Discussion:
Heads up: Qantas and Singapore upcoming orders
(too old to reply)
JF Mezei
2005-12-05 06:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Qantas is espected this wednesday to announce a large order for midsize
aircraft (777 and/or 787 and/or 350). Somewhere in the 15 to 20 billion
dollar range. Size of order depends on whether Qantas decides to expand
its low cost Jetstar service to international routes.

Similarly, Singapore is also shopping for aircraft in the 350/787/777
classes. The articles I have read say that in the case of Qantas, Boeing
and Airbus have been bending over backwards to try to get that order.


So, either Airbus and/or Boeing might get good christmas gifts. I don't
think Boeing would be too hurt by the loss of either of those contracts.
But if Airbus doesn't win one of the two, it would be quite a blow to
the image of the A350.


I wonder how Boeing's 2 product offering (777 and 787) plays compared to
Airbus's single 350 offering (is the 340-600 still competitive ?)

I wonder how Boeing's 2 distinct product offering (777 and 787) play
compared to Airbus single product (350). Does fleet simplification
favour the 350, or does the 777 truly provide greater scalability that
is well worth having an additional aircraft/engine type ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2005-12-08 01:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Qantas delays decision on fleet renewal
Wed Dec 7, 2005 06:01 PM ET

SYDNEY, Dec 8 (Reuters) - Qantas Airways Ltd., the world's
eighth-biggest airline by market value, said it has delayed a decision
on a long-awaited fleet renewal plan, but has approved an international
expansion for its discount Jetstar brand.

Qantas said on Thursday its board would hold a special meeting on
December 14, where it was expected to approve major aircraft purchases,
which it has previously said could cost up to A$20 billion ($15 billion).
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-12-10 18:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
I wonder how Boeing's 2 product offering (777 and 787) plays compared to
Airbus's single 350 offering (is the 340-600 still competitive ?)
The 777 is around in the same class as the 747 and the 380 (kinda
anyway).


As for which aircrafts that the airline companies are going to buy.

What ever the ones who owns the airline companies told them to buy.

Big airline companies buy airplanes are based more on politics than
economic and practical reasons.
Post by JF Mezei
I wonder how Boeing's 2 distinct product offering (777 and 787) play
compared to Airbus single product (350). Does fleet simplification
favour the 350, or does the 777 truly provide greater scalability that
is well worth having an additional aircraft/engine type ?
The 777 exist now, the 787 and the 350 are still in development.


As for fleet simplification.

It's usually just used as an excuse to disown one company over another,
done usually politically.

If simplification is what matter, what is the matter is the spare parts
that these aircrafts needs and how to operate them, and also the will
to maintain and operate them, that's even a DC-3 is still in operation
today.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2005-12-10 19:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
What ever the ones who owns the airline companies told them to buy.
Interesting comment. Air Canada was eventually rescued from bankrupcy by
Cerebrus Capital. The later owns an aircraft leasing firm who was
involved with the AC purchase of the 777 and 787s :-)
Post by d***@hotmail.com
The 777 exist now, the 787 and the 350 are still in development.
I assumed that the priority was to replace its fuel guzzling 767s. And
even for that, the 787/350 are bigger aircraft. The 777 is a mighty big
replacement for a 767.

One has to look at Qantas's route structure. I think that Qantas hasn't
yet bought into the 777, 10 years after its introduction is perhaps an
indication that its routes really neeed either a 747 (main trunk routes)
or a much smaller plane (long thin routes, developping markets etc).

If Qantas buys 787s, does it really need 777s ?

Does Qantas really have enough routes that are too big for a 787, but
not big enough for a 747/380 ? When you look at its asian destinations,
they seem to be to huge hubs (Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong) or
to smaller destinations such as Bali/Denpassar, Fiji etc. The chinese
market will probably start off on 787s/350s and quickly grow to 380s.
Won't be long that they'll have to redo the road signs on the Stuart
Highway to include Mandarin below Japanese and German (and english).


Question is whether they would need enough 777s to justify having that
new plane type in its fleet. If they need only 4 or 5 777s, it may not
be worth the costs of training, maintaining spares inventories etc etc.

If the 777 were key to Qantas, I don't think the board would have
delayed the decision. If it were key to Qantas, Airbus wouldn't still be
in the running and Boeing would have gotten the contract. So Boeing's
ability to offer the 777 might not be such a big issue.

And there are probably a LOT of issues around this. Consider trade-in
values for the new 330s Qantas is getting, consider which manufacturer
can offer the sweetest deal for the 767s etc etc etc. And consider the
penalties Airbus must pay because the 380 is late. Lots of room to
negotiate in there.

I think this will be a most interesting announcement.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2005-12-11 02:59:56 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Dec 2005 14:55:05 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
Post by d***@hotmail.com
What ever the ones who owns the airline companies told them to buy.
Interesting comment. Air Canada was eventually rescued from bankrupcy by
Cerebrus Capital. The later owns an aircraft leasing firm who was
involved with the AC purchase of the 777 and 787s :-)
Post by d***@hotmail.com
The 777 exist now, the 787 and the 350 are still in development.
The bind for both Boeing and Airbus is similiar to the Osborne
Computer Problem. Now that the 787 and A350 have been announced, when
they are going to delivered isn't all that relevant, because the
customer demand 787/A350 price performance today from A330 and 777.
When I was in the mainframe computer business, IBM could announce a
new model, and even if first customer delivery was a year off, the
price performance of IBM's new model was what we had to sell against
for delivery next week.

This is why you have to be very carefuly about announcing new models .
For Boeing the end of the 757 had already been announced, and the 767
is accepted to already have one foot in the grave. Ergo, there are no
757 and very few 767 potential sales to cannibalize, and by
positioning the 787 at below 777 capacity, hopefully it won't do much
damage to the 777 in the short term.

The A350 however is virtually identical in size to the A330, so a
direct competition has been created against an aircraft that still has
a viable market. What it really does is forces Airbus to discount the
A330/A340-500 to match the NPV operating costs on the A350 and 787.
Over the life of the aircraft, my thumbnails suggests a further 8
figure discount on the A330 will be required to do that.

The 787 puts some pricing pressure on the 777, but the 787 isn't
aimed directly at the 777 market place either, so it is more of
glancing blow.

I am not sure how it will all play out, but it is a given that the
A350 is going to damage Airbus cash flow in the short term by
shredding the A330 revenue needed to finish the A380 and run the A350
programs. How much damage it does to 777 revenue is more difficult to
estimate, however since there are no real 757/767 revenues to
cannibalize, it is likely to be worthwhile for Boeing.
Post by JF Mezei
I assumed that the priority was to replace its fuel guzzling 767s. And
even for that, the 787/350 are bigger aircraft. The 777 is a mighty big
replacement for a 767.
One has to look at Qantas's route structure. I think that Qantas hasn't
yet bought into the 777, 10 years after its introduction is perhaps an
indication that its routes really neeed either a 747 (main trunk routes)
or a much smaller plane (long thin routes, developping markets etc).
If Qantas buys 787s, does it really need 777s ?
Depends upon what the future of the airline is. You need A380's to
serve places like LAX, SYD,NRT, JFK, LHR where slots are at a
premium. QF has been forced to look beyond LAX, to SFO, they have
run into real capacity issues at LAX (most evening they have 5 747's
departing).

After that, unless there is a big difference in ASM costs (and all
indications are that the 777-300/300ER and the A380 will have
competitive ASM costs, if anything, in favor of the 777), you are
usually better off flying two instead of one. It makes service
recovery easier, and it also provides your customers with more
choices. The nightmare is when it all goes pear shaped, and at 2330
you suddently have to find 550 rooms for the night, or rebook 550
passengers....
Post by JF Mezei
Does Qantas really have enough routes that are too big for a 787, but
not big enough for a 747/380 ? When you look at its asian destinations,
they seem to be to huge hubs (Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong) or
to smaller destinations such as Bali/Denpassar, Fiji etc. The chinese
market will probably start off on 787s/350s and quickly grow to 380s.
Won't be long that they'll have to redo the road signs on the Stuart
Highway to include Mandarin below Japanese and German (and english).
Question is whether they would need enough 777s to justify having that
new plane type in its fleet. If they need only 4 or 5 777s, it may not
be worth the costs of training, maintaining spares inventories etc etc.
If the 777 were key to Qantas, I don't think the board would have
delayed the decision. If it were key to Qantas, Airbus wouldn't still be
in the running and Boeing would have gotten the contract. So Boeing's
ability to offer the 777 might not be such a big issue.
And there are probably a LOT of issues around this. Consider trade-in
values for the new 330s Qantas is getting, consider which manufacturer
can offer the sweetest deal for the 767s etc etc etc. And consider the
penalties Airbus must pay because the 380 is late. Lots of room to
negotiate in there.
I think this will be a most interesting announcement.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2005-12-11 07:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
This is why you have to be very carefuly about announcing new models .
For Boeing the end of the 757 had already been announced, and the 767
is accepted to already have one foot in the grave. Ergo, there are no
757 and very few 767 potential sales to cannibalize,
I disagree with this. The 330 had begun to cannabalise 767 sales because
the 767 was too old. The 737-900 started to cannabalise 757 sales,
especially when Boeing started to discuss a 737-900ER.

Boeing had no choice but to find a replacement for the 767. The
difference between 767 and 787 is dramatic. The difference between 330
and 350 isn't so great, but Airbus had to follow up to match the 787. I
think the only reason the 767 wasn't announced "dead" is because of the
unsettled issue of military refuelers.

The big difference between Airbus and Boeing is that the 777 remains a
viable aircraft, albeit with a smaller market since the lower end of it
will be eaten alive by the 787 and higher end by the 747. Airbus on the
other hand is stuck with the 4 engined 340s which, while providing early
competition, have become irrelevant now.

The 787 takes the 767 and some of the 777. The 350 will essentially take
the 330, 340-300, 340-500 and most of the 340-600.

So Boeing can count on some 747 freighter sales, as well as a healthy
order book for 777s to fund its 787. Airbus doesn't have such a big
order backlog of widebodies. On the other hand, perhaps once the 380
starts to deliver, Airbus may have generous cash flows.
Post by matt weber
a viable market. What it really does is forces Airbus to discount the
A330/A340-500 to match the NPV operating costs on the A350 and 787.
Yes, but that is because the 330 isn't *that* far off and is still
viable, and as long as it still has delivery slots before what is
available for 787/350, some people will want the 330. The 767 is really
old and fuel guzzler.
Post by matt weber
The 787 puts some pricing pressure on the 777, but the 787 isn't
aimed directly at the 777 market place either, so it is more of
glancing blow.
I am not so sure about that. If the 787's performance is really so far
ahead of existing technology, then it will eat into 777 sales. What has
really changed at Boeing is that they have become agressive again. So it
is very possible that Boeing is discounting the 777 significantly to
keep sales going. Airbus has all but given up on on the 340s, and is
offering the 330s to those who ask, but isn't pushing it much because
they are busy pushing he 350.

In fact, Boeing may be forced to push the 777s hard to keep this going
and generate the revenus needed to fund the 787.

What may happen next year is the 350 getting ahead of the 787 in terms
of sales, simply because Boeing is splitting the market between the 787
and 777 whereas Airbus is focusing all on the 350.
Post by matt weber
I am not sure how it will all play out, but it is a given that the
A350 is going to damage Airbus cash flow in the short term by
shredding the A330 revenue needed to finish the A380 and run the A350
Airbus still has more than a years's worth of deliveries of 330s and
340s, after which, it begins to get revenus from 380s. It may not be so
bleak.

What is interesting is that Airbus was forced to launch the A350 without
government aid, with just some vague promise for help "later on". This
implies that worse comes to worse, Airbus might be able to wing the 350
without any obvious government help. (surely, it will get local help
from Toulouse etc etc).
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2005-12-12 03:00:02 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Dec 2005 02:58:57 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
This is why you have to be very carefuly about announcing new models .
For Boeing the end of the 757 had already been announced, and the 767
is accepted to already have one foot in the grave. Ergo, there are no
757 and very few 767 potential sales to cannibalize,
I disagree with this. The 330 had begun to cannabalise 767 sales because
the 767 was too old. The 737-900 started to cannabalise 757 sales,
especially when Boeing started to discuss a 737-900ER.
The A330 is a much larger aircraft than the 767 and always has been

767-300ER EW, 202,000 pounds, MGTOW 412,000 pounds versus
A330-200 EW 265,000 pounds MGTOW 513,000 pounds.


The 737-900 has a much more basic origin. It was built to prevent AS
from buying A320 family. The -900 was to provide AS with something
close to A321 capacity. Since AS was a 2 class operator, the limits
on passenger load as a result of the number of exits was a non-issue.
It was long after the -900 was offered that Boeing realized that if
you could fill it with seats, it has attractive ASM costs, but because
of the number of exits, the -900 could not be deployed that way. The
-900ER is a -900 with more fuel carriage, and extra exits. It does not
have, and never will have the legs of a 757.

As for sales, prior to the -900ER, you could count the number of -900
operators and operators with orders on one hand.....
Post by JF Mezei
Boeing had no choice but to find a replacement for the 767. The
difference between 767 and 787 is dramatic. The difference between 330
and 350 isn't so great, but Airbus had to follow up to match the 787. I
think the only reason the 767 wasn't announced "dead" is because of the
unsettled issue of military refuelers.
The big difference between Airbus and Boeing is that the 777 remains a
viable aircraft, albeit with a smaller market since the lower end of it
will be eaten alive by the 787 and higher end by the 747. Airbus on the
other hand is stuck with the 4 engined 340s which, while providing early
competition, have become irrelevant now.
The 787 takes the 767 and some of the 777. The 350 will essentially take
the 330, 340-300, 340-500 and most of the 340-600.
So Boeing can count on some 747 freighter sales, as well as a healthy
order book for 777s to fund its 787. Airbus doesn't have such a big
order backlog of widebodies. On the other hand, perhaps once the 380
starts to deliver, Airbus may have generous cash flows.
Not likely. Consider the number of A380's on order, the average
price, and how much the program has cost.
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
a viable market. What it really does is forces Airbus to discount the
A330/A340-500 to match the NPV operating costs on the A350 and 787.
Yes, but that is because the 330 isn't *that* far off and is still
viable, and as long as it still has delivery slots before what is
available for 787/350, some people will want the 330. The 767 is really
old and fuel guzzler.
The A330 has never had very attractive fuel consumption numbers.
However when Fuel was only about 1 cent per ASM out of 11-13 cents, a
10% disadvantage in fuel burn just didn't make a lot of difference.
The bind is now that the price of Jet-A has gone up about 200%, that
one cent is now more like 3 cents, and that extra 10% is downright
painful.

Most of the 767's ASM fuel costs at this point are tied to how many
operator have chosen to operate them. Most A330's are operated in high
density configuration. Few 767's are. AA and BA both more seats 757's
then they put on 767's! The decsion to focus on a very luxurious
premium cabin with huge seat pitch rips a lot of seats out. I have yet
to see an A330 configured with 56 inch Business class seat pitch!
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
The 787 puts some pricing pressure on the 777, but the 787 isn't
aimed directly at the 777 market place either, so it is more of
glancing blow.
I am not so sure about that. If the 787's performance is really so far
ahead of existing technology, then it will eat into 777 sales.
It obviously hasn't so far. The other thing is that 777-300ER and
200LR enjoy the use of the most fuel efficient power plant in the
skies, bar none, and according to current information, it is actually
about 3.5% better than guarantees. Twin are always going to have
better economics than quads.

I am a firm believer that if Airbus really wants to make some money,
they are barking up the wrong trees. There is a pile of money to be
made in a true A300 sucessor. I've referred to such an aircraft as
the A370. Rip out about 150,000 pounds in EW (so it has fuel carriage
only for about 3000nm) reduce MGTOW to about 900,000 pounds, and power
it with a pair of uprated GE90's, say about 125,000 pounds each, and
deploy in places like SYD-MEL, SIN-NRT, LGA-ORD, and various other
high density routes in Europe and Asia.

The problem is there is no 'glamour' in such an aircraft....
Post by JF Mezei
What has
really changed at Boeing is that they have become agressive again. So it
is very possible that Boeing is discounting the 777 significantly to
keep sales going. Airbus has all but given up on on the 340s, and is
offering the 330s to those who ask, but isn't pushing it much because
they are busy pushing he 350.
In fact, Boeing may be forced to push the 777s hard to keep this going
and generate the revenus needed to fund the 787.
What may happen next year is the 350 getting ahead of the 787 in terms
of sales, simply because Boeing is splitting the market between the 787
and 777 whereas Airbus is focusing all on the 350.
Post by matt weber
I am not sure how it will all play out, but it is a given that the
A350 is going to damage Airbus cash flow in the short term by
shredding the A330 revenue needed to finish the A380 and run the A350
Airbus still has more than a years's worth of deliveries of 330s and
340s, after which, it begins to get revenus from 380s. It may not be so
bleak.
What is interesting is that Airbus was forced to launch the A350 without
government aid, with just some vague promise for help "later on". This
implies that worse comes to worse, Airbus might be able to wing the 350
without any obvious government help. (surely, it will get local help
from Toulouse etc etc).
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
John R. Levine
2005-12-12 04:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Most A330's are operated in high density configuration. Few 767's
are. AA and BA both more seats 757's then they put on 767's! The
decsion to focus on a very luxurious premium cabin with huge seat
pitch rips a lot of seats out. I have yet to see an A330 configured
with 56 inch Business class seat pitch!
Visit beautiful Philadelphia and take a ride on one of US Airways
A330s. The C seats are 60" pitch except for row 1 which was
originally F and has 94" pitch and lie-flat seats. The planes haven't
been upgraded in a while so they're not as plush as newer planes but
there's a lot of room. In the back, the pitch is 33 - 34", not bad
for coach. I've flown FRA-PHL in coach and it wasn't all that awful
even though I'm a rather big guy, but I sure like those row 1 seats.

US' other international plane, their 767, has 55" pitch in C and seats
an inch narrower than the A330 seats, 32" in coach, much more crowded
and less comfortable.

Other lines also have roomy A330 biz class. Qantas now has a
fantastic 78" pirch, 22" width. Air Canada's A330s have 60" pitch and
20" width. (I think I flew on one about 15 years ago.) Cathay
Pacific's new 333 C is 60" pitch, 20" width. KLM's new A330s are 60"
pitch, 20.25" width. LH A330's that have an F section have 60"/20"
width in C. NW is now 60"/20.25",

There are certainly plenty of 330s with 50" or 48" biz class seats,
but they seem to be a shrinking minority now.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Heads up: Qantas and Singapore upcoming orders' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
119
replies
Singapore swing
started 2005-11-18 15:56:25 UTC
aus.politics
120
replies
Singapore swing
started 2005-11-18 15:56:25 UTC
aus.legal
Loading...