Dreamliners rolling off production line at steady rate this year

Page 1 of 41234>
December 23rd, 2014 at 12:53:38 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Boeing seems to have fixed it's problem with the Dreamliners with 109 being delivered this year (115 in the previous 2.25 years).

Latin America
Aeromexico took possession of 5 leased ones last fall and winter, and was just delivered it's 6th one (owned, not leased) last week. They are scheduled for another 7 (but some of the leases may end) and Mexico's Presidential plane will be refurbished Dreamliner from the first 6 test production test run. LAN airlines in Chile has 10 so far and has ordered an additional 16.

USA
United Airlines has 14 so far, and American is expected to get their first in January.

Africa
Kenyan and Ethiopian airlines in Africa are buying full fleets.

Asia
The bulk of them are being sold in Asia.
Azerbaijan just received two jets for Christmas, being the first CIS country to receive a Dreamliner. Aeroflot has 22 on order.


Orders are in place to produce 120 jets a year for the next 7 years. Right now it may surpass the 1500-1600 B747's produced.

The first Airbus 350 was just delivered last week to Qatar airlines, who is already the second largest holder of Dreamliners (at 18). The Airbus 350 is the big to unseat the Dreamliner (and versions of it to compete with the 777). Who knows if the A380 will have life beyond the next five or six years.
April 19th, 2015 at 7:58:09 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Very slowly Dreamliner routes are developing. We have 20 out of JFK and LAX, 12 out of Florida and 18 for the rest of the country. Aeromexico is flying them regularly (sometimes to JFK and LAX)

American is going to start Dreamliner flights in June to Buenos Aires and Beijing. United is beefing up Houston with Dreamliners. I don't think Delta is going to take delivery anytime soon.

I still think the most likely airline is Norwegian which is using them for cut rate flights to Europe.
They are used on rare occasions for domestic flights.

Plz post if you take a DREAMLINER!

--- JFK & LAX
JFK New York | Japan | NRT Tokyo
JFK New York | LAN | SCL Santiago
JFK New York | Maroc | CMN Casablanca
JFK New York | Jordanian | AMM Amman
JFK New York | Virgin | LHR London
JFK New York | Norwegian | CPH Copenhagen
JFK New York | Norwegian | LGW London
JFK New York | Norwegian | OSL Oslo
JFK New York | Norwegian | ARN Stockholm
JFK New York | Aeromexico | MEX Mexico
LAX Los Angeles | Aeromexico | MEX Mexico
LAX Los Angeles | Japan | KIX Osaka
LAX Los Angeles | LAN | LIM Lima
LAX Los Angeles | Norwegian | CPH Copenhagen
LAX Los Angeles | Norwegian | LGW London
LAX Los Angeles | Norwegian | OSL Oslo
LAX Los Angeles | Norwegian | ARN Stockholm
LAX Los Angeles | United | MEL Melbourne
LAX Los Angeles | United | PVG Shanghai
LAX Los Angeles | United | NRT Tokyo
---REST OF COUNTRY
IAH Houston | United | FRA Frankfurt
IAH Houston | United | LOS Lagos
IAH Houston | United | LHR London
IAH Houston | United | GRU Sao
OAK Oakland | Norwegian | OSL Oslo
OAK Oakland | Norwegian | ARN Stockholm
SFO San Francisco | United | CTU Chengdu
SFO San Francisco | United | KIX Osaka
--
AUS Austin | British | LHR London
BOS Boston | Virgin | LHR London
DEN Denver | United | NRT Tokyo
HNL Honolulu | Jetstar | SYD Sydney
IAD Washington | Etihad | AUH Abu
ORD Chicago | Jordanian | AMM Amman
PHL Philadelphia | British | LHR London
SAN San Diego | Japan | NRT Tokyo
SEA Seattle | Nippon | NRT Tokyo
SJC San Jose | Nippon | NRT Tokyo
--- FLORIDA
FLL Ft Lauderdale | Norwegian | CPH Copenhagen
FLL Ft Lauderdale | Norwegian | LGW London
FLL Ft Lauderdale | Norwegian | OSL Oslo
FLL Ft Lauderdale | Norwegian | ARN Stockholm
MIA Miami | Europa | MAD Madrid
MIA Miami | ArkeFly | AMS Amsterdam
MCO Orlando | Norwegian | CPH Copenhagen
MCO Orlando | Norwegian | LGW London
MCO Orlando | Norwegian | OSL Oslo
SFB Orlando | Thomson | LGW London
SFB Orlando | Thomson | MAN Manchester
SFB Orlando | Thomson | NCL Newcastle
April 29th, 2015 at 6:44:13 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Well Dreamliners are selling like hotcakes to foreign airlines. USA airlines are deferring for other options.

Delta has foregone it's Dreamliner order for the Airbus 330-900. The price of the A330 is much lower, and it performs almost as well. United has just traded in 10 Dreamliner orders in favor of the B777 which is not as hot and has more seats. American tried to downsize to a smaller Dreamliner, but the production line is so full that they are taking a delay of five Dreamliners scheduled for 2016 and delay them to 2017 and 2018 instead.

Dreamliner production may increase from 10 to 12 per month by next year, but Airbus is clearly a winner as it can help meet demand.

The management team is going to have to make a difficult decision on the A380. With demand so high for the smaller wide bodies, and virtually no miracle approaching on the larger super jumbos, the decision to engineer the next generation neoA380 could trash the company.
April 29th, 2015 at 7:10:07 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
The management team is going to have to make a difficult decision on the A380. With demand so high for the smaller wide bodies, and virtually no miracle approaching on the larger super jumbos, the decision to engineer the next generation neoA380 could trash the company.


I bet they'll compromise and design in the most asked for and/or most economical changes to the current version, perhaps with a somewhat longer range and a few more seats.

That would be a big mistake, as even such small changes would increase the cost per unit for such a low-demand plane. Current operators may want to stick with the Mark I model instead.

So what Airbus should do is keep producing the A-380 for such customers who will buy it, and offer open-ended support for it.

In a few decades, when all major airports are swamped, they can move on to the Airbus A-3010 Super-Duper Jumbo for mid-distance and long-distance flights. This will make them more money, as the increased frequency of take-off/landing cycles greatly decreases the lives of the airframes, requiring more frequent replacements.

By then Mexico ought to have moved past the need for the A-319 and the SU Super Jet, at least for some routes...

BTW, Boeing has just one model number left. After 797, will they move on to 7007 or will they come up with something else? for a while they were playing with a DC-9 (*) lookalike using unducted fan engines (neat idea; too bad nothing came off it). The design was labeled 7J7

(*) I think McDonnell Douglas did test UDF engines on a DC-9. But this was around the time Boeing ate them.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
April 29th, 2015 at 7:39:08 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
By then Mexico ought to have moved past the need for the A-319 and the SU Super Jet, at least for some routes...


Volaris has only 18 A319's left, they should replace them in three years or less. Interjet has only A320's. Aeromexico has only 4 B767's which should be replaced in a few years. They fly on South American routes. The older B737's are also being replaced. Viva Aerobus has a significant number of old B737's which will be replaced with A320s in a few years.

These smaller airlines have very old fleets
Aeromar
Aéreo Calafia
FlyMex
Magnicharters

The Super Jet is just small, but it shouldn't need replacing for a long time.

Mexico's fleet will end up much newer than that of the USA.
April 29th, 2015 at 9:04:42 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
These smaller airlines have very old fleets
Aeromar


Aeromar used to fly only French-built turboprops. Lately they're flying Jets. I thought these were new.


Quote:
The Super Jet is just small, but it shouldn't need replacing for a long time.


If the new Mex City airport does get built. Otherwise the amount of traffic will make operating the SU from there irritating to many.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
April 29th, 2015 at 10:06:09 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
Aeromar used to fly only French-built turboprops. Lately they're flying Jets. I thought these were new.


Aeromar bought three Canadair regional jets that between 11 and 13 years old. They may be better than the 16 ATR tuboprop but not much better.


Quote: Nareed
If the new Mex City airport does get built. Otherwise the amount of traffic will make operating the SU from there irritating to many.


Aeromexico Connect has a pretty small size jets in their fleet. The first two models have fewer seats than the SU.
27 Embraer ERJ-145
9 Embraer ERJ-170
28 Embraer ERJ-190
Also the 16 ATR's.

In the USA it is illegal to forbid a plane from landing at any airport. You can't even prohibit planes with fewer than 50 seats from landing. It makes it very difficult for airline operators. There are 31 airports that individually carry more than 1% of the nation's traffic. San Diego is the only one that has a single runway. Yet the airlines fly 35 seat turboprops that are very old, and even business jets land there.

Now, in Mexico such a rule would be crazy. I know that they won't let private jets land at MEX. But I don't know if they can outright prohibit the smaller planes. What they do in airports like LaGuardia or Washington National is they sell the landing slots. Although you can still legally land a prop or business jet, it is so expensive that no one would do it.
April 29th, 2015 at 1:13:07 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Now, in Mexico such a rule would be crazy. I know that they won't let private jets land at MEX. But I don't know if they can outright prohibit the smaller planes.


They can if they want to.

To a large extent still, many Mexicans view the law as whatever the government says. A few years back an airline called Aviacasa was ordered to suspend operation until it could pay money owed to the government for airport and air traffic control fees. First thing anyone should wonder is: how will an airline make money to pay what it owes if it can't fly? So they sensibly appealed the order in court and were granted a stay.

A very popular financial pundit with a syndicated radio show angrily ranted at the airline, claiming it had "ravaged the rule of law"

There you have it: going through legally established channels to seek redress goes against the "rule of law."

Anyway, back on topic, while air travel has grown in recent years, it's still something of a luxury for most. Much of the growth has probably been on business travel, which is easier, and cheaper, to finance. Domestic travel, then, is limited to small and medium jets offering flexible frequencies where practical.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
April 29th, 2015 at 2:45:51 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
Anyway, back on topic, while air travel has grown in recent years, it's still something of a luxury for most. .


Air travel was pretty much of a luxury until the 1970 Penn Central Railroad collapse in largest bankruptcy in history, resulting in a huge taxpayer bailout (with the creation of Conrail) in 1976. Boardings were at 137 million in 1976 and up 191 million in 1979. In the interim the government deregulated the airlines so that it would be more competitive and much cheaper to fly.

Many Americans would choose to fly the 381 km from LAX to LAS (or the 319 km from ONT to LAS) while most Mexicans would never fly the 306 km from MEX to ACA. It will probably be decades (or never) before Mexicans do those kind of trips by air. But from MEX to CUN must be about the same price or cheaper to go by air or by bus. Same way with business travelers going from MEX to MTY (711 km). I am sure that personal trips are still often done by bus, but business trips where it takes an 8 hour day in each direction, don't consider the bus as a viable option.
April 29th, 2015 at 3:28:34 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Many Americans would choose to fly the 381 km from LAX to LAS (or the 319 km from ONT to LAS) while most Mexicans would never fly the 306 km from MEX to ACA.


I have to smile. Mexico to Acapulco is a very popular flight. The highway going there was horrible, with trips of six to seven hours, one way, being common.. There's a better one now. But when it debuted, it was cheaper to fly than to pay the tolls for one person, and only about 40% more expensive for two people. The prices were reduced, but it's still an expensive stretch of asphalt.

And it still goes largely through mountains. So it has many segments going uphill with lots of curves. it's a slow road.


Quote:
But from MEX to CUN must be about the same price or cheaper to go by air or by bus.


By bus it must take over a whole day. Few people would take such a trip. Imagine starting your vacation by being cooped up in a bus for over 24 hours.

Quote:
but business trips where it takes an 8 hour day in each direction, don't consider the bus as a viable option.


It depends. Consider you can take the bus overnight, try to sleep there, and return late the next evening and spend another night trying to sleep... So, no. ;)
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
Page 1 of 41234>