• Airbus scores big

    From Aviation HQ@2:292/854 to All on Thu Mar 19 11:50:46 2026
    AerCap has placed a major order with Airbus. The world's largest leasing company is purchasing another one hundred aircraft from the A320neo series from the European manufacturer. Specifically, this involves 23 A320neos and 77 larger A321neos. Over the years, including this new order, AerCap has already ordered more than seven hundred of these.

    AerCap's fleet comprises over 1,700 aircraft, which are leased to numerous airlines. The clientele consists of virtually all the major names in the aviation world, including KLM, AirFrance, Lufthansa, Delta, American, Scandinavian...plus the ones stuck in Russia.

    AerCap expects the first units of the newly ordered aircraft to be available in 2028. The final delivery is scheduled to take place in 2033.

    --- DB4 - 20230201
    * Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)
  • From Rug Rat@1:135/250 to Aviation Hq on Thu Mar 19 12:11:04 2026
    This on top of Atlas Air securing a large order for A350 frieghters.

    They will now no longer be an all Boeing fleet..

    So did Boeing perhaps kill the 747-8F program too early?

    Since the 777X/9F have been endlessly delayed.

    The 777F is a workhorse, and was largely killed by European emission standards, but still.

    Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
    Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
    IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
    C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
    --- CNet/5
    * Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Rug Rat on Fri Mar 20 02:08:14 2026
    This on top of Atlas Air securing a large order for A350 frieghters.

    They will now no longer be an all Boeing fleet..

    I don't have a direct link into the offices of Atlas Air but I think the delays with the 777X are a contributing factor ... the A350-1000F has about the same payload, greater range and burns less.

    So did Boeing perhaps kill the 747-8F program too early?

    I don't think so. With a 777X-freighter in the pipeline and no more interest for new 747-8Fs, it was a correct decicion I guess ... and then something happened, the 777X's difficulties to get certified.

    The 777F is a workhorse, and was largely killed by European emission standards, but still.

    I would like to cast doubt on that, because it's a problem for the engine-maker, not the airframe.

    The 777X and the 747-8 share the same problem ... no US-airlines have ordered them (other than Atlas's final 747s)...

    My opinion? The 777X will eventually become a commercial disaster, something like the A380 ... Hitting the markets too late ...It will never earn Boeing any money.
    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - 20230201
    * Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)
  • From Rug Rat@1:135/250 to Ward Dossche on Sat Mar 21 14:41:00 2026
    On Fri 20-Mar-2026 2:08a, Ward Dossche@2:292/854.0 said to Rug Rat:
    The 777F is a workhorse, and was largely killed by European emission standards, but still.

    I would like to cast doubt on that, because it's a problem for the engine-maker, not the airframe.

    Boeing backed itself into a corner with the 77W (777-300ER and 777F), earlier models were able to carry engines from PW and RR. The afformentioned models only supported the GE-90. So any engine issues, whether mechanical or regulatory will affect your fleet. Puts you right in bed with the engine manufacture. Additionally any modification to meet current regulation would require recertication, and at the point you might as well just design a new frame.


    The 777X and the 747-8 share the same problem ... no US-airlines have ordered them (other than Atlas's final 747s)...

    My opinion? The 777X will eventually become a commercial disaster, something like the A380 ... Hitting the markets too late ...It will never earn Boeing any money.{

    Not too worried that no US airline has ordered the 777-X, there will be enough customers in Asia to hold over production until the 772s, 773 & 77W age themselves out and the US airlines will have to start placing orders. After all there is no more 747 to fulfil the high capacity route need.

    Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
    Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
    IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
    C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

    Ham's Over IP - 104196
    --- CNet/5
    * Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Rug Rat on Sun Mar 22 12:05:04 2026
    Hey Brent,

    Boeing backed itself into a corner with the 77W (777-300ER and 777F), earlier models were able to carry engines from PW and RR. The afformentioned models only supported the GE-90. So any engine issues, whether mechanical or regulatory will affect your fleet.

    You could say, in a way, the same for Airbus, with the A350 running on RR exclusively, I thought, or was that only the -1000 model ....

    Puts you right
    in bed with the engine manufacture. Additionally any modification to
    meet current regulation would require recertication, and at the point you might as well just design a new frame.

    I think that is a general problem with Boeing having relied too much on tinkering with current success products rather than thinking ahead and noticing change in the airline industry.

    When demand in the 747 decreased to the point that not enough orders were coming in to break-even at current production, that was a warning sign. Aviation had changed and Boeing was still in "business as usual mode" While Airbus designed the ulra long-range A350 and the A321XLR redefining point=to=point single aisle travel over long distances (trans-atlantic) thereby opening markets which previously needed a detour via a hub. They cannot compete with the Embraer E-jets nor with the A220.

    Aibus made the same error with the A380. For me that was still a comparing of penises ... "What you can do, we can too"

    Boeing needs a 757 kind-of-design for a market-space which will not be filled by the MAX10. I've flown the 757 transatlantic both with Delta and Northwest and that was very comfortable, I'm not talking seat-comfort but the way it flew ... it flew "different".

    The aviation industry needs both, I think they're less of competitors than colleagues sharing a market because neither is capable on its own to cover global demand for aircraft the next decade ... and what about Comac ...

    Not too worried that no US airline has ordered the 777-X, there will be enough customers in Asia to hold over production until the 772s, 773 &
    77W age themselves out and the US airlines will have to start placing orders. After all there is no more 747 to fulfil the high capacity route need.

    The last US airline to operate the 747 in passenger service was Delta, and only because they inherited them from the Northwest merger in 2008. Delta flew the lastone to Pinal Park in 2017 and eventually replaced them with the A350-900.

    In all honesty, the 777 ... any type of the 777, is too large for the domestic US network now that the hub-and-spoke system is going the way of the Dodo-bird. Delta stopped using them in 2020, American has an aging bunch left averaging 21.5 years And United will be replacing their 777s with Dreamliners by 2030. There is no US passenger market for the 777X or other versions of 777 that may still be produced by then.

    The long-haul wide-body market is for the 787, A350 and A330neo.

    That's an opinion, of course.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - 20230201
    * Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)
  • From Rug Rat@1:135/250 to Ward Dossche on Mon Mar 23 02:26:24 2026
    The 777x will be successful, For the wide body fleets Boeing has always been dependant on the foreign (and freighter market.)

    Mostly that has to do with geography. Though interestingly enough Japan used the 747D models to great success, due to population density. The explosion of LLCs which other countries don't have (Korea which had a duopoly with Korean Air and Asia just lost that.), so you have a much larger market internationally than domestically.

    The freight market has alays danced to a different tune. The 747-8s biggest hurdle was the huge available of 747-400s that could be converted into freighters cheaper than buying a -8F and still having an acceptable service life. The only thing a -BCF lacked was lose loading, and many logistics operations said, "We don't REALLY need that."

    Funny that you mention the 75.. Cargo operators down the road may just find themselves in the same situation of the loss of the DC-9 (717), and 757. IE finding out there really is a need for its capabilities, now that its gone.

    Then you had the COVID wallop on top of that which decimated the passenger numbers, which should have been good on the frieght dogs, but you had all these passenger birds that could be pressed into service as well.

    So I am not too worried that no domestics have bought the 777x (Except for the F), it's problem was it got walloped with the -MAX debacle and took a backseat in certification due to increased if not complete reliance on the government (bueracry), and is now caught in a certification log jam. Things seem to be moving finally with the administration getting involved, which could create problems of its own. Now that the government is sticking it neck in to expidite things, any little thing that goes wrong brings just that much more scruitiny.

    Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
    Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
    IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
    C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

    Ham's Over IP - 104196
    --- CNet/5
    * Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)