Now A350's media says

[Elevation]

Article

 

[BoeingBoy]

The WSJE cited Gordon McConnell, chief engineer of the A350, as saying that the general configuration of the plane''s size and shape will be fixed in October 2008, prior to detailed drawings being developed.

Other potential customers for the A350 are waiting to have most details on the planned aircraft before placing orders, the WJSE said.

Not US - doesn't matter whether the end product fits the fleet plans as long as the price is right. What's that Piney says - something about knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.....

Jim

 

[Flying Titan]

Jim -
Gotta disagree w/ you on this one. Seems to me like the SandCastle is actually playing this one right. Work up a deal for half-priced A350s with cheap A330 leases for interim lift. If the A350 turns out to be as good or better than the 787, then US has gotten the deal of the century by getting new planes sooner than they could receive 787s (the interim A330s) -- and long-term planes far cheaper than they (or competing carriers) could hope for from Boeing.

If Airbus doesn't deliver a plane that's competitive or on time, then Airbus writes big checks to US. A bargaining position this strong doesn't come along that often; seems to me like it would be foolish to simply dismiss it.

 

[USA320Pilot]

What is interesting is that the AWA pilots cannot fly the new widebody aircraft per the Transition Agreement, unless there is agreement on the seniority list and a new CBA. The AWA pilots could fly two European flights per day in their current B757s, but many of these aircraft are being used for Hawaiian service.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

If the A350 turns out to be as good or better than the 787

That's a big "if" when the plane hasn't even been designed yet.

If Airbus doesn't deliver a plane that's competitive or on time, then Airbus writes big checks to US.

The article (or anything of the other's I've seen) didn't say a word about penalties for it not being competitive - just delayed.

A cheap airplane that doesn't fit the needs of the airline, whether due to size or efficiency, might not be the best deal even if it is cheaper to acquire. Acquisition is a one time cost, though that cost may be spread out over years by way of lease or EETC payments. Less efficiency or excess size is a cost that's incurred every flight of every day that planes flies for 15-20 years or more. Pay less for something you don't need and you still waste your money. Could make paying more for what you really need seem like a bargain.

Of course, the redesigned A350 may end up being exactly what US needs and if they can get it cheaper that great. But apparently it'll be up late next year before US knows for sure whether the A350 is going to be what US needs. To buy a pig in a poke on the hope it'll turn out to be a goose that lays golden eggs is still buying a pig in a poke.

Jim

 

[FutureUScapt]

I guess I didn't realize how large the A350 will be. The smallest version (-800) will have a seating capacity that is equivalent to the A330-300s. I know that the 762s, and eventually the 333s (I'm guessing), will be phased out but that will leave a huge gap in the 200-250 seat range, which is exactly what US needs for most of its European routes. It seems that the 787-8 along with a handful of 787-9s is more within the range of what US needs. Not to mention how much more attractive of a merger partner we'd be with the 787s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The AWA pilots could fly two European flights per day in their current B757s, but many of these aircraft are being used for Hawaiian service.

Better read that transition agreement again, Bucko. This time, try reading it not as you would like it to be but as Jerry Glass could interpret it......

Jim

 

[Flying Titan]

The article (or anything of the other's I've seen) didn't say a word about penalties for it not being competitive - just delayed.

From the WSJ article...

US Airways has asked Airbus officials to come back with a proposal that would include financial penalties if it fails to deliver. John Leahy, Airbus's chief operating officer for customers, said in an interview that "US Airways would of course have penalty payments" if the plane is late or fails to perform as advertised.

 

[FWAAA]

Jim -
Gotta disagree w/ you on this one. Seems to me like the SandCastle is actually playing this one right. Work up a deal for half-priced A350s with cheap A330 leases for interim lift. If the A350 turns out to be as good or better than the 787, then US has gotten the deal of the century by getting new planes sooner than they could receive 787s (the interim A330s) -- and long-term planes far cheaper than they (or competing carriers) could hope for from Boeing.

If Airbus doesn't deliver a plane that's competitive or on time, then Airbus writes big checks to US. A bargaining position this strong doesn't come along that often; seems to me like it would be foolish to simply dismiss it.

You may be right, but I gotta disagree with you. A couple weeks ago, a British news article said that Airbus had discounted the A350 a greater percentage than Boeing was willing to go on the 787 yet the larger Airbus discount merely matched the 787's discounted price, since the A350's list price was so much greater than the 787 list price.

Is Airbus actually willing to discount the A350 even further (like 65% or 75% off list) to seal the deal? I guess if the A350 is free, you could forgive its (likely) faults (say, less range or fuel economy than promised).

So I don't see the "far cheaper" A350; I just see a more expensive list price A350 discounted 50-some percent so that it matches the 35-some odd percent Boeing discounted 787. At best, I see a "same price" A350 that you have to wait an extra 5 years (realistically, let's make that 7-10 years) to obtain.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Oops - my mistake. I interpreted this sentence:

"US Airways has asked Airbus officials to come back with a proposal that would include financial penalties if it fails to deliver."

as meaning that US was only wanting delivery delay penalty clauses although Airbus would agree to performance penalty payments if asked. Reading it again, "deliver" could definitely include Airbus delivering on their performance claims.

I take back half of what I said.....

Jim

 

[safety stud]

My bet is we see A340's before we see anything new from Airbus or Boeing...

Just my opinion...

 

[Elevation]

787 is probably the best bet, these will be flying all over the world with many airlines and parts/techs available to service these planes. A350 is a 777 replacement(i.e. too big) and will be all alone (i.e. no parts stores at other airlines) at most airports unless they get there sales to jump dramatically. Also Airbus will discount the crap out of the A350 to move it, but hey will make it up in parts or service probably.

 

[delta777]

That's too bad for LCC. For a moment i actually believed Parker had come to some sort of lucidity and would choose the 787. I think LCC can forget about going to China and Japan any time soon. They still haven't worked out a deal for the A340 in the interim, should they be awarded the China route. Piney couldn't have been more right with his comments about LCC knowing the price of everything yet the value of nothing. 🙁

 

[Elevation]

That's too bad for LCC. For a moment i actually believed Parker had come to some sort of lucidity and would choose the 787. I think LCC can forget about going to China and Japan any time soon. They still haven't worked out a deal for the A340 in the interim, should they be awarded the China route. Piney couldn't have been more right with his comments about LCC knowing the price of everything yet the value of nothing. 🙁

No decision has been made yet Nostradamus.

 

[delta777]

No decision has been made yet Nostradamus.

Unfortunately for LCC, i think the decision was made when Doogie was named CEO. He who's cheapest, wins!!!