R K Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a8X3LmBALI8w June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. lost half of a 30-plane order for its 787 Dreamliner from Qantas Airways Ltd., formerly the model’s biggest airline customer, amid slumping demand for international travel. The carrier canceled 15 787-9 aircraft scheduled for delivery by 2015 and will delay taking another 15 787-8s by four years, Sydney-based Qantas said in a statement today. The changes weren’t influenced by Boeing’s announcement this week of a design issue with the planes, the airline said. The cancellation, valued at as much as $3.1 billion based on Boeing’s current list prices, follows the fifth delay of the 787, already two years behind schedule. Boeing has lost orders for 58 Dreamliners this year as carriers struggle with record declines in passenger traffic and the International Air Transport Association forecasts industry losses worldwide may total $9 billion in 2009. “Boeing is really facing a crisis that they will ultimately surmount, but they need to be very careful of a perceived loss of confidence,†said Michel Merluzeau, an aviation analyst at G2 Solutions in Kirkland, Washington. “The cancellation is a serious worry to the 787 program. I suspect this won’t be the last.†continues..... Given the lead times it appears Qantas either don't have great confidence in the market from 2015 onwards, or there must be a serious issue over financing. Still - Vive Le Recovereh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dreamliner is that a doublespeak name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 How do I invest in Zeppelin and R101 shares? Hybrid Airships only way to get about once the rigs run dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dreamliner is that a doublespeak name? Too easy, but 'Flatliner' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I like the idea of fleets of second hand airliners, all with dents and hub caps missing, being the future of airline travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinceBalls Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a8X3LmBALI8wGiven the lead times it appears Qantas either don't have great confidence in the market from 2015 onwards, or there must be a serious issue over financing. Still - Vive Le Recovereh! Isn't this a similar sentiment to Corus yesterday? They suggested things might take a decade to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy1967 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a8X3LmBALI8wGiven the lead times it appears Qantas either don't have great confidence in the market from 2015 onwards, or there must be a serious issue over financing. Still - Vive Le Recovereh! considering the spigbots of NON OPEC countiries will be running on empty by around 2012 with not even enough oil to meet domestic demand i also would be dumping the dreamliner orders. When will we here the truth about our energy crisis, our global energy crisis and why is it always dressed up in the global warming glove? Not many people take the global warming issue seriously but i bet they would sit up and listen if they were told that we have less than 10 years worth of cheap easily available oil left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAC67 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a8X3LmBALI8wGiven the lead times it appears Qantas either don't have great confidence in the market from 2015 onwards, or there must be a serious issue over financing. Still - Vive Le Recovereh! Airlines are basing there current business plans on an economy that recovers in 2017. They didn't pluck this figure out of the air. This is after discussing it with each other and the world's top companies who are their biggest customers. Business understands the reality of the situation we are in, they just aren't going to broadcast it for fear of "talking down" the market even further. No recovery is in sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Isn't this a similar sentiment to Corus yesterday? They suggested things might take a decade to improve. I suspect for Corus it will never improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckmojo Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Could as well be that in this case they have no confidence in a plane which can't fly. Don't blame them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAC67 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Qantas has no money to buy anything, they are broke................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Qantas has no money to buy anything, they are broke................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 How do I invest in Zeppelin and R101 shares? Hybrid Airships only way to get about once the rigs run dry. Zeppelin is still in business: presumably you buy shares on the Frankfurt stock exchange. As for the R101, if you were around in 1928-30, you would have owned shares in it whether you wanted them or not. It was designed, built, paid for and then incinerated by the taxpayer. One satisfying aspect to the whole business was that the socialist firebrand aviation minister whose brainchild the flying deathtrap was ended up being incinerated in it, too; unlike his Labour contemporaries, who'll swan off into the sunset with a nice fat pension. Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule is a fascinating and horrifying account of how governments running high-tech industry is a seriously bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Zeppelin is still in business: presumably you buy shares on the Frankfurt stock exchange.As for the R101, if you were around in 1928-30, you would have owned shares in it whether you wanted them or not. It was designed, built, paid for and then incinerated by the taxpayer. One satisfying aspect to the whole business was that the socialist firebrand aviation minister whose brainchild the flying deathtrap was ended up being incinerated in it, too; unlike his Labour contemporaries, who'll swan off into the sunset with a nice fat pension. Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule is a fascinating and horrifying account of how governments running high-tech industry is a seriously bad idea. The Vickers built R100 was almost a success in that it didn't incinerate anyone and was retired to a shed in 1930! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Airlines are basing there current business plans on an economy that recovers in 2017. They didn't pluck this figure out of the air. This is after discussing it with each other and the world's top companies who are their biggest customers. Business understands the reality of the situation we are in, they just aren't going to broadcast it for fear of "talking down" the market even further. No recovery is in sight. Especially in the seats at the front. tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity always wins Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I like the idea of fleets of second hand airliners, all with dents and hub caps missing, being the future of airline travel. I'm sure a trade off between elf and safety will have to be made eventually just to keep the whole aviation ponzi scheme going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) From my understanding Qantas is doing at lot of downsizing / cost cutting? Wouldn't be suprised to hear theyve bust in 10 years. Edited June 27, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Obviously the promised fuel savings will actually be negligible compared to existing designs now Boeing is having to reinforce the composites all over the airframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Obviously the promised fuel savings will actually be negligible compared to existing designs now Boeing is having to reinforce the composites all over the airframe. Did you just make this up? According to the investor webcast Boeing haven't even decided which of several possible modifications they will do so how could you possibly know if it will affect fuel economy to the extent that a 787 isn't as fuel efficient? Edited June 27, 2009 by jackalope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) I like the idea of fleets of second hand airliners, all with dents and hub caps missing, being the future of airline travel. There are loads of airliners out there, such as early 747's, flying on early 70's computer chips - same as NASA sent men to moon with! ie PRE 8/16bit <=5mhz 8086 Pentium 1's Edited June 27, 2009 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Did you just make this up? According to the investor webcast Boeing haven't even decided which of several possible modifications they will do so how could you possibly know if it will affect fuel economy to the extent that a 787 isn't as fuel efficient? They have well documented weight issues, it's not exactly a secret, they keep changing the specs for the plane, weights have gone up and ranges have come down. They promised 20% fuel savings too, the promised spec was a contractual obligation, that's why airlines are canceling or delaying, nobody wants to take the initial batch of planes that fail to meet the specs. If Boeing eventually come up with the goods and deliver I'm they'll pick up these orders again, but airlines want operational proof, not a wild punt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 They have well documented weight issues, it's not exactly a secret, they keep changing the specs for the plane, weights have gone up and ranges have come down. They promised 20% fuel savings too, the promised spec was a contractual obligation, that's why airlines are canceling or delaying, nobody wants to take the initial batch of planes that fail to meet the specs. If Boeing eventually come up with the goods and deliver I'm they'll pick up these orders again, but airlines want operational proof, not a wild punt. That's just load of vague bolloÑks. This is what you actually said: Obviously the promised fuel savings will actually be negligible compared to existing designs now Boeing is having to reinforce the composites all over the airframe. First, the reinforcements are not "all over the airframe" they are specifically at the junction of Section 12 (wing box made by Mitsubishi) and sections 45 and 11 (centre box made by Fuji and Kawasaki). Second, Boeing have not identified which of several options they will use. So nobody, particularly someone like you who doesn't seem to know anything about it, can say what impact, if any, it will have on fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Surely Quantas have woken up to the fact that long-haul players need 4 engine aircraft and not 2 engines? For someone like Quantas, whose planes have to cover oceans, it would be preferable for them to have 4 engined aircraft. In fact, given the size of Oz and the dearth of landing places between the main cities it makes sense for them to have 4 engine aircraft for internal flights let alone external ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Surely Quantas have woken up to the fact that long-haul players need 4 engine aircraft and not 2 engines?For someone like Quantas, whose planes have to cover oceans, it would be preferable for them to have 4 engined aircraft. In fact, given the size of Oz and the dearth of landing places between the main cities it makes sense for them to have 4 engine aircraft for internal flights let alone external ones. The technology and procedures for flying two engined aircraft over long over water sectors is now well established. Modern engines are now so reliable that for many sectors 2 engines is a better choice. The 777-300ER burns 20% less fuel at the same payload/range as a 747-400 and has much cheaper maintenance and engineering costs. The longest range airliner in the world - 777-200LR - is two engined and it's been flown HKG-LHR the long way round non-stop over the Pacific AND Atlantic - 22,000km. Edited June 27, 2009 by jackalope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Second, Boeing have not identified which of several options they will use. So nobody, particularly someone like you who doesn't seem to know anything about it, can say what impact, if any, it will have on fuel economy. Right, so the fact it's 2 years behind schedule, overweight from day one, additionally being strengthened/bulked up and also having orders dropped is a load of b0llocks too. How many times have Boeing changed the specs, and not in a good way? Why does nobody want the initial batches, given they've promised they'll get things right after the first couple of dozen? Edited June 27, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.