Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingfun
... 18 months prior to the deliver position they have to for the first time put up serious money.
Actual deliveries for a airline the size of Delta can be ordered and delivered at almost any time regardless of book orders. If Delta goes to Boeing or Airbus with a large order they will get the aircraft they want when they want regardless of if the book orders show them sold out or not. Both Boeing and Airbus insert lots of white tail positions into their build schedule and the can quickly restructure deliveries and production. They will not lose a order from Delta over delivery slots or timeframe for aircraft. Its simply a non issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeisgood
If you approach Airbus or Boeing and ask for 300 airplanes in the next 3-7 years don't you think they'll find a way to spool up extra production?
Say recalling laid off workers, working 3 shifts, outsourcing more, etc?
Thx
In normal times measures to increase production rates are possible. However, EADS and Boeing have pushed production levels up repeatedly to their maximum capacity and beyond by one a month. Boeing is up to 42 737's and EADS 42 A3XX a month. A back log of close to a decade is not desired by any manufacturer. Competitors come up with new ideas and customers cancel orders when orders can not be filled quickly enough. While there might be a white tail BBJ in the mix here and there, absent a market implosion there are nothing like 300 white tails planned. ... and just like a teenager standing outside Target for the latest X Box game at midnight, expect to pay full price when you NEED something and can't wait.
Sailing and Alpha's concept that Boeing can do an "I dream of Jeanie" head nod and make delivery spots appear is similar to a Elvis sighting. Component manufacturers require an 18 month lead time to supply large assemblies like landing gear and engines. The outsourcing of large lots of work means less flexibility. The negotiation of contracts really pushes the realistic time line up to 24 months.
If it were possible to cough up large numbers of jets on short notice then a delivery slot would not be a
marketable commodity. As we know, Delta has made millions selling delivery slots (which means someone else paid millions more than the prevailing market rate) to get airplanes when they were needed.
All I posted is that Delta has effectively been locked out of fleet renewal with a narrow body Boeing or EADS product for the rest of this decade. The C Series probably will be available as will the E170 platform derivatives. Of course there will be an active used market, which appears to be where we will shop while waiting for our balance sheet to improve and a truly next gen product to become available.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that EADS or Boeing will build new factories to meet demand. Of course this is a very expensive option and would likely be tied to a next gen product and would still have lag from the already maxed out component suppliers ... which pretty much means the end of the decade, so I'll stand by my original post. (further, many are writing that production of 960'ish narrow body jets a year is going to more than saturate the market, if this is a bubble then suppliers don't want to spend billions spooling up to jump in just to get clobbered when it pops)
My other point is that the market spoke clearly at Paris. Airlines demand the most fuel efficient product. Nothing in the Delta fleet fits that description and our Douglas fleet (including MD88's not a N-S issue) are real outliers. Our local ALPA likes to talk about the death of profligate 50 seaters ... next time you hear that story ask for the statistics on the DC9, MD88 and 747. Then ask, if the numbers are nearly the same, then why are our airplanes different? The truth is, they aren't in management's eyes. We offer larger units of capacity, but the numbers on our jets make the E170, CRJ900 and Alaska's fleet attractive. Republic's upcoming fleet is going to look pretty good also.
09-10-2020
