically arguing that EK wants the 787 above the A350 no matter what price Airbus offers? EK doesn't have to wait for Boeing to lower 787 prices...if they are unsatisfied they are more than welcome to order from Airbus. The fact that they are constantly kicking the fleet decision now the road all while complaining about space available at DXB is telling.

So much drama for no news. Sales are slow, most airlines have over ordered, yields are falling and over capacity is a problem. This is going to catch up with Airbus soon as well. The only problem for Boeing is the deferred costs of the 787 in the books, that they will one day need to remove. Always remember the same analysts now predicting gloom and doom where predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. Analysts also like publicity.

ThReaTeN wrote:

For instance zeke, a few posts up, insists that the only thing going on is that he simply knows a lot about Airbus planes from flying them, whereas those who disagree with him know nothing (and then presumably just can't understand how awesome Airbus' planes really are? which then raises the question: if only they did, they would be miraculously converted? give me a break!). I just think that kind of posturing is ridiculous and unnecessary and insulting to the intelligence of the other posters.

I have flown both A and B, and the behaviors I see on a.net mimics a lot of what I see at work by a group of people who have never flown an Airbus and think they are dangerous, made of plastic, slow, and carry no payload, and heaven forbid try and mention a composites, twin, and FBW and they have kittens. I am on this site as just another user, that is it. A lot more knowledgeable than most and will gladly correct people posting out of an orifice that the sun does not shine. I have no skin in the game of selling aircraft or making market predictions that the press or the market will pickup on. Correcting people for making outlandishly false statements does not make one a fanboy, the peoples egos that are hurt by me telling them are wrong will say differently.

RA is a PAID industry consultant, and his consultancy group does get PAID by Boeing. He does influence what goes into the press (example is the newspaper article in the OP), his commercial reports that people pay consultancy fees for do influence purchase decisions and market information.

Your real question should be, what industry qualifications does RA have ? You know what mine are .....

seahawk wrote:

So much drama for no news. Sales are slow, most airlines have over ordered, yields are falling and over capacity is a problem. This is going to catch up with Airbus soon as well. The only problem for Boeing is the deferred costs of the 787 in the books, that they will one day need to remove. Always remember the same analysts now predicting gloom and doom where predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. Analysts also like publicity.

I don't recall anyone predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. All had very realistic things to say especially that the market size was pretty limited and hitting price points was crucial. Perhaps you can provide some references?

For instance, RA pointed out many issues with MoM in http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... e-quandary and concluded with:

Airbus’s advantage in new product development resources probably will not lead to a decision to launch its own MOM jet before Boeing does. But it does guarantee that Airbus will be able to promptly respond to Boeing with a new aircraft. Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right. After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes.

If you take the time to read the whole article (free registration required) I think you'll find that it is far from a prediction of glory, IMHO.

Polot wrote:

Except EK doesn't want a split hub.

Says who ? The major O&D market of DXB is India (largest expat community in the UAE) where the A320/737 is already serving with a number of carriers. There is a lot of scope for DWC and DXB to work together, for decades DXB, AUH, and SHJ have been working together with pax and cargo.

Yes ONE DAY they would all like to be based at one airport, in the mean time ......

Polot wrote:

BTW do you realize that you are basically arguing that EK wants the 787 above the A350 no matter what price Airbus offers?

I have been saying that for years, I have also been saying they want a variety of aircraft as they wanted to replace everything from an A330-200 to a 777-300 with one type, it just does not work. And I can tell you that one group of pilots at EK will be very happy if they do order 787s (the guys who have been stuck doing the regionals on the A330/A340)

zeke wrote:

Says who ? The major O&D market of DXB is India (largest expat community in the UAE) where the A320/737 is already serving with a number of carriers. There is a lot of scope for DWC and DXB to work together, for decades DXB, AUH, and SHJ have been working together with pax and cargo.

Yes ONE DAY they would all like to be based at one airport, in the mean time ......

Indian traffic is also one of the major demographics they target for their flights to the Americas (and elsewhere), so they want those flights located at the main hub. DXB/AUH/SHJ may have been "working together with pax and cargo" for decades but that has been in competition between the airlines. EK is not splitting their pax/most of their cargo (all? not familiar with SkyCargo's operations) between the three airports.

zeke wrote:

ThReaTeN wrote:

For instance zeke, a few posts up, insists that the only thing going on is that he simply knows a lot about Airbus planes from flying them, whereas those who disagree with him know nothing (and then presumably just can't understand how awesome Airbus' planes really are? which then raises the question: if only they did, they would be miraculously converted? give me a break!). I just think that kind of posturing is ridiculous and unnecessary and insulting to the intelligence of the other posters.

I have flown both A and B, and the behaviors I see on a.net mimics a lot of what I see at work by a group of people who have never flown an Airbus and think they are dangerous, made of plastic, slow, and carry no payload, and heaven forbid try and mention a composites, twin, and FBW and they have kittens. I am on this site as just another user, that is it. A lot more knowledgeable than most and will gladly correct people posting out of an orifice that the sun does not shine. I have no skin in the game of selling aircraft or making market predictions that the press or the market will pickup on. Correcting people for making outlandishly false statements does not make one a fanboy, the peoples egos that are hurt by me telling them are wrong will say differently.

Naturally, you are a knight in shining armor ready to ride out and defend Airbus from fake news from Boeing propaganda machine - you have no skin in the game otherwise. You would never sit in threads and sulk at CX and SQ ordering 777X instead of more A350s or incessantly sling FUD at the 77W's payload-range capability versus the A350's using unrealistic seat configurations for your calculations. And even if you did, it would only be a complete coincidence that your passions would be inflamed precisely in this way and by precisely these triggers. On a different day, it could just as easily have been Airbus, and the plane on your avatar, stoking your rage the same way.

Like I said, this is just insulting to our intelligence. We're not as stupid as you think.

What Boeing and Airbus claim in their various presentations does not, I would confidently guess, have all that much to do with what they are guaranteeing to airlines. I suspect that specific airlines and A/B talk about specific routes, specific loads, specific fuel consumption, and specific seating layouts. What they claim otherwise is pretty much entertainment, and we all enjoy it. Non expert readers on this site, like me, come here to see those specific sorts of discussion and there are experts who provide that information to the best of their ability.

Polot wrote:

Indian traffic is also one of the major demographics they target for their flights to the Americas (and elsewhere), so they want those flights located at the main hub. DXB/AUH/SHJ may have been "working together with pax and cargo" for decades but that has been in competition between the airlines. EK is not splitting their pax/most of their cargo (all? not familiar with SkyCargo's operations) between the three airports.

That is where you do not understand the market, a lot of Indian passengers actually do not just transit. DXB is a holiday and shopping destination of choice even if flying further afield.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So much drama for no news. Sales are slow, most airlines have over ordered, yields are falling and over capacity is a problem. This is going to catch up with Airbus soon as well. The only problem for Boeing is the deferred costs of the 787 in the books, that they will one day need to remove. Always remember the same analysts now predicting gloom and doom where predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. Analysts also like publicity.

I don't recall anyone predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. All had very realistic things to say especially that the market size was pretty limited and hitting price points was crucial. Perhaps you can provide some references?

Well, nobody talked about Boeing lacking the financial means to launch it at that time. Market space, design features and all this, but not really saying that Boeing might not be able to afford it.

Polot wrote:

Who is expecting the 77X to fail on its tech implementation?

It is a guaranteed financial failure, it will take down the company, employees, retirees and Washington State along with it.

So which museum wants this technical marvel.

Boeing is not capable of doing clean slate designs, so rather than coming up with $12 Billion revolutionary products, it should try to achieve incremental performance gains by spending $2B on each project.

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So much drama for no news. Sales are slow, most airlines have over ordered, yields are falling and over capacity is a problem. This is going to catch up with Airbus soon as well. The only problem for Boeing is the deferred costs of the 787 in the books, that they will one day need to remove. Always remember the same analysts now predicting gloom and doom where predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. Analysts also like publicity.

I don't recall anyone predicting a glorious MoM launch months ago. All had very realistic things to say especially that the market size was pretty limited and hitting price points was crucial. Perhaps you can provide some references?

Well, nobody talked about Boeing lacking the financial means to launch it at that time. Market space, design features and all this, but not really saying that Boeing might not be able to afford it.

Actually the article I linked from March 2016 says:

Boeing, by contrast, has the large majority of its IRAD fully allocated through 2021, with cash going to the 737 MAX, 787-10 and 777-8X/-9X programs. Either Boeing will need to raise its IRAD topline considerably, or the bulk of MOM spending will need to wait until the next decade. Boeing also faces challenges in 787 program profitability, declining profits from the 777 program and a likely dilution of 737 profits as the NG series transitions to the MAX. Therefore, investor relations concerns will likely forestall a significant IRAD increase.

Not sure what more you thought needed to be said?

zeke wrote:

Polot wrote:

Indian traffic is also one of the major demographics they target for their flights to the Americas (and elsewhere), so they want those flights located at the main hub. DXB/AUH/SHJ may have been "working together with pax and cargo" for decades but that has been in competition between the airlines. EK is not splitting their pax/most of their cargo (all? not familiar with SkyCargo's operations) between the three airports.

That is where you do not understand the market, a lot of Indian passengers actually do not just transit. DXB is a holiday and shopping destination of choice even if flying further afield.

You don't understand my point. Those flights are not just filled with Indians passengers going to visit DXB. They are also filled with Americans and Europeans heading to/from India (or Indians to those markets + more). Do you think EK is flying to DFW because of the strong market links between Dallas and Dubai? EK wants markets like India at their main hub, even if they have a higher percentage of O&D passengers than typical for most of EK's flights, because those markets are helping to fill all the other flights EK operates from DXB.

ThReaTeN wrote:

You would never sit in threads and sulk at CX and SQ ordering 777X instead of more A350s or incessantly sling FUD at the 77W's payload-range capability versus the A350's using unrealistic seat configurations for your calculations.

What CX or SQ 777X threads ? The four page thread about the SQ 777X order I didnt make a single post on ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355111) I think you are making things up. There are lots of threads I choose not participate in, I do not go around the forum simply look to pick flights like you are suggesting.

A simple fact of the matter is the A350-900 does fly further with its design payload than the 777W does (A350-900 design payload is 325 pax to 7990 nm, the 77W design payload is 365 pax to 7370nm). The design payload difference is only 40 pax, ie around 4000 kg.. The 777-300ER will do so with a TOW of 351,533 kg, the A350-900 with 275,000 kg. The A350-900 will fly further, faster, burning less fuel, and taking off 76,533 kg (168726 lb) lighter. They are simple facts that cannot be refuted. Now if you want to take about ranges less than maximum design range, the A350 range payload curve is a lot flatter then the 777 because it burns less fuel, There is a point beyond the 777 maximum structural range where the A350 does carry more payload. It has to cross over as the design range is further than then 77W, no one is in disputes that.

The only thread I have talked about the A350 seat configurations was the HKG-DUS route where CX was operating a 275 seat 77W and replaced it with a 280 seat A350-900. It is not something I made up, it is a simple (and yet apparently uncomfortable to some) statement of fact. More like changes are coming.

zeke wrote:

Boeing still think the 767 is money maker, why didn't they improve it significantly ? It is the MOM king (with new engines and 50% composites)
Boeing still think the 737 is a money maker, being squeezed at the bottom (below 150 seats) by Canada, Brazil, Japan, China, Russia (so is airbus ), at the top end the A321neo.
Boeing is being squeezed by the A330neo, not even as good as the original A350 which Boeing (Randy) said was junk. For many years in a row the ole common A330 outsold the 787 ......
Boeing is being squeezed by the A350, a program being laughed at by Boeing when announced as they said they need 7 years to develop it. End result it cut into their other cash cow the 777.

There is a culture of elitism in Boeing (and Boeing fanboys on this site) that think only good technology can only be developed in the US. One thing is developing technology, the other is implementing it which they scored a big F on the 787. The industry is expecting the same with the 77X.

The industry expects-knows something about the 77X development and rollout that we don't.? Yes 787 development was a disaster. But 789 and MAX have been smooth...787-10 rolls out tomorrow...What is the problem going to be with 77X?

A 767 sized MoM aircraft would be great...but sadly the market is moving to 6-hour or more flights on A321NEO's...TATL, inter-asia, etc. Last time I flew ICN to BKK -- was on 739, instead of the usual 777 or A330, Sucks! I really hope B can make a case for a comfortable MoM, I fear the NEO technology is making that market a commodity narrow-body area and wide-bodies will be minimum 300 passenger.

Airbus clearly has the advantage in the NB area with the A32x NEO...but B should stop looking for kluge answers like 737-10, etc. Nothing wrong with just riding the second place 738MAX for the next decade if it makes money and save bullets for future opportunities, Despite all...MAX has a large backlog.

Culture of elitism?? Maybe in the past -- Now everybody knows this A vs. B stuff is a side show -- the customers want a duopoly (at least), and would never allow A or B to dominate and get pricing power.

jbs2886 wrote:

zeke wrote:

I think Boeing should keep some of their test aircraft flying and actually improve on the products they have. The A320neo/A330neo did not come out of thin air, it came out of decades of investing money into R&D into aircraft they had already sold. It is a significant difference between how A&B operate.

Boeing (and Airbus) both continuously upgrade aircraft with improvements. They don't need test aircraft flying to do that.

Airbus is actually testing the improvements on their testframes.

mjoelnir wrote:

Airbus is actually testing the improvements on their testframes.

And a 787 -- line-number 4, is flying around testing Trent engine and 787-10 upgrades...I don't understand this issue about A and B test frames.

Revelation wrote:

he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he

But that's not been based on any research or deep thought but a wish borne out of his anti-Airbus way of thinking. That the reality has panned out partly to what he has wished is no credit to the man. The same would be if somebody won the jackpot in the lottery and would be lauded as a great financial mastermind.

Revelation wrote:

For instance, if you don't like RA's take on the A380 just dismiss him by saying he's a Boeing fanboy, without dealing with the fact that he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he frequently criticizes Boeing programs too.

Whoa! It wasn't just the A380.

Aboulafia's comments on the A380 made him just the loudest singer in quite a large choir of commentators dissing the aircraft. His criticism's were always in comparison with the (in his mind) wondrous 787 and he later had the grace to express his disappointment with that aircraft, referring to "the drug-like rush of the 787."

Where he really got it wrong was with the A350XWB before and during the Paris Air Show. He set a bar for the aircraft and then kept raising the bar every time the aircraft achieved what he said it wouldn't. He complained that it didn't have an order from "a blue chip" like Singapore, for example, and then Singapore ordered it, so he found some other higher bar, culminating in his final negative - that the A350WXWB didn't have an order from ILFC.

And then ILFC did order it. It would have been funny if it hadn't been really rather sad.

mariner

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he

But that's not been based on any research or deep thought but a wish borne out of his anti-Airbus way of thinking. That the reality has panned out partly to what he has wished is no credit to the man. The same would be if somebody won the jackpot in the lottery and would be lauded as a great financial mastermind.

Looking through a cross-section of his work ( http://www.richardaboulafia.com/articles/ ) I see more than someone drawing lottery tickets.

mariner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

For instance, if you don't like RA's take on the A380 just dismiss him by saying he's a Boeing fanboy, without dealing with the fact that he's largely been right about the A380 program and that he frequently criticizes Boeing programs too.

Whoa! It wasn't just the A380.

Aboulafia's comments on the A380 made him just the loudest singer in quite a large choir of commentators dissing the aircraft. His criticism's were always in comparison with the (in his mind) wondrous 787 and he later had the grace to express his disappointment with that aircraft, referring to "the drug-like rush of the 787."

Where he really got it wrong was with the A350XWB before and during the Paris Air Show. He set a bar for the aircraft and then kept raising the bar every time the aircraft achieved what he said it wouldn't. He complained that it didn't have an order from "a blue chip" like Singapore, for example, and then Singapore ordered it, so he found some other higher bar, culminating in his final negative - that the A350WXWB didn't have an order from ILFC.

And then ILFC did order it. It would have been funny if it hadn't been really rather sad.

mariner

True on both counts: he is willing to diss Boeing products, and he missed the boat early on the A350XWB. He is however advocating a larger A350 to compete with 777X ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabou ... 0ca4c82018 )

zeke wrote:

There is a culture of elitism in Boeing (and Boeing fanboys on this site) that think only good technology can only be developed in the US. One thing is developing technology, the other is implementing it which they scored a big F on the 787. The industry is expecting the same with the 77X.

I get the impression that Airbus loyalists have perhaps more fervent attitudes about Toulouse than do Boeing loyalists. Seems that some users continue to, and prefer to, cheer Airbus as the underdog against the sole incumbent Boeing. Airbus mistakes are excusable error, where Boeing mistakes are the products of elitism, complacency, or even malfeasance according to some users. Based on some of the remarks that accompany criticism of Boeing and Boeing loyalists, it looks like A vs. B is just a proxy for anti-Americanism.

As for RA, on the merits he's right. Sales are slow, and for a variety of reasons will continue to be slow for the near term. Boeing were overly-optimistic about some things, and will need to make adjustments going forward. The same as Airbus.

A few things have changed at Boeing since the 787-10 and 777X have been launched.

Customers have over ordered, in the expectation growth rates would continue unchecked. This has affected WB sales first, but NB will catch up.

The 787 carries the biggest deferred costs of any Boeing project, commercial or military, ever.

Deferred costs, ignoring write-offs, were/are still increasing, from 777 family production gaps, 777 deep discounts to bridge to the X, 748 continuing production at a loss, 777X, 787-10............

During the same period, Boeing's financial culture changed. Not small baby steps, but mega, potentially not only upsetting sales and engineering teams, but customers too.

The financial bar for launching improvements, models and families has been firmed and raised (not all the same levels). In the forseeable future, no 777-10 or MOM, but plenty of talk.

Enormous pressure on the 787-10 and 777X to deliver on time, performance and financial measures

Rules for model hopping and order deferrals, which always existed, are being enforced. No more 788 deep discounts flipped at no cost to 789 or 10, or to other models, at zero customer cost. Some customers perhaps got a heads up on that last year.

Boeing are having deep and meaningful conversations with all their customers, the result of which will almost certainly be a net reduction of outstanding orders in 2017 and 2018.

Margins have been altered, reflecting actual model costs, with premiums applied for 'desirable' models.

And most importantly, discounts have been reduced and structured. Definitely no more signing up customers to almost the first decade's worth of production with launch discounts.

Even the market is wising up. Next change a moratorium on share buybacks for............. five years, a decade?

Airbus too are having deep and meaningful conversations with customers, starting with those A380 orders A.Net love to debate long and hard about.

caoimhin wrote:

I get the impression that Airbus loyalists have perhaps more fervent attitudes about Toulouse than do Boeing loyalists. Seems that some users continue to, and prefer to, cheer Airbus as the underdog against the sole incumbent Boeing. Airbus mistakes are excusable error, where Boeing mistakes are the products of elitism, complacency, or even malfeasance according to some users. Based on some of the remarks that accompany criticism of Boeing and Boeing loyalists, it looks like A vs. B is just a proxy for anti-Americanism.

I wouldn't go as far as to say anti-American, but I do feel many countries in the world have a pro American allegence and not supporting US companies as part of that allegence is seen to be unamerican. Something Trump was pushing with his campaign, make America great, bring the manufacturing back to America, impose tariffs on other countries, ban people from certain countries from visiting the US.

It was also a very interesting dynamic during the tanker selection to see all of the self serving reasons why a KC30 could not work with the USAF. With hindsight we now know most of the points were baseless, and many other countries went on to order the KC30.

Maybe you don't see it is as much where you are, where I am people associate Airbus only with France (despite large amounts being built in the US and other countries), they associate French as cowards, they associate French being technically inept, and technology followers, not leaders. It is just pure luck you can roll an aircraft out as they are either on holiday or on strike.

Then we had our morphing user NAV10/20/30 that went on for years about the downfall of Airbus, I have wasted so much time over the years correcting his misconceptions. I don't recall a lot of help from "moderate" Americans over that period with him.

RL777 wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more, Airbus took its two most successful aircraft programs and built upon to great lengths. In my opinion, the 737MAX program was a knee jerk reaction to the A32XNEO family that Boeing dropped the ball on properly developing an updated version to compete. Lucky for Boeing they have a loyal narrow body customer base or that program could've been a disaster.

Yep, that Boeing fanboy RA wrote in ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... e-quandary ):

Airbus occupies the dominant position at both ends of the MOM market. There are now 1,114 A321neo orders, versus just over 400 for the 737-9. With twin-aisles, Airbus’s A330neo product looks set to dominate the low end of the range/capacity envelope. While the 787-8 is a much newer airplane, it also has the high unit price and operating economics expected for an 8,000-nm+ design. Orders for the 787 accordingly have migrated toward the larger -9 and -10 variants, with demand for the -8 dropping off to minimal levels.

Bottom line is that Airbus can continue to crank out A321neo and A330neo till if/when Boeing decides to make a move then just pounce on whatever they do, or if they're feeling mean and there really is a solid MoM market larger than A321 they can just build a highly optimized model starting around 2018 and capture the market before Boeing can act. Somewhere amidst all that mayhem Boeing will need to replace the 737 too. Boeing has a challenging future ahead of itself, IMHO.

Except RLI has been blessed by the WTO, anyone taking bet's that Boeing would be able to convince the Congress or the Executive Branch that to survive, they need RLI to produce their counterpart to whatever new build Airbus puts out in the MOM space.

The A321 is kicking the 737-9, based on the number of threads which devolve into this fact, one has to wonder where Boeing is getting all this support to improve its product or simply give up and offer to make the A321 under license and be done with it.

KarelXWB wrote:

And then there is this:

Analyst puts Sell on Boeing stock in unusally bearish report

In an extraordinarily bearish research note, boutique Buckingham Research Group (BRG) downgraded Boeing stock to Underperform (Sell) from Neutral (Hold) today.
BRG, which agrees with other aerospace analysts that Boeing stock is priced on free cash flow, sees FCF falling beginning next year. Buckingham predicts 737 production rates—which Boeing wants to boost to 57/mo to support FCF—will be short-lived.

Buckingham sees 777 Classic delivery rates dropping from Boeing’s target of 3.5/mo to “bottom out” at 2/mo.

Weak orders for the 787 means Boeing won’t increase production rates for the 787 from 12/mo to 14/mo. BRG predicts that in 2019 Boeing will announce a rate reduction from the current 12.mo to 7/mo on one production line, and this line will be only in Charleston (SC).

Boeing could move the entire 787 production out of Washington? So much for those tax breaks to help the company launch the 777X.

It seems as if everybody who was conquered by McDonnell has become a victim of malicious attacks. Douglas had been the the first company on that chopping block and now Boeing might follow.

All these things were what we already kind of knew anyway, so I'm not quite sure why his comments seemed so dramatic, Boeing will be fine.

ThReaTeN wrote:

Now, just to equivocate for the sport of it, I should add that there are also many instances where I have had (and expressed) preference for an Airbus aircraft or way of doing things, as anyone eager to peruse my post history can see for themselves.

*My suspicion might have something to do with previous instances of precisely this happening.

These posts must be really elusive. I've had the misfortune of reading your posts in relation to anything Airbus and you have vastly overstated any positivity or preference to anything Airbus does. Like you said to someone above "we're not as stupid as you think".

zeke wrote:

Then we had our morphing user NAV10/20/30 that went on for years about the downfall of Airbus, I have wasted so much time over the years correcting his misconceptions. I don't recall a lot of help from "moderate" Americans over that period with him.

Then you weren't paying attention, but that might not fit the narrative. There's plenty of that mindset on a.net on all sides unfortunately.