If this cryptic Leeham News tweet by Scott Hamilton is to believed, Hawaiian Airlines has decided to take the 787-9 over the A330-800.


https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/9 ... 5086241793

Too bad. Hopefully it does not happen.

Wonder if Boeing will pay for any cancelation penalties Hawaiian might incur. The 789 is a lot of aircraft for Hawaiian no? Must have been an insanely good deal.

Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.

There's no other current customers for the 330-800, is there? I'm sure AB is thrilled about that if this is true.

Guess HA was OK with something bigger than A338?

Shows hypocrisy though

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......

StTim wrote:

Shows hypocrisy though

"Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone"...

This is still a rumor at this point, we need to wait for official comment and confirmation. Who is his source? 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 A338 prototype just recently rolled out of the paintshop, and I believe was being prepped for first flight. I would not want to be an engineer working on the A338 today....

If this is true, it is a surprise to me. I would have thought the A338's commonality with the A332 worked very strongly in Airbus's favor, and that the B789 was "too much plane".

Works for me. Well played, HA, if true.

Revelation wrote:

Guess HA was OK with something bigger than A338?

Probably something cheaper....

787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.

I truly don't get why Boeing supporters think that the rest of the board will explode over this. Just simple case of ha picking a more capable aircraft that is well priced. If this is true.

marcelh wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Guess HA was OK with something bigger than A338?

Probably something cheaper....

http://www.businessinsider.com/hawaiian ... ity-2018-1 interviewed HA CEO Dunnkerley:

"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."

Interesting how he didn't say "until we have the A330-800neo" and then provided the 15 hour figure?

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.

I don’t get people on this forum, not only do you guys have some kind of an aversion to Chicago (O’Hare), but to Boeing as well ... which ironically is Chicago based. Smh.

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. I wonder why Airbus didn't try to move them towards the A358 to try to make at least one of their -8 programs profitable or just cut both programs entirely. Maybe 8 isn't such a lucky number after all, China...

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.

So is this another reason why Boeing is increasing production on the 787, get more slots to allow increased competition for orders?

Looking on Scotts timeline on Twitter I don't see that tweet. He has been in Toulouse all day for the -1000 delivery festivities.

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.

It's there.

https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/9 ... 5086241793

It will show up under replies because he started with @Boeing. It's there.

True. Never can work out twitter logic.

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.

Overall, DL bought A330 for TATL and A350 for TPAC, although there may be exceptions to the rule.
It'd be interesting to see where the cross-over between A330 family and A350 family or 787 family is.
Given TATL doesn't often feature "15 hour" stage lengths I'd imagine the A330 is at a disadvantage.

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!

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?

I think the fact that it isn’t the aircraft they originally wanted (A350-800) and that they are the only customer for the aircraft is a big issue.

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?

They ordered the A350-800 because they liked it but as they were one of three customers (Aeroflot and Asiana others I think) Airbus cancelled so they swapped to the A330-800. This was a compromise and not the original plan so mabye Boeing did an ace deal.

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?

Now we might have a aircraft BUILT with no customers or orders. When was the last time that happened. (I do understand they might get more in the future as A332 retires. But none now!)

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.

I thought Airbus was trying to get away from producing the 338 since HA was the only customer. Then they ended up going forward with it and now maybe not?

Ick.

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.

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.

Austin787 wrote:

787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.

I agree. Not sure why the 789 was more appealing to HA than the 788... Most people on this thread state that the 789 is "too much plane". The 787-8 cuts that down (although not significantly, but still nonetheless)...

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.

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.

A more interesting possibility is that Boeing is basically coming to the end of the 787 accounting block based on its stated size and number of orders. They are basically 100 orders from having the block filled out and that doesn’t include Emirates order yet. Boeing knows it’s cost very well by now and has been ruthless in driving them down. It knows what profit it needs to make to play out that accounting block as well.

It’s quite possible the cost of 787’s is coming down and as the accounting block is retired the plane will get cheaper to acquire. It was always hoped that eventually the barrel construction method would drive down production cost. The initial deployment was obviously botched on the 788. The pricing of the plane had to absorb a lot of these mistakes. I wonder if that may be changing.

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.

The choice of the A358 made sense considering they had a growing fleet of A332

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.

I'm sure Boeing will find slots for HA.

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.

Timing of delivery has never been at issue for HA with regards to this order so that is not a factor.

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.

We’ve heard rumors on here over the past year or so that HA may be going 787. This isn’t a complete shock given the nature of how we ended up at this point. Going from the A350-800 to an orphaned A330-800 - and what that might mean in regards to performance, financing, residualsetc - may have been a bit too much of a compromise for what HA needed.

Still, while not shocked, I’m a bit surprised.

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.

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.

Maybe will be turned into a vvip or test plane.

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.

That may be one reason they are able to make the numbers work even walking away from the Airbus deal. To get them not to walk originally, which might have hurt the neo program at an important stage, they made it a low-risk conversion for HA. I wonder if any deposits went to the recent top-up order of A321’s?

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!

If this was meant to be funny or sarcastic it went right over my head,.......And I state this as a news junkie. Please explain.

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.

It's pretty clear that Boeing was (is?) a sponsor of Leeham at least at one point in time.
The home page used to have instructions on how Boeing corporate users should log on to access the content.
Sorry if that doesn't fit some people's narratives.

I myself never bought into the idea that Leeham was biased in favor of Airbus.
They've pointed out some pretty negative things about both sets of products.
I do think Hamilton has gone a bit looney (see what I did there?) when it comes to the tariff issue.
But of course he's entitled to his opinion and he puts his name on what he writes.

United did announce recently that they would be taking 3 used 767-300ERs this year, so that may answer the question of where they are coming from.

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.

Except this a domestic transaction...

If HA has indeed chosen the 787-9, I find it not a major surprise in as much there have been what could be called credible reports by Leeham and ch-aviation that Hawaiian has had an RFP out on both the 787-9 and the A350-900 because they were worried that they would end up the only operator of the A330-800. Leeham has also reported Airbus has been suggesting the A330-800 to American, which would support the prior narrative (secure another major customer to keep Hawaiian).

Both the 787-9 and A350-900 are presumably larger than Hawaiian wanted, but of the two the 787-9 is the better fit and it lists for $30 million less (at OEM list which does reflect differences in included equipment). With Airbus only one A330-800 "in the hole" and needing it for testing and certification, anyway, it is quite possible that they were not willing to discount as deep on the A350-900, especially if HA was asking for deeper discounts than on the 787-9 to account for the extra seats they might feel they would need to sell.

Hawaiian also is retiring their 767-300ER fleet and Boeing would be able to both help HA move those planes as well as possibly getting them better resale value by offering to act as a seller intermediary to another airline operator or offering them as feeder stock for 767-300ER Boeing Converted Freighters. This could have sweetened the deal overall towards Boeing.