Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
StTim wrote:Shows hypocrisy though
Revelation wrote:Guess HA was OK with something bigger than A338?
marcelh wrote:Revelation wrote:Guess HA was OK with something bigger than A338?
Probably something cheaper....
"Airbus is going to build the A330-800. I don't there's much question about that," he said. So what about the flights those flights to Europe that the A330neo will be able to complete? "What we always say about Europe is we do have the ambition that we could, one day, fly to Europe," Dunkerley explained. "There's no point in us contemplating European service until we have an aircraft that is capable of flying the 15 hours non-stop between the Hawaiian Islands and points in Europe."
Siren wrote:The cancellation penalty for the A338 must be massive, especially this far along the line. It's essentially a stillborn type that now has no orders at all, if this rumor is true.
ScottB wrote:Siren wrote:The cancellation penalty for the A338 must be massive, especially this far along the line. It's essentially a stillborn type that now has no orders at all, if this rumor is true.
The terms for the A338 may actually be quite favorable to HA given that the original order was for the A350-800; the A330-800 order was a conversion from the A350-800 when Airbus chose to cancel that variant. I would not be surprised at all if HA's team had managed to extract some very attractive substitution or cancellation rights.
StTim wrote:Looking on Scotts timeline on Twitter I don't see that tweet. He has been in Toulouse all day for the -1000 delivery festivities.
gatibosgru wrote:ScottB wrote:Siren wrote:The cancellation penalty for the A338 must be massive, especially this far along the line. It's essentially a stillborn type that now has no orders at all, if this rumor is true.
The terms for the A338 may actually be quite favorable to HA given that the original order was for the A350-800; the A330-800 order was a conversion from the A350-800 when Airbus chose to cancel that variant. I would not be surprised at all if HA's team had managed to extract some very attractive substitution or cancellation rights.
Very good point! And the 789 seems like a pretty great A358 replacement in both capacity and range.
william wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
I don't know why this is so funny to me......
william wrote:Hawaiian ordered the A330-800 for a reason, they like the specs. What would have changed if this is true to make such a switch?
william wrote:Hawaiian ordered the A330-800 for a reason, they like the specs. What would have changed if this is true to make such a switch?
MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
Aggressive pricing, taking out 3 767-300ERs that are going to United involved. Aggressive pricing--sounds like complaints in @Bombardier trade case
zkojq wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
Read again what was tweeted.Aggressive pricing, taking out 3 767-300ERs that are going to United involved. Aggressive pricing--sounds like complaints in @Bombardier trade case
He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.
william wrote:Hawaiian ordered the A330-800 for a reason, they like the specs. What would have changed if this is true to make such a switch?
Austin787 wrote:787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.
Revelation wrote:zkojq wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
Read again what was tweeted.Aggressive pricing, taking out 3 767-300ERs that are going to United involved. Aggressive pricing--sounds like complaints in @Bombardier trade case
He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.
But you can't have dumping in the trade law sense if it's a domestic sale, it needs to be international.
bzcat wrote:Been saying for a while that 787-9 makes sense for HA if A358 was what they wanted.
Ironically, if HA had ordered 787 instead of A358 way back, they would be getting their planes now (probably even earlier) instead of waiting for a few more years.
bzcat wrote:Been saying for a while that 787-9 makes sense for HA if A358 was what they wanted.
Ironically, if HA had ordered 787 instead of A358 way back, they would be getting their planes now (probably even earlier) instead of waiting for a few more years.
bzcat wrote:Ironically, if HA had ordered 787 instead of A358 way back, they would be getting their planes now (probably even earlier) instead of waiting for a few more years.
Continental767 wrote:william wrote:Hawaiian ordered the A330-800 for a reason, they like the specs. What would have changed if this is true to make such a switch?
HA didn't order the A338 because of the specs. They wanted the A350-800, but Airbus basically forced them to switch to the A330-800. We don't know if they even want that aircraft. Based on our current situation, it seems like they don't.
Continental767 wrote:HA didn't order the A338 because of the specs. They wanted the A350-800, but Airbus basically forced them to switch to the A330-800.
jubguy3 wrote:I would imagine that being the only A338 customer makes the resale opportunities incredibly difficult and increases the cost for the lessor. I am surprised that the A338 left the factory in the first place, and it looks like it's going to be a waste of money for Airbus at this point. I wonder who will take it.
scbriml wrote:Continental767 wrote:HA didn't order the A338 because of the specs. They wanted the A350-800, but Airbus basically forced them to switch to the A330-800.
Nobody forced HA to order the A338. Once the A358 was no longer an option, they had multiple choices, including walking away from Airbus for those planes.
texl1649 wrote:william wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
I don't know why this is so funny to me......
To be fair, it is closer if it is from a “red” state like right to work South Carolina. Resist!
texl1649 wrote:zkojq wrote:What happened to the Boeing fanboys not trusting Leeham because "they only report on issues that are favourable to Airbus"??
Let's think about this for a moment; Scott Hamilton almost certainly was leaked this by one of his Airbus "sources" (aka 'sponsors.') While he was obviously at the A350 delivery festivities. Regardless of 'fan boy' status, Leeham's periodic propensity to serve as a house organ of Airbus marketing doesn't detract from their credibility here.
zkojq wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.
Read again what was tweeted.Aggressive pricing, taking out 3 767-300ERs that are going to United involved. Aggressive pricing--sounds like complaints in @Bombardier trade case
He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.