juliuswong wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Thank you.

However, it is worth noting Peter Bellew of MH has stated despite the recent B787 order by MH, A330neo is still in the run to replace current A330-300 and upcoming used A330-200. So we may see both B787 and A330neo in MH fleet.

MH future fleet will look like: B737MAX, B787, A330neo and A350. All Airbus needs to do now is to offer killer deal for A330neo. B787 can help MH with AKL, reinstate IST, DXB and some other European ports. A350 will be used for LHR, maybe CDG, AMS and FRA. A330neo for China and India and other high demand trunk regional routes.

I don’t think A330neo will happen, it just makes too much sense to simplify the fleet around the 787 in that segment. A 737 MAX , 787 and A350 fleet is an excellent combination.

Well, we can't say for sure. MH only place an order for 8 B787. There are currently 15 A330-300 and soon too add around 7 A330-200. Thus, the recent 787 order is insufficient to cover A330 fleet replacement. Even if we add 8 787 and their upcoming 6 A350, it is still insufficient. (6 A380 and approximately 22 A330 to be replaced). They would have easily place an order for 20 B787 if it was the ultimate choose to replace both A330ceo and A380, but it was not the case. Malaysia Airlines will never have fleet from single manufacturer. Malaysia Government will always balance between both A and B.

Where do you see MH getting 6 A332s? And I never suggested a fleet from a single manufacturer, I clearly said 737 MAX, 787 and A350. Also this thread is about the TK 787 order, I suggest we take this discussion to private messages or another thread.

ikolkyo wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I don’t think A330neo will happen, it just makes too much sense to simplify the fleet around the 787 in that segment. A 737 MAX , 787 and A350 fleet is an excellent combination.

Well, we can't say for sure. MH only place an order for 8 B787. There are currently 15 A330-300 and soon too add around 7 A330-200. Thus, the recent 787 order is insufficient to cover A330 fleet replacement. Even if we add 8 787 and their upcoming 6 A350, it is still insufficient. (6 A380 and approximately 22 A330 to be replaced). They would have easily place an order for 20 B787 if it was the ultimate choose to replace both A330ceo and A380, but it was not the case. Malaysia Airlines will never have fleet from single manufacturer. Malaysia Government will always balance between both A and B.

Where do you see MH getting 6 A332s? And I never suggested a fleet from a single manufacturer, I clearly said 737 MAX, 787 and A350. Also this thread is about the TK 787 order, I suggest we take this discussion to private messages or another thread.

There: m.atwonline.com/leasing/malaysia-airlines-closes-a330-lease-deal
They are taking either A330-300 or A330-200. Previously was to take up Alitalia A330-200, but could not due to some reasons. So higher chance they are taking up A330-200.
Malaysia Government and Malaysia Airlines will always balance the fleet number between A and B. To suggest B787 as the sole replacement for A330 fleet is very short sighted.

Let's take this discussion elsewhere. Apologies for running out of topic, moderators.

I hope this means an all new J class product i.e. 1-2-1, especially if they are finally getting serious about capturing the Australian market.

ahmetdouas wrote:

The A330NEO is useless compared to the 787/350. Why order an 'old aircraft'?
What next, an A340NEO?

How in the world is the A330NEO old when it hasn't even flown yet? The age of a design does in no way render it "useless", as we can see by the healthy and consistent sales of the A330CEO.

ahmetdouas wrote:

The A330NEO is useless compared to the 787/350. Why order an 'old aircraft'?
What next, an A340NEO?

I understand that I'm probably sustaining a Scandinavian fairy-tales character but calling A330 useless compared to anything is... let's say, bold. A330 is a tried and tested airplane that's been in good use for many years. It may use a few % more fuel (which in real life may not be all that much more), but it's cheaper and sooner not only to buy but also to maintain - mechanics are well trained, parts are everywhere, procedures have long been optimized. AND it doesn't have the Damn Unrealiable Malice Batteries of the Boeing 787 so chances are you will be fine flying to Boston. All that considered, A330 is actually a much better plane than 787 and, in some cases, maybe even the A350. But I may have to eat that latter statement.

ahmetdouas wrote:

The A330NEO is useless compared to the 787/350. Why order an 'old aircraft'?
What next, an A340NEO?

Why are airlines ordering A320neo and 737 MAX over The MC-21, C919? Extremely silly point you’re trying to make.

Congratulations TK and Boeing !

Lets focus for future, which city pairs may be announced ? I expect a boom for US and south america flights and hope get rid of 2-2-2 business seating even dream for re introduce for W class.

MeCe wrote:

Congratulations TK and Boeing !

Lets focus for future, which city pairs may be announced ? I expect a boom for US and south america flights and hope get rid of 2-2-2 business seating even dream for re introduce for W class.

Uhm... how about let's wait for this "order" to solidify?

BREECH wrote:

ahmetdouas wrote:

The A330NEO is useless compared to the 787/350. Why order an 'old aircraft'?
What next, an A340NEO?

I understand that I'm probably sustaining a Scandinavian fairy-tales character but calling A330 useless compared to anything is... let's say, bold. A330 is a tried and tested airplane that's been in good use for many years. It may use a few % more fuel (which in real life may not be all that much more), but it's cheaper and sooner not only to buy but also to maintain - mechanics are well trained, parts are everywhere, procedures have long been optimized. AND it doesn't have the Damn Unrealiable Malice Batteries of the Boeing 787 so chances are you will be fine flying to Boston. All that considered, A330 is actually a much better plane than 787 and, in some cases, maybe even the A350. But I may have to eat that latter statement.

If the A330 is such a better plane, why will they be producing at half the rate of the 787 and less than the A350?

BREECH wrote:

MeCe wrote:

Congratulations TK and Boeing !

Lets focus for future, which city pairs may be announced ? I expect a boom for US and south america flights and hope get rid of 2-2-2 business seating even dream for re introduce for W class.

Uhm... how about let's wait for this "order" to solidify?

You are living in a Dreamworld if you think TK won't actually firm their order for at least 20 Dreamliners.

BREECH wrote:

MeCe wrote:

Congratulations TK and Boeing !

Lets focus for future, which city pairs may be announced ? I expect a boom for US and south america flights and hope get rid of 2-2-2 business seating even dream for re introduce for W class.

Uhm... how about let's wait for this "order" to solidify?

I see the Airbus talking points from Paris are still in effect. Are we going to have to had the LOI/MOU comments every time Boeing gets one now?

cledaybuck wrote:

If the A330 is such a better plane, why will they be producing at half the rate of the 787 and less than the A350?

Because airlines have shareholders.

BREECH wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

If the A330 is such a better plane, why will they be producing at half the rate of the 787 and less than the A350?

Because airlines have shareholders.

You are going to have to explain this one a little more.

BREECH wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

If the A330 is such a better plane, why will they be producing at half the rate of the 787 and less than the A350?

Because airlines have shareholders.

So you are insinuating that the A330 is less expensive... if your shareholder argument held water, wouldnt they be producing more A330s vs A350/787?

Polot wrote:

You are living in a Dreamworld if you think TK won't actually firm their order for at least 20 Dreamliners.

Oh? Interesting. So they signed LOI for 40 but will only buy 20? I don't think you are guessing any less than me when I say it'll never happen. TK is the largest user of A330. Why would they suddenly want the Game Loser... sorry, Changer? TK is trying to push the price down with Airbus, and Boeing is just playing this card to up their "accounting block" for the shareholders and keep the comfortable board chairs under their landing surfaces.

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

You are living in a Dreamworld if you think TK won't actually firm their order for at least 20 Dreamliners.

Oh? Interesting. So they signed LOI for 40 but will only buy 20? I don't think you are guessing any less than me when I say it'll never happen. TK is the largest user of A330. Why would they suddenly want the Game Loser... sorry, Changer? TK is trying to push the price down with Airbus, and Boeing is just playing this card to up their "accounting block" for the shareholders and keep the comfortable board chairs under their landing surfaces.

Because the LoI is for 20+20 options. Granted I'm sure when the order is signed you will be here to tell us how is just a ploy to get Airbus to lower prices and TK will never actually take delivery. Ignore their current widebody and narrowbody fleets/orders. It is clear that TK only wants Airbus. I mean why would TK want an unknown aircraft (yes...I saw your earlier post before you deleted it;) ) like the 787? Makes no sense.

Polot wrote:

Because the LoI is for 20+20 options. Granted I'm sure when the order is signed you will be here to tell us how is just a ploy to get Airbus to lower prices and TK will never actually take delivery. Ignore their current widebody and narrowbody fleets/orders. It is clear that TK only wants Airbus. I mean why would TK want an unknown aircraft (yes...I saw your earlier post before you deleted it;) ) like the 787? Makes no sense.

I usually add to my posts, not delete them. So whatever you saw, you should stop drinking so much this early in the day. And the argument that I will do this and that if this or that happens... REALLY?

I say it again - TK (which is Turkish Airlines) WILL NOT BUY BOEING 787. I may live to eat my words, but I stand by what I said and never deny I said it. Toodle-ooh.

Polot wrote:

No. You release a RFP, negotiate pricing, availability, etc, between the responses then sign LOI. Most LOIs translate into orders, except for when it involves an order you don't like. Then it is just a loose promise worth nothing.

Uhm... interesting wording you chose. "except for when it involves an order you don't like". So I cannot mention Virgin and A380? Or Qantas and B777? Or Transaero and A380? Or Transaero and B748?

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

You are living in a Dreamworld if you think TK won't actually firm their order for at least 20 Dreamliners.

Oh? Interesting. So they signed LOI for 40 but will only buy 20? I don't think you are guessing any less than me when I say it'll never happen. TK is the largest user of A330. Why would they suddenly want the Game Loser... sorry, Changer? TK is trying to push the price down with Airbus, and Boeing is just playing this card to up their "accounting block" for the shareholders and keep the comfortable board chairs under their landing surfaces.

Lol ... someone is going to be eating crow soon. Stitch explained how LoI and MoU's work in aviation. Anyone with the slightest experience in aviation would know that this is 99.99% a done deal. But go ahead in live in Fantasy Land.

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

No. You release a RFP, negotiate pricing, availability, etc, between the responses then sign LOI. Most LOIs translate into orders, except for when it involves an order you don't like. Then it is just a loose promise worth nothing.

Uhm... interesting wording you chose. "except for when it involves an order you don't like". So I cannot mention Virgin and A380? Or Qantas and B777? Or Transaero and A380? Or Transaero and B748?

I don't understand your logic. None of what you listed are a LoI, or even MoU. Virgin has a firm A380 order, although most do not expect them to take delivery. Qantas never had an agreement for any 777, they were just part of the team of airlines that gave Boeing design input. Transaero's A380 and 748s orders were firm then cancelled when Transaero went out of business.

BREECH wrote:

Stitch's explanation (which I missed because I can't find MY OWN head or tail on this forum) crashes against numerous times airlines used one manufacturer's RFP to push the price down with another.

You need to learn the difference between a Request for Proposal (RFP) and a Letter of Intent (LoI) because it is getting increasingly clear you do not understand what they are.

Polot wrote:

I don't understand your logic. None of what you listed are a LoI, or even MoU. Virgin has a firm A380 order, although most do not expect them to take delivery. Qantas never had an agreement for any 777, they were just part of the team of airlines that gave Boeing design input. Transaero's A380 and 748s orders were firm then cancelled when Transaero went out of business.

Transaero's was definitely a MOU. You can search Airbus.com if you don't believe me. It was never a firm order for one simple reason - Transaero never intended to buy either A380 or B748. They were known in the industry as "scrap metal airways". They never bought a single aircraft younger than 10 years old. Their average fleet age was close to 30 years old. They used those MOUs as a publicity stunt in Russia to boost their fleeting reputation of a dangerous-to-fly airline.

cledaybuck wrote:

BREECH wrote:

MeCe wrote:

Congratulations TK and Boeing !

Lets focus for future, which city pairs may be announced ? I expect a boom for US and south america flights and hope get rid of 2-2-2 business seating even dream for re introduce for W class.

Uhm... how about let's wait for this "order" to solidify?

I see the Airbus talking points from Paris are still in effect. Are we going to have to had the LOI/MOU comments every time Boeing gets one now?

Do you have something against being accurate? In this case it is a LOI for 20 orders and 20 options. So Boeing will only show 20 orders sometime in the near future, so why call it 40 orders?

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don't understand your logic. None of what you listed are a LoI, or even MoU. Virgin has a firm A380 order, although most do not expect them to take delivery. Qantas never had an agreement for any 777, they were just part of the team of airlines that gave Boeing design input. Transaero's A380 and 748s orders were firm then cancelled when Transaero went out of business.

Transaero's was definitely a MOU. You can search Airbus.com if you don't believe me. It was never a firm order for one simple reason - Transaero never intended to buy either A380 or B748.

They were both firm. The A380s were firmed in June 2012. You will not find a record of them on Airbus or Boeing's website because both only show orders that are currently on their order book or orders made and then fulfilled. They don't keep records (viewable to the public at least) of orders placed but then cancelled before delivery.

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don't understand your logic. None of what you listed are a LoI, or even MoU. Virgin has a firm A380 order, although most do not expect them to take delivery. Qantas never had an agreement for any 777, they were just part of the team of airlines that gave Boeing design input. Transaero's A380 and 748s orders were firm then cancelled when Transaero went out of business.

Transaero's was definitely a MOU. You can search Airbus.com if you don't believe me. It was never a firm order for one simple reason - Transaero never intended to buy either A380 or B748. They were known in the industry as "scrap metal airways". They never bought a single aircraft younger than 10 years old. Their average fleet age was close to 30 years old. They used those MOUs as a publicity stunt in Russia to boost their fleeting reputation of a dangerous-to-fly airline.

So Boeing built those 748i for Transaero on a whim and a prayer then without a firm paid for commitment ?
Right, I see...

Too much Fanboyism around...

Turkish Airlines will take both and needs them both A350 and B787. ASAP.
The new Airport is expected to open in a year, if indeed opened and operational, the next massive expansion can be expected 2019 and onwards.
Alone in 2019, 17 MAX and 18 NEO will arrive too. In 2020 another 42 MAX/NEO.

Turkish Airlines focus the next years will be Latin America. There is 787-9 the best option. 787-9 will have the key-role for new Destinations.

Sorry to disappoint you BREECH, but sooner than later, we will see Turkish B787.

Down the road, we will also see A350 and A330neo. No worries.

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don't understand your logic. None of what you listed are a LoI, or even MoU. Virgin has a firm A380 order, although most do not expect them to take delivery. Qantas never had an agreement for any 777, they were just part of the team of airlines that gave Boeing design input. Transaero's A380 and 748s orders were firm then cancelled when Transaero went out of business.

Transaero's was definitely a MOU. You can search Airbus.com if you don't believe me. It was never a firm order for one simple reason - Transaero never intended to buy either A380 or B748.

Straight from the Airbus website:
http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... a380s.html

Thank you Google...

It got a weird unrelated picture , I guess it's a bit messed up after the recent changed look of their website.

UN was no TK. TK is a serious and successful full service airline with a 70 year history. While they may play at bargaining between the two manufacturers, that would be a normal thing to do BEFORE signing anything and turning over money (1-2% as explained by Stitch)

cledaybuck wrote:

I see the Airbus talking points from Paris are still in effect. Are we going to have to had the LOI/MOU comments every time Boeing gets one now?

Honestly we see the same nonsense when an Airbus LoI/MoU is announced by the media as an "order". As enthusiasts, we should understand this is how it's done for all the OEMs and just roll with it, but some people need to rain on the parade for whatever reason(s).

TK needs B789 and A359ULR in my opinion.

And I say, TK have to fly nonstop to Australia. No stop in Asia. Because nobody from America or Asia will fly over IST to Australia, and nobody from Europe, Africa or Middle East would like to fly with 2 stops to Australia when they could do it with 1 stop (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad).

Therefore, nonstop flying would be a big advantage for TK.

A flight IST-MEL-SYD is a possibility but also for me not a good solution.

Yakamoz wrote:

TK needs B789 and A359ULR in my opinion.

And I say, TK have to fly nonstop to Australia. No stop in Asia. Because nobody from America or Asia will fly over IST to Australia, and nobody from Europe, Africa or Middle East would like to fly with 2 stops to Australia when they could do it with 1 stop (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad).

Therefore, nonstop flying would be a big advantage for TK.

A flight IST-MEL-SYD is a possibility but also for me not a good solution.

Even if 787/350 are fuel efficient, why carry excess fuel over 9000 miles??

ULR flights are viable if only Business configured and and filled with full-paying pax.

Tkfan wrote:

Yakamoz wrote:

TK needs B789 and A359ULR in my opinion.

And I say, TK have to fly nonstop to Australia. No stop in Asia. Because nobody from America or Asia will fly over IST to Australia, and nobody from Europe, Africa or Middle East would like to fly with 2 stops to Australia when they could do it with 1 stop (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad).

Therefore, nonstop flying would be a big advantage for TK.

A flight IST-MEL-SYD is a possibility but also for me not a good solution.

Even if 787/350 are fuel efficient, why carry excess fuel over 9000 miles??

ULR flights are viable if only Business configured and and filled with full-paying pax.

I think IST-Australia nonstop is one of those routes that is probably loss making on its own, but completely necessary from a network point of view. It gives TK's European and African network a one stop option to Australia and allows them to better compete with and be more attractive against the ME3 (TK's European network is a lot more expansive!).

Polot wrote:

I think IST-Australia nonstop is one of those routes that is probably loss making on its own, but completely necessary from a network point of view. It gives TK's European and African network a one stop option to Australia and allows them to better compete with and be more attractive against the ME3 (TK's European network is a lot more expansive!).

I get your point, but much more expensive than let's say IST-MLE.
It's not only the excess fuel/less payload, also 1 additional Aırframe, hell lot of more personel and too much competition from the Gulf.

An intermediate stop with fifth freedom rights would do much better.
MLE would be attractive, also for Australians

Stitch wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

You don't sign a LOI first then ask the competitor about pricing.

Yes, you do. Letter of Intent has the same binding power as a teenager's promise to clean his room. And usually has similar outcome.

LoIs / MoUs are standard practice in the industry even with the most well-established carriers. It takes time to secure financing and negotiate all the final details of the delivery contract and the secondary and tertiary deals needed to be made with Supplier Furnished Equipment manufacturers. Airlines wants planes over a certain time period and an LoI / MoU locks in those dates for them for a price (they are required to make a deposit of around 1-2% of the total contract price when they sign and they forfeit that if they later cancel).

Yes, sometimes LoIs / MoUs expire (EK for the A330-300, VN for the A380-800) or are cancelled due to insolvency (IT for the A320/A332/A345/A358), but that is quite rare, especially for major established carriers like TK.

LoI's and MoU's, which are not the same, have expiry dates, often referred to as milestones or thresholds, which are constantly being re-confirmed, lapsed or taken to the next stage.

No money changes hands for an LoI. They are a little bit more binding than a teenager's promise, but only in relation to the parties behaviour, the most important of which, are confidentiality and good faith clauses.

They do not appear on the Balance Sheet of either party, though if ultra conservative, might be under contingencies.

Financiers will not use an LoI as security for funding.

In respect to the possible TK transaction, if there is only a single LoI, the possible purchase is at a very early stage. As negotiations progress, the head LoI is replaced by LoI's covering tranches of purchases, for example perhaps in four lots of 10 aircraft.

Then negotiations focus on firming the first tranche, though naturally the OEM tries to firm more or all.

Parallel, negotiations will take place with engine OEM's, interior and for funding, etc, also through LoL and MoU stages. Both A & B offer turnkey solutions where this isn't necessary.

MoU is the next stage, though as for LoI's, there are shades of grey, rather than black and white. And country legal jurisdiction plays a big part.

Both A & B have country / region and customer specific LoI and MoU templates to speed the process.

It's common practice to attach a generic or even country or company generic contract to an MoU. Generally, but not always, the more detailed the MoU, the easier and quicker the actual final contract is to get executed.

Only limited aspects of an MoU are legally enforceable, and rarely in respect to physical delivery of aircraft, though as above, not all MoU's are born equal.

Prices will be shown as in a range, though this will be narrower than in an LoI.

It is unusual for money to change hands when an LoI or MoU is executed. Both documents for example still show a range of possible prices and delivery dates.

An MoU will be executed subject to finance on terms acceptable to the buyer, so absolutely a Monopoly 'get out of jail free' card.

But as mentioned earlier, we won't be talking about one LoI or MoU. Where money will change hands, usually on a transferable, or even 100% refundable basis, is if before order contracts are exchanged, the customer wants to lock in delivery dates / production slots. In this case, the OEM will want money to confirm intent.

An MoU shouldn't appear on either the OEM or customer's Balance Sheet, other than in contingencies, so can't be used as security for funding, but again, not all MoU's are the same.

Tkfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think IST-Australia nonstop is one of those routes that is probably loss making on its own, but completely necessary from a network point of view. It gives TK's European and African network a one stop option to Australia and allows them to better compete with and be more attractive against the ME3 (TK's European network is a lot more expansive!).

I get your point, but much more expensive than let's say IST-MLE.
It's not only the excess fuel/less payload, also 1 additional Aırframe, hell lot of more personel and too much competition from the Gulf.

An intermediate stop with fifth freedom rights would do much better.
MLE would be attractive, also for Australians

MLE would be attractive, except for say the business man in Paris who needs to get to Sydney and sees his options are CDG-DXB-SYD or CDG-IST-MLE-SYD. Competing against the ME3, while also relying on Turkey's far larger local market, is exactly what TK wants to do.

gatibosgru wrote:

ahmetdouas wrote:

The A330NEO is useless compared to the 787/350. Why order an 'old aircraft'?
What next, an A340NEO?

How in the world is the A330NEO old when it hasn't even flown yet? The age of a design does in no way render it "useless", as we can see by the healthy and consistent sales of the A330CEO.

What do people call any version of the 737 at this point?

They say something akin to "THAT'S A 60 YEAR OLD DESIGN, THATS LIPSTICK ON A PIG, INSERT OTHER RANDOM INSULT HERE"

The A330 is not immune to the same abuse.

I really don't understand this whole hoopla over LOI/MOU vs firm order.

TK historically has entered LoI and then down the road firms up contracts.
This is exactly what was done with Boeing in 2013 for 95 737NG/MAX order and also with Airbus for 117 A32x in 2013 as well.

TK at the end of the day has stated it needs 500 frames into 2020s - 100 WB and 400 NB, so more is to come in both NB and WB space.

Assuming TK will also buy a350s, when would they start arriving? Boeing announced an increase in the production rate of the 787. Will Airbus need to do the same?

Polot wrote:

Tkfan wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think IST-Australia nonstop is one of those routes that is probably loss making on its own, but completely necessary from a network point of view. It gives TK's European and African network a one stop option to Australia and allows them to better compete with and be more attractive against the ME3 (TK's European network is a lot more expansive!).

I get your point, but much more expensive than let's say IST-MLE.
It's not only the excess fuel/less payload, also 1 additional Aırframe, hell lot of more personel and too much competition from the Gulf.

An intermediate stop with fifth freedom rights would do much better.
MLE would be attractive, also for Australians

MLE would be attractive, except for say the business man in Paris who needs to get to Sydney and sees his options are CDG-DXB-SYD or CDG-IST-MLE-SYD. Competing against the ME3, while also relying on Turkey's far larger local market, is exactly what TK wants to do.

Think you forgot CDG-SYD can be done one-stop with SQ/TG/CX or even with AI.

TC957 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Tkfan wrote:

I get your point, but much more expensive than let's say IST-MLE.
It's not only the excess fuel/less payload, also 1 additional Aırframe, hell lot of more personel and too much competition from the Gulf.

An intermediate stop with fifth freedom rights would do much better.
MLE would be attractive, also for Australians

MLE would be attractive, except for say the business man in Paris who needs to get to Sydney and sees his options are CDG-DXB-SYD or CDG-IST-MLE-SYD. Competing against the ME3, while also relying on Turkey's far larger local market, is exactly what TK wants to do.

Think you forgot CDG-SYD can be done one-stop with SQ/TG/CX or even with AI.

I was just giving a one stop example, it was not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the options.

TC957 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Tkfan wrote:

I get your point, but much more expensive than let's say IST-MLE.
It's not only the excess fuel/less payload, also 1 additional Aırframe, hell lot of more personel and too much competition from the Gulf.

An intermediate stop with fifth freedom rights would do much better.
MLE would be attractive, also for Australians

MLE would be attractive, except for say the business man in Paris who needs to get to Sydney and sees his options are CDG-DXB-SYD or CDG-IST-MLE-SYD. Competing against the ME3, while also relying on Turkey's far larger local market, is exactly what TK wants to do.

Think you forgot CDG-SYD can be done one-stop with SQ/TG/CX or even with AI.

True. I thought of that too.
TKs advantage over ME3 is their network of almost 100 second tier destinations in Europe.

On another note, if they want to launch the route next year... they need WBs.... if they are still working on the B748i??

Polot wrote:

They were both firm. The A380s were firmed in June 2012. You will not find a record of them on Airbus or Boeing's website because both only show orders that are currently on their order book or orders made and then fulfilled. They don't keep records (viewable to the public at least) of orders placed but then cancelled before delivery.

While you are actually right about the firm orders, you're still wrong that I won't find them on Airbus website.
http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... rshow.html

TC957 wrote:

So Boeing built those 748i for Transaero on a whim and a prayer then without a firm paid for commitment ?
Right, I see...

Yes, the demand for agricultural equipment is growing worldwide, so Boeing feels quite confident they will find buyers for their flying forage cutters. You can find quite a few 787s parked in the desert waiting for their customers.

CRHoward wrote:

Assuming TK will also buy a350s, when would they start arriving? Boeing announced an increase in the production rate of the 787. Will Airbus need to do the same?

Airbus is still on accelerating A350 production. I guess they have no slots in 2019. 2020 earliest??

B787 will start arriving in 2019.

Tkfan wrote:

CRHoward wrote:

Assuming TK will also buy a350s, when would they start arriving? Boeing announced an increase in the production rate of the 787. Will Airbus need to do the same?

Airbus is still on accelerating A350 production. I guess they have no slots in 2019. 2020 earliest??

B787 will start arriving in 2019.

Dont forget some airlines that deferred or canceled their early slots. I guess Airbus could get them a few slots in 2019 if TK wants it. That depends on how soon TK firms the order in the first place.

Planesmart wrote:

It is unusual for money to change hands when an LoI or MoU is executed. Both documents for example still show a range of possible prices and delivery dates.

The Airbus and Boeing MoUs I have seen have deposits tied to them that are non-refundable. They also have base pricing defined along with any credits as well as pricing escalation schedules and scheduled delivery quarters (so Q318 or Q120). That being said, it's hardly an exhaustive list of such things, so just going off personal experience.

Eyad89 wrote:

Tkfan wrote:

CRHoward wrote:

Assuming TK will also buy a350s, when would they start arriving? Boeing announced an increase in the production rate of the 787. Will Airbus need to do the same?

Airbus is still on accelerating A350 production. I guess they have no slots in 2019. 2020 earliest??

B787 will start arriving in 2019.

Dont forget some airlines that deferred or canceled their early slots. I guess Airbus could get them a few slots in 2019 if TK wants it. That depends on how soon TK firms the order in the first place.

I hope new Istanbul Airport is operational in 2019, if Airbus can deliver in 2019 the better of course.

cledaybuck wrote:

Because airlines have shareholders.

You are going to have to explain this one a little more.[/quote]
In the modern world, shareholders are more important than company's future or long-term success. You have to give people dividends today even if it means the company will go bust tomorrow. And shareholders are reading a lot of Boeing trash about how their "game changer" is more economical, blah blah blah. And they demand that the airline buys the newest aircraft to save fuel.

Revelation wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Why all the talk about the demise of the A330Neo when it hasn`t even flown yet?! TK may never order it,
that could be true, but there`s lots of airlines that will for sure. Not fair to rubbish an aircraft because a competing
one has just won an order, especially as one as esteemed as the A330. Some of the tripe you read......

C'mon, man, no one has "rubbished" the A330neo in this thread.

It doesn't seem to be a factor in some of the competitions one would think it would be a factor in.

TK is a big A330 operator and a lot of its routes suite it. A330neo is efficient, it's cheap, it's mature.

I hope they order some in the future.

Perhaps I was a little sensitive to comments? I shouldn`t be, I`ve no axe to grind, whether TK orders B787 or A330 Neo
it doesn't matter to me at all. I wasn`t aware the Neo was in the running or not, seems it may not have been, but some of
the comments on this thread have been nonsense, & it`s difficult to ignore sometimes. When members liken B787 to
agricultural machinery, or the Neo as `useless` you know it`s descended into farce. Anyway there is decent comment
here & there, & I`m learning to cherry pick! I mentioned up thread that TK & Boeing are beneficiaries to such a deal, TK
get a terrific plane at a price that suits, & Boeing get more sales, with the likelihood that this sale could lead to even more.

Hey guys,
I am excited about TK getting closer to opening Australian routes. I would certainly consider them as an option for travel to Europe IF Sydney-Istanbul was non-stop. Turkey also has a fairly unique 'stop over' attractiveness for Australians and New Zealanders in Gallipoli, that many of you may not be aware of. Google 'ANZAC' for more on that. Visiting Gallipoli as part of a stopover may sway a percentage of kangaroo route travelers to TK away for the usual carriers.
I too can see TK operating both the Dreamliner and A350. i would think that the 777-8 and A350ULR would be perfect for nonstop Australian routes and can see TK ordering all three types eventually: 787-9/-10, 777-8/-9 and A350ULR/-900/-1000.
The rumours around the 747-8 intrigue me.... I could see an order for a few 747-8Fs but maybe the rumours about the intercontinental were for BBJ versions for the Turkish government? The President visiting the USA would've been THE ideal time to announce such a deal - all politics aside.
Good luck to TK.
Like many Australians, Turkey holds a soft spot in my heart and I plan on visiting some time. TK offering nonstop flights to Sydney, coupled with viable Gallipoli stopover options, would make me even more likely to fly on them in the short term.
Cheers
Bunumuring