Bloomberg: Airbus A330 Neo Dropped From American Airlines Wide-Body Contest

PlanesNTrains · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:33 pm

The last two paragraphs of the article imply that the -800neo is still in the running as 767 replacements, however unlikely that may be.

Deeso · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:37 pm

TheRedBaron wrote:
I wonder how low is Boeing going on the 789 pricing, sure its nice to sell a lot of product, but if it only means cash flow and almost or no real profit, you are working for free, and giving away money. Airbus has done this in the past with the 346 fiasco and some other aircraft that were sold for a song, it seems to me that this time they will not go lower than XXX price, and they prefer to lose the sale than to get into a bloodbath.
I really hope Boeing has made the cost of manufacturing the 787 so cheap that they can underprice airbus and keep a healthy margin..they need a lot of cash to pay all the development of the aircraft ...

Regards

TRB

In this case the price has to be low enough to compensate the cancellation fees if the A350 is being displaced too as it's being suggested.

lightsaber · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:38 pm

TheRedBaron wrote:
I wonder how low is Boeing going on the 789 pricing, sure its nice to sell a lot of product, but if it only means cash flow and almost or no real profit, you are working for free, and giving away money. Airbus has done this in the past with the 346 fiasco and some other aircraft that were sold for a song, it seems to me that this time they will not go lower than XXX price, and they prefer to lose the sale than to get into a bloodbath.
I really hope Boeing has made the cost of manufacturing the 787 so cheap that they can underprice airbus and keep a healthy margin..they need a lot of cash to pay all the development of the aircraft ...

Regards

TRB

All indications are that Boeing, thanks to an ongoing multi-year cost reduction program, is able to profitably sell 789s at much lower prices than Airbus anticipated.

Boeing was talking about the effort, including getting the 787-10 cost down to 789 levels:

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN18Z131

3D printing cutting $3 million per plane.

Lightsaber

ikolkyo · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:42 pm

Seems like Boeing cost cutting and production rate increases are really helping them win sales campaigns as of late.

Stitch · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:42 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Can you characterize the missions where a 339 has lower fuel burn than a 359?

Based on posts in this forum, A350-900 fuel burn is around 5600kg per hour for a 3000nm trip. Based on Airbus and RR statements about A330-900 efficiency compared to the A330-300 and posts in the forum on A330-300 fuel burn, I would expect fuel burn for an A330-900 to be around 5300kg per hour for a 4000nm trip.

Stitch · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:46 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
The last two paragraphs of the article imply that the -800neo is still in the running as 767 replacements, however unlikely that may be.

Very unlikely, I imagine. Especially if NMA is also in play.

Deeso wrote:
In this case the price has to be low enough to compensate the cancellation fees if the A350 is being displaced too as it's being suggested.

This assumes there are cancellation fees. US Air ordered the original A350 so the contract would have been renegotiated when they were switched to the A350XWB. AA also went through Chapter 11 reorganization and they would have certainly re-drawn the A350XWB sales contracts as part of that, as well. So chances are probably better that AA will not have any fees than they will.

Kindanew · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:21 am

It certainly appears that on this occasion the Airbus jets simply didn't fit into American's vision. Even as an Airbus fan I can see that the 787 makes more sense in this situation.

However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:28 am

I wonder if this means 787-9s and 787-10s for the East Coast hubs to replace the B763s and B77Es and to allow all B77Ws to be out of LAX and DFW.

As for the A332s, I see them being sold and leased back just before those frames arrive so that AA has someone to dispose those frames to.

Stitch · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:30 am

Kindanew wrote:
However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

An A360 would likely not bring to the table anything the 787 - or A350, for that matter - could not adopt themselves as the big leap would be engines. As Airbus continues to drive down the production costs of the A350, it will become more price-competitive with the 787 and it has it's own advantages to help it win RFPs against the 787.

WIederling · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:41 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:

Can as well be Airbus is pricing it's products responsibly vs. the competition.

What does that even mean?

It means “sour grapes”.

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:42 am

" 787 and A350 could have usable lives measured in the scores of decades"

Twenty, Forty, Sixty by 10 years. Not even the B52 will do that well. LOL

airzona11 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:51 am

WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

What does that even mean?

It means “sour grapes”.

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

Really? Is it entirely possible, that AA, with a current fleet of 787s and A330s (lots of data), selected the plane bc TCO was advantage 787? Or a plane Airbus was bringing to market with a price advantage did not have enough of that advantage to merit a sale?

Every single manufacturer sacrifices revenue to get a sale. You are implying this sale happened purely because Boeing competed on price. Sour Grapes.

N328KF · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:07 am

Kindanew wrote:
It certainly appears that on this occasion the Airbus jets simply didn't fit into American's vision. Even as an Airbus fan I can see that the 787 makes more sense in this situation.

However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

This product, the hypothetical "A360" as you refer to it, would wind up competing squarely against the NMA. Plus, the only thing that's really considered to be "outdated" about the 787 is that Boeing has (supposedly) learned to more efficiently build composite fuselages.

IslandRob · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:08 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:

Can as well be Airbus is pricing it's products responsibly vs. the competition.

What does that even mean?

It means “sour grapes”.

Which are a key ingredient of whine. -ir

keesje · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:12 am

.
I think Airbus is really after replacement of the 45 777-200ER's delivered between 1999 and 2003.

By A350s, like many other airlines.

For replacing the US Airways A330 fleet, more 787-9s seems a no-brainer. Maybe the A330-900 was used to get decent pricing.

For the 777-200ER replacement, the 787-9 would be a step back in payload-range and capacity. The 787-10 lags the payload-range.

The 777-300ER's are still young, but Airbus would love to provide A350-1000s for that role later on.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:14 am

WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

What does that even mean?

It means “sour grapes”.

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

As I said - sour grapes.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:20 am

Kindanew wrote:
It certainly appears that on this occasion the Airbus jets simply didn't fit into American's vision. Even as an Airbus fan I can see that the 787 makes more sense in this situation.

However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

No. With the flexibility of the CSeries in their portfolio, they’ll be able to upgauge when they replace the A32X family, filling the low end of that hole. The new Airbus narrowbody coupled with the CSeries, A350 and A380 really cover all the bases, and with just one clean sheet.

Stitch · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:39 am

Both OEMs have been willing to make strategic deals in the past to win business and they did it because they knew that business was worth winning.

ltbewr · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:40 am

Why have a relatively small sub-fleet of A330's with the mx hassles. Recall how AA had the A300 and finally after being mx hogs for years, phased them out and replaced them with B757's and other smaller/narrow-bodies.

incitatus · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:47 am

keesje wrote:
.
I think Airbus is really after replacement of the 45 777-200ER's delivered between 1999 and 2003.

By A350s, like many other airlines.
(...)
For the 777-200ER replacement, the 787-9 would be a step back in payload-range and capacity. The 787-10 lags the payload-range.

The 777-300ER's are still young, but Airbus would love to provide A350-1000s for that role later on.

Good luck to Airbus on the idea that the A350, as a new type, is a good replacement to AA's 772s. For all of 2018, the longest sector AA plans to fly the 772 is DFW-NRT. In fact, that is the only current Asian route for the 772. Something like 80% of current 772 missions for AA can be flown by A330-300s. So the step back in payload-range in this case for the 787-9 is in practice meaningless. This really points to the 772 not being replaced based on similar capability.

Boeing778X · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:47 am

I don't think any of us are really shocked. This was a long time coming and I believe it to be prudent of AA.

Their goals seem to be very clear, and this move underscores that.

58x 787 options is enough to replace the entire 77E and A333 fleet, plus some, and it is my belief the the 757, 767 and A330-200 fleets will be replaced by the A322 or 797. Take out three birds with one stone.

I think the door is now also open for the 787-10! Exciting times ahead!

No A350-1000, however, maybe 10-15x 777-9s next decade.

A319
A320
737-8
A321
A322 -or- 797
787
777

StudiodeKadent · Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:54 am

It certainly seems that the 787-9 will be a better A330-300 replacement for AA, even if it does represent a large increase in capability it also increases flexibility whilst providing fleet simplicity and product consistency.

The 777-200ERs, however, don't have a true replacement. The 787-10 has the capacity but not the range; that said, if AA typically use 777-200ERs on routes that don't need the full range of the 200ER then the 787-10 may be a perfectly reasonable replacement for the AA network.

Airbus still have a shot, I think, with A350-1000s as ultimate replacements for the 777-300ERs. Also AA have a large number of A321neos on order; I wouldn't be surprised if some of those were A321neoLRs and were used as 757 replacements.

strfyr51 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:04 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
Why would they order the A330NEO when they already have the 787 in their fleet?

Because American went boeing BEFORE Parker took over as CEO

NeBaNi · Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:17 am

incitatus wrote:
keesje wrote:
.
I think Airbus is really after replacement of the 45 777-200ER's delivered between 1999 and 2003.

By A350s, like many other airlines.
(...)
For the 777-200ER replacement, the 787-9 would be a step back in payload-range and capacity. The 787-10 lags the payload-range.

The 777-300ER's are still young, but Airbus would love to provide A350-1000s for that role later on.

Good luck to Airbus on the idea that the A350, as a new type, is a good replacement to AA's 772s. For all of 2018, the longest sector AA plans to fly the 772 is DFW-NRT. In fact, that is the only current Asian route for the 772. Something like 80% of current 772 missions for AA can be flown by A330-300s. So the step back in payload-range in this case for the 787-9 is in practice meaningless. This really points to the 772 not being replaced based on similar capability.

I'm not sure Airbus (or Boeing or any other OEM) can afford to be picky about what replacements they are really after. I would have thought Airbus would have wanted the 767 replacement, the A350 replacement (this order), and the 777 replacement order, and would have cobbled together a deal that would favor them in the future when the 777 replacement RFP finally comes out, instead of resting on their laurels, as keesje seems to imply, and only really competing for the 777 replacement order.

bigjku · Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:24 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
It certainly appears that on this occasion the Airbus jets simply didn't fit into American's vision. Even as an Airbus fan I can see that the 787 makes more sense in this situation.

However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

No. With the flexibility of the CSeries in their portfolio, they’ll be able to upgauge when they replace the A32X family, filling the low end of that hole. The new Airbus narrowbody coupled with the CSeries, A350 and A380 really cover all the bases, and with just one clean sheet.

I think the C-series doesn’t be ever go very far with them. Splitting the narrowbody baby has more peoblems than people recognize. I think Boeing would be thrilled if Airbus built their new narrowbody well up the scale to compete with with MOM/787. Airbus isn’t that dumb.

Stitch · Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:40 am

keesje wrote:
For the 777-200ER replacement, the 787-9 would be a step back in payload-range and capacity.

Not really. The 787-9 and 777-200ER have identical cabin lengths and AA only recently went 3+4+3 in Economy on their 777s to reduce the CASM of the type. The 787 already offers significantly better CASM at 3+3+3 than the 777-200ER does at 3+4+3, much less at 3+3+3. AA is also 1+2+1 in Business Class so the A350 offers no advantage in seating per row over the 787.

JAAlbert · Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:40 am

Interesting that AA is turning away from Airbus for its widebody needs considering Mr. Parker's team ordered all those 330s and 350s when he ran USAir. I thought I read a few posts on a.net several years back stating that we should expect AA to pivot towards Airbus after the merger because of Mr. Parker's position in the newly merged company. It seems that is not the case and that pricing wins the day (which is logical from AA's perspective).

It is a shame we won't likely see the 350 in AA livery - I've yet to fly in one, but the 350 looks like a comfortable plane from a passenger perspective.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:05 am

bigjku wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
It certainly appears that on this occasion the Airbus jets simply didn't fit into American's vision. Even as an Airbus fan I can see that the 787 makes more sense in this situation.

However does anybody think that Airbus should now begin to look into producing an A360, a clean sheet A330 replacement which would be a decade more modern than the 787? In 7 or 8 years time lots of A330's will be coming up for replacement. Even a few early build 787's probably will then.

No. With the flexibility of the CSeries in their portfolio, they’ll be able to upgauge when they replace the A32X family, filling the low end of that hole. The new Airbus narrowbody coupled with the CSeries, A350 and A380 really cover all the bases, and with just one clean sheet.

I think the C-series doesn’t be ever go very far with them. Splitting the narrowbody baby has more peoblems than people recognize. I think Boeing would be thrilled if Airbus built their new narrowbody well up the scale to compete with with MOM/787. Airbus isn’t that dumb.

So you think:

CS100
CS300
CS500
A320.5X
A321X
A322X
[A323X or A330neo]
A350-900
A350-1000
[A350-1100]
A380

Is dumb? We don’t even know what they might have for wings/mtow. However, in that entire lineup there is exactly ONE clean sheet program. You don’t find that even a little bit compelling?

bigjku · Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:50 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
bigjku wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

No. With the flexibility of the CSeries in their portfolio, they’ll be able to upgauge when they replace the A32X family, filling the low end of that hole. The new Airbus narrowbody coupled with the CSeries, A350 and A380 really cover all the bases, and with just one clean sheet.

I think the C-series doesn’t be ever go very far with them. Splitting the narrowbody baby has more peoblems than people recognize. I think Boeing would be thrilled if Airbus built their new narrowbody well up the scale to compete with with MOM/787. Airbus isn’t that dumb.

So you think:

CS100
CS300
CS500
A320.5X
A321X
A322X
[A323X or A330neo]
A350-900
A350-1000
[A350-1100]
A380

Is dumb? We don’t even know what they might have for wings/mtow. However, in that entire lineup there is exactly ONE clean sheet program. You don’t find that even a little bit compelling?

I am not sure that trying to run two narrowbody programs at once makes sense and I also don’t think the C-series did things quite right to begin with. To run two narrowbody lines at roughly a similar rate to what you do now you need to find a bunch more orders and I don’t see them sitting out there right now. You would get to pay the spin up cost of moving the C-series line production up as well.

Scale drives price and having two distinct products cuts down your scale. Narrowbody aircraft are mostly a commodity so it isn’t what I would do.

I think there is tremendous risk moving ones narrowbody lineup any further up the range scale. If the CS was a legit six wide aircraft and was efficient to produce then that idea might make sense. But so far it isn’t cheap to produce and won’t be cheap to get to that point. And it isn’t six wide for any mainline carrier.

We will see, that may be the way forward. But I don’t see any of the 737/A320neo/C-series being airframes that carry whatever the next generation of narrowbody engines are around in ten or so years.

ElroyJetson · Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:33 am

Bottom line the 789 is a better and more versatile aircraft than the 339. If Boeing can price the 789 more aggressively than Airbus can price the 339 to me this seems like a no-brainer for AA.

Also, AA has far fewer ULH flights than the other major US carriers. I can think of DFW-HKG.....DFW-NRT....and DFW-PVG. That's about it. Now the 359 would be a great plane for those three routes, but do you buy a new type for three routes?

The 78J would an ideal 77E replacement on many AA South American and European routes and the few truly ULH routes can be covered by the 789. If you need more seats increase frequency.

I think the a.net myth that Airbus can significantly undersell the 787 is officially dead. As a result the A330 Neo program is potentially in real trouble, and Boeing deserves major credit for aggressively containing production costs on the 787.

Strato2 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:53 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

It means “sour grapes”.

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

As I said - sour grapes.

Read the Leeham story which basically confirmes that Boeing is giving them away.

Strato2 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:00 am

Stitch wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
The last two paragraphs of the article imply that the -800neo is still in the running as 767 replacements, however unlikely that may be.

Very unlikely, I imagine. Especially if NMA is also in play.

Deeso wrote:
In this case the price has to be low enough to compensate the cancellation fees if the A350 is being displaced too as it's being suggested.

This assumes there are cancellation fees. US Air ordered the original A350 so the contract would have been renegotiated when they were switched to the A350XWB. AA also went through Chapter 11 reorganization and they would have certainly re-drawn the A350XWB sales contracts as part of that, as well. So chances are probably better that AA will not have any fees than they will.

Chapter 11 does not free AA from their obligations towards Airbus. Sounds more like wishful thinking.

Stitch · Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:20 am

Strato2 wrote:
Chapter 11 does not free AA from their obligations towards Airbus. Sounds more like wishful thinking.

It's why AA entered Chapter 11 reorganization in the first place - to renegotiate and abrogate contracts that were no longer sustainable. Also, considering how many airlines today are cancelling and/or deferring orders with both OEMs, the idea that there are onerous cancellation charges as standard on contracts now is probably the wishful thinking. Both OEMs are fighting for sales and the customer has more power than ever because of the strength of the OEM duopoly across the range.

But for the sake of argument I looked at the original A350 purchase contract between Airbus and US and it notes that US had the right to modify or cancel without penalty provided they did so within a specific timeframe applicable to long-lead time, normal lead-time and buyer furnished equipment (the specific time was redacted). If US cancelled during those specified timeframes, they were responsible for any direct costs Airbus incurred in cancelling those contracts with the suppliers. I highly doubt American asked for worse terms when they took over the contract, so...

ElroyJetson · Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:31 am

Strato2 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
WIederling wrote:

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

As I said - sour grapes.

Read the Leeham story which basically confirmes that Boeing is giving them away.

More sour grapes. Lightsaber among others have reported in great detail regarding Boeing's cost containment efforts on the 787 program and their profits generated per sale. Boeing is by no means "giving them away."

They are making a healthy profit and Airbus is obviously not able to under cut on price with the A339 which was one of the original rationales for program in the first place.

Look, sometimes you just have to tip your cap to an opponent and admit you got beaten. Right now Boeing is kicking the crap out of the A330 Neo Program. Maybe as the A330 Neo Program matures Airbus can reign in production costs as Boeing has with the 787. But clearly as of now Boeing is beating Airbus to the punch.

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:59 am

Samrnpage wrote:
I am a geek - but I have no idea what you just said.

Either way I am disappointed, not sure the A330NEO is working for airbus at the moment.

Really you don't thing some Posturing and Negotiations are in the process???. You don't think the airlines and manufacturing use the media for these purposes? The scales might have tilted but id not sing this song until its announced.

LAX772LR · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:20 am

ap305 wrote:
All that the -800 needed was a modified wing which would have cost a lot less than the a330neo...

Based on what?

Modifications to even an existing wing can exceed a billion bucks.
It's almost always THE single most expensive aspect of an update or redesign, which is why it's so (comparatively) rarely done.

....how much did Airbus spend on the A330NEO?

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:23 am

TheRedBaron wrote:
I wonder how low is Boeing going on the 789 pricing, sure its nice to sell a lot of product, but if it only means cash flow and almost or no real profit, you are working for free, and giving away money. Airbus has done this in the past with the 346 fiasco and some other aircraft that were sold for a song, it seems to me that this time they will not go lower than XXX price, and they prefer to lose the sale than to get into a bloodbath.
I really hope Boeing has made the cost of manufacturing the 787 so cheap that they can underprice airbus and keep a healthy margin..they need a lot of cash to pay all the development of the aircraft ...

Regards

TRB

You know that AA has Options on 57 787- so there pricing I'm sure has some clause from the original order has far has Pricing discounts and adjustments.. Just assuming Boeing is dumping the price on the 787's to kill the A330 at AA with Boeing fire sales is not really likely in my opinion.

seabosdca · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:27 am

Have to say I'm surprised by this -- not so much about the A330neo, which always seemed like a puzzling fit for AA, but about the A350. I would have thought the A350 would have been the perfect replacement for at least part of the 77E fleet, with the 787-9 being just a bit small and the 787-10 just a bit range challenged. But it definitely seems they're bullish on the 787.

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:41 am

Deeso wrote:
TheRedBaron wrote:
I wonder how low is Boeing going on the 789 pricing, sure its nice to sell a lot of product, but if it only means cash flow and almost or no real profit, you are working for free, and giving away money. Airbus has done this in the past with the 346 fiasco and some other aircraft that were sold for a song, it seems to me that this time they will not go lower than XXX price, and they prefer to lose the sale than to get into a bloodbath.
I really hope Boeing has made the cost of manufacturing the 787 so cheap that they can underprice airbus and keep a healthy margin..they need a lot of cash to pay all the development of the aircraft ...

Regards

TRB

In this case the price has to be low enough to compensate the cancellation fees if the A350 is being displaced too as it's being suggested.

Do we know there are fee's? This was originally for the first A350 MK1? so maybe there are no cancellation fee's and just had some really good pricing so the order stayed around. Is it know? that there are fee's or assumed?

jeffrey0032j · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:47 am

WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

What does that even mean?

It means “sour grapes”.

It means that Boeing has sacrificed lots of revenue in trying to kill the A330NEO.
Will be interesting to see how often they are willing to do that.

So, in the same vein, Airbus has sacrificed a lot of revenue when they did their massive (and cheap) A330ceo sales campaign against the 787 when the 787 had its troubles?

Heck, I would even say it had cost Airbus a lot of missed opportunities for the A330neo by delaying its conceptualisation, development and introduction.

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:48 am

lightsaber wrote:
TheRedBaron wrote:
I wonder how low is Boeing going on the 789 pricing, sure its nice to sell a lot of product, but if it only means cash flow and almost or no real profit, you are working for free, and giving away money. Airbus has done this in the past with the 346 fiasco and some other aircraft that were sold for a song, it seems to me that this time they will not go lower than XXX price, and they prefer to lose the sale than to get into a bloodbath.
I really hope Boeing has made the cost of manufacturing the 787 so cheap that they can underprice airbus and keep a healthy margin..they need a lot of cash to pay all the development of the aircraft ...

Regards

TRB

All indications are that Boeing, thanks to an ongoing multi-year cost reduction program, is able to profitably sell 789s at much lower prices than Airbus anticipated.

Boeing was talking about the effort, including getting the 787-10 cost down to 789 levels:

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN18Z131

3D printing cutting $3 million per plane.

Lightsaber

You im sure will know has well has anyone one this board, Aren't the discounts on this deal pretty much set from the Options that were taken at time of original order? I understand Boeing could at anytime offer a new lower price. A lot of comments towards Boeing about the aggressive discounts given, and that may be true but I'sn't this a deal (discounts) that could come from the options picked contract?

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:52 am

Stitch wrote:

Deeso wrote:
In this case the price has to be low enough to compensate the cancellation fees if the A350 is being displaced too as it's being suggested.

This assumes there are cancellation fees. US Air ordered the original A350 so the contract would have been renegotiated when they were switched to the A350XWB. AA also went through Chapter 11 reorganization and they would have certainly re-drawn the A350XWB sales contracts as part of that, as well. So chances are probably better that AA will not have any fees than they will.

Thank you Stitch you answered one of my questions and thoughts.

grbauc · Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:29 am

JAAlbert wrote:
Interesting that AA is turning away from Airbus for its widebody needs considering Mr. Parker's team ordered all those 330s and 350s when he ran USAir. I thought I read a few posts on a.net several years back stating that we should expect AA to pivot towards Airbus after the merger because of Mr. Parker's position in the newly merged company. It seems that is not the case and that pricing wins the day (which is logical from AA's perspective).

It is a shame we won't likely see the 350 in AA livery - I've yet to fly in one, but the 350 looks like a comfortable plane from a passenger perspective.

Yea A-net likes to simplifies things. A-net a lot of time is like looking at stuff through a straw. Airbus And the offers worked well for the USAirways airline but the new AA I guess Boeing looks better. On the internet things get simplified to often. The real world is not run or doesn't work that way.

ap305 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:34 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
All that the -800 needed was a modified wing which would have cost a lot less than the a330neo...

Based on what?

Modifications to even an existing wing can exceed a billion bucks.
It's almost always THE single most expensive aspect of an update or redesign, which is why it's so (comparatively) rarely done.

....how much did Airbus spend on the A330NEO?

$ 2 billion.... The new pylon engine and the wing changes on the neo don't come cheap either....

fsabo · Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:37 am

seabosdca wrote:
Have to say I'm surprised by this -- not so much about the A330neo, which always seemed like a puzzling fit for AA, but about the A350. I would have thought the A350 would have been the perfect replacement for at least part of the 77E fleet, with the 787-9 being just a bit small and the 787-10 just a bit range challenged. But it definitely seems they're bullish on the 787.

I think the 787's advantage in the USA and Europe is that 9 across in a 787 is acceptable. In other places where a 9 across A330 is tolerated, the situation is flipped. The optimum fuse width is a function of the state of the race to the bottom.

LAX772LR · Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:41 am

ap305 wrote:
$ 2 billion....

source?

ap305 · Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:50 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
$ 2 billion....

source?

All I can find now is something from Airways mag... The industry publication articles which came out at that time don't seem available right now.

Edit: http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-sees ... 1401630706

pabloeing · Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:13 am

¿AA B787-10 order?

mjoelnir · Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:27 am

Is Bloomberg running interference for Boeing in the war against the A330neo? There is also the not completely correct article about the T7000 having the same issues as the T1000.

FrenchPotatoEye · Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:35 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Is Bloomberg running interference for Boeing in the war against the A330neo? There is also the not completely correct article about the T7000 having the same issues as the T1000.

More the case that Rolls is doing a great job of screwing up engines like P+W!

That has nothing to do with Boeing - they aren't responsible for the engine calamities or the news reporting.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net