77 Comments Add your own

• 1. boeing investor  |  May 7th, 2009 at 21:17

  

  Consider Mcnerny said there had been only 60 deferals this year, of which the split between narrow/wide body was 50-50, I’d like to know which agents GKN reckons a 21-per-month cut is due?

• 2. Anon  |  May 7th, 2009 at 21:49

  

  Only a matter of time before we see double digit orders get canceled on hte 737 and A320’s - then both companys will have to reduce output.

• 3. Falcon  |  May 7th, 2009 at 21:55

  

  I’m a bit surprised to see the 787 taking so many cancellations with the other taking almost none. Just based on the number of outstanding orders and the number of customers it is amazing it isn’t the 737 taking the cancellations.

  I’m sure that Boeing will do everything they can to avoid white tails and if that means cutting production rates then that is the right move to make but if the customers are taking deliveries then the right thing is to keep production up.

• 4. boeing investor  |  May 7th, 2009 at 22:06

  

  Many 737’s have been deferred and prior to the ‘09 downturn, orders gained in 2007/8 probably had delivery dates post-2010/11 given the already big backlog buildup and consequently no immediate need to terminate contracts.

  Also, with no orders scrapped this year, many 737’s due for delivery will have mostly been paid for.

  With the 787, its a different game because of the rush to order it - now customers cant afford it because traffic has collapsed hence they are losing what deposits they may have paid in order to save money that would be spent on 787s that they dont need.

• 5. Erik Bloodaxe  |  May 7th, 2009 at 22:13

  

  Boeing is certainly behaving differently than in the past. Past management would never have let 5 years of backlog build up, yet here we are. Boeing did not ramp up crazymadinsane like they have in the past.

  I recall only about a year ago or so articles wondering why Boeing wasn’t ramping up narrow body production like Airbus was. Guess that wasn’t such a stupid idea after all, eh?

  Now wouldn’t it be a real hoot for Airbus to have to be the flexible one in the current market? They’ve made a lot of hay about stability. I’ve seen their presentations where they highlight that in the last down turn they only dropped their production by 7% when Boeing went down by 50%. I guess we’ll see whose plans were right.

• 6. Vero Venia  |  May 7th, 2009 at 22:35

  

  To: 5. Erik Bloodaxe | May 7th, 2009 at 22:13

  Please read my comment (number 16) in this page
  http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/04/10/boeing-production/

  Quote:
  “The 737 production will be under pressure as well. But Boeing’s decision not to increase 737 production rate seventeen months ago has been positive. ( http://www.ainonline.com/ain-air-transport-perspective/single-publication-story/article/boeing-feeling-good-about-production-plans-1/?no_cache=1 )
  However, a lower 737 production rate is very likely to be decided in the second half of this year.

  Cutting production is not a sin. It is a question of adapting the offer to the demand. If there is an oversupply, aircraft market value plunges.”

• 7. Leelaw  |  May 8th, 2009 at 00:19

  

  [i]I’m a bit surprised to see the 787 taking so many cancellations with the other taking almost none. [/i]

  Why? As a result of the prolonged delay in 787 program, many customers can unilaterally cancel their orders without penalty and possibly in some (limited) cases with compensation to boot. Not as easy to unilaterally cancel a contact for a 737 without without facing a penalty.

• 8. Chris Wallace  |  May 8th, 2009 at 01:20

  

  The two now-canceled UFO orders (one for 2 and one for 23) sat on the books as unidentified forever (one 18 months and the other even longer), so I wonder how serious the customer (who was not an airline) really was in committing to the planes even before their company hit the skids (and, like Boeing, I don’t feel it is appropriate to name who they were).

  Evidently they still have some 737s on order, though…

• 9. mike j  |  May 8th, 2009 at 08:47

  

  Just a side-note, our 777 Shop area and many other 777 Shop areas, in the last two months, has lost some personnel to 787 and layoffs, personnel who aren’t being replaced or backfilled (yet). And the ones remaining are expected to double-up their own workload to do the open jobs… and it has been “manditory overtime” growing more and more since then, and people are getting tired and burned-out already, and mistakes and rework is going up up up, with more and more jobs getting behind, and people getting frustrated and stuff like that…

  So I don’t know how Big-B expects to keep the present 777 production-rate until June 2010, like anounced last month. (I would just guess that the 737 line is going through similar personnel-reduction problems.) And there are rumors that a “revised special anouncement” regarding rate-changes might be in the works soon, like mid-May or June 2009. The evidence is all around us who work there. But I’ll bet the rate-reductions will not be very drastic, probably close to the 15 percent Fleetbuzz mentioned, or maybe 10 percent.

• 10. Falcon  |  May 8th, 2009 at 10:58

  

  Leelaw,

  Because as milestones are reached new payments are due and if you feel the need to cancel the best time is just before you have to put in more money.

  With deliveries on the 787 pushed out there should be few payments due at this time so if you have one on order give yourself as much time as possible before canceling. The other lines are moving so milestones are reached..

• 11. Vero Venia  |  May 8th, 2009 at 11:28

  

  3. Falcon | May 7th, 2009 at 21:55 said, “I’m a bit surprised to see the 787 taking so many cancellations with the other taking almost none.”

  The reason may be because 737’s lead time for deferral or cancellations is much shorter than for long range aircraft. Let’s wait and see what will happen in 2nd half of 2009.

  For the same reason, that is “the lead time for long range products is much longer than for short range ones“, I expect to see orders for the 787, 777 and 747-8i in 2009 or 2010, when there will be some 737 deferrals or cancellations. There is some kind of “time lag” there.

  http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/jet-lag/

• 12. Leelaw  |  May 8th, 2009 at 12:29

  

  Falcon:

  In extraordinary circumstances like these, the purchaser may want to free itself from the commitment altogether in order to bolster its balance sheet and present a stronger financial outlook to its creditors and investors.

• 13. RogerDodger  |  May 8th, 2009 at 15:28

  

  In response to Falcon;

  I think the 787 is taking cancellations because the airlines can cancel with no penalty. Since the 787 is late the airlines can get out of the contract and get the deposits returned. This is not the case with the other models.

• 14. Vero Venia  |  May 8th, 2009 at 16:50

  

  Why do you guys find it strange that airlines cancel or defer long range aircraft orders when international air travel is plunging by more than a whopping 5%?
  http://iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/traffic_results/2009-04-28-01.htm

  Load factors are only around 70%. Airlines need to reduce capacity urgently or many of them will go under.

  In my humble opinion, deferrals and cancellations is a very healthy reaction to the current economic and travel downturn.

  http://verovenia.wordpress.com

• 15. Erik Bloodaxe  |  May 8th, 2009 at 17:29

  

  To Mike J. Yea, it’s hard work, but at least you are still working. There’s about 100,000 auto workers who WISH they were in your shoes about now. In a down market, it’s a really crummy time to be complaining about “over work”, but I understand your basic premise. There’s lots of work to do, and few hands to do it. That said, it also means that there will be fewer layoffs in the future. As I said Boeing is certainly behaving differently this go ’round.

• 16. Ed  |  May 9th, 2009 at 16:19

  

  Hmmmm……….

  It seems to me the B-737 and B-777 production lines, and to a lesser effect the B-747 and B-767 lines are already established lines within the Boeing facilities.

  The B-787 production line is not fully established and suppliers are still in the gearing up mode. So, it makes a good business case to make your initial production cuts in a line that is not fully established, yet, as opposed to one that is fully established.

  Additionally, Boeing cannot make many production cuts in the B-737 or B-777 lines until they talk to those customers to find out if a deferral or cancelation, of an order, is called for. The B-737NG line needs to stay at a reasonable level (24-30 airplanes per month) to meet demand for replacing older B-737 Classics, MD-80 series, and older A-320 series airplanes. This is also true for the current model Airbus A-320 series production lines (although there have been cuts in the various A-320 lines around the world, like in China). To some extent, this also holds true for the B-777 line, perticulary the B-777-300ER model, which is a replacement for older B-747-200/-300 models.

  Has anyone noticed the A-380-800 is used as a capacity increase for the airlines, and not a B-747 replacement?

  I believe this is the trend airlines are going to, replacements of current and less efficent airplanes, and no capacity increases. That is why the production rates for the B-737 and B-777 will not decline more than the predicted 15%. The A-320 and A-330 production lines are also not going to decline much more than 15% due to older fleet replacements, and the fire sale A-330 airplanes almost given away to pay for A-380 delays.

• 17. Falcon  |  May 9th, 2009 at 22:39

  

  Ed,
  Boeing already announces they are cutting the 777 from 7 to 5 per month mid 2010. That is almost double the 15% you mentioned.

  Also, do you have anything solid to verify your claim about A330’s being given away?

• 18. Chaser  |  May 10th, 2009 at 02:31

  

  Most of the 737 production rate cuts simply reflect the 100 or so overbooked slots that I think James Bell stated they had. that accounts for say 8 per month for an 11 month year.

  Despite having had to absorb horrendous cost over runs on the A380, Airbus has still been turning a profit, and this talk of giving away A330’s is simply garbage.

  Please lets have some objectivity!

• 19. boeing investor  |  May 10th, 2009 at 04:44

  

  “Despite having had to absorb horrendous cost over runs on the A380, Airbus has still been turning a profit, and this talk of giving away A330’s is simply garbage.

  Please lets have some objectivity!”

  Yes, objectivity PLEASE.

  How about showing us evidence of A380 being profitable for Airbus as a starter.

  Then we can discuss other things.

  Also, Boeing does not work on a 11-month year like Airbus.

• 20. Chaser  |  May 10th, 2009 at 06:56

  

  Boeing Investor,
  I do not think I alluded to the A380 being profitable?
  I plead guilty to the statement that Airbus was profitable!

• 21. boeing investor  |  May 10th, 2009 at 07:04

  

  #20

  Even that is questionable for a company whose sole target is market share, not profit.

• 22. Falcon  |  May 10th, 2009 at 07:53

  

  Even that is questionable for a company whose sole target is market share, not profit.

  If that was true how do you explain that they slow down or even put that goal in to jeopardy by doing such stupid things as paying dividend instead of using the money to gain market share?

• 23. Leelaw  |  May 10th, 2009 at 08:49

  

  “…this talk of giving away A330’s is simply garbage…”

  Maybe not outight giveaways…how about SIA’s “interim lift” deal for 19 A330s provided on highly unusual (for new-build aircraft) six-year leases by Airbus allegedly at extremely favorable rates, which they are now rumored to be downstreaming to AWAS at “fire sale” prices?

• 24. Leelaw  |  May 10th, 2009 at 09:02

  

  “I plead guilty to the statement that Airbus was profitable”

  Although Airbus may be “profitable,” its enterprise value, as reflected in the market value of EADS shares, has been considered zero by the financial markets for nearly a year now.

• 25. Vero Venia  |  May 10th, 2009 at 10:02

  

  I think more and more lessors will consider canceling their orders. Both Airbus and Boeing will suffer from this trend.

  Lease rate is plunging and investors are wary to put money in aircraft asset-backed securitization.

• 26. boeing investor  |  May 10th, 2009 at 10:17

  

  “If that was true how do you explain that they slow down or even put that goal in to jeopardy by doing such stupid things as paying dividend instead of using the money to gain market share?”

  What slow down? You mean the global slowdown?

  Well DUH!!!

  Like they had a choice to continue production at inflated rates!

  As for dividends etc, lets see what the EADS earnings are like tomorrow.

• 27. Falcon  |  May 10th, 2009 at 10:58

  

  Leelaw,
  how about SIA’s “interim lift” deal for 19 A330s
  Don’t you think they are related to the A380 being late or the 20 x A350 SQ ordered? From what I understand the A330 will be removed pretty much as A350’s are scheduled for delivery.

  Do you think it was a bad deal for Airbus? I may have the timeline wrong but wasn’t it the first blue chip A350 XWB order?

  Boeing Investor,
  Why would I mean the global slowdown? It makes as little sense as your statement about Airbus is only about market share.

  You stated their “sole target is market share, not profit” so why would they slow down that goal by paying dividend every year?

  2000 0.50 EUR
  2001 0.50 EUR
  2002 0.30 EUR
  2003 0.40 EUR
  2004 0.50 EUR
  2005 0.65 EUR
  2006 0.12 EUR
  2007 0.12 EUR
  2008 0.20 EUR (pending AGM approval)

• 28. boeing investor  |  May 10th, 2009 at 12:16

  

  “You stated their “sole target is market share, not profit” so why would they slow down that goal by paying dividend every year? ”

  And?

  What does that have to do with anything? Who says theyre “slowing” down that goal? Certainly not Gallois or anyone else at EADS.

  The French, German, Spanish (And UAE) Govts have a desire to become the biggest aerospace company - no bad thing - however, if they were profit driven, perhaps we would never see huge discounts/incentives given on airplane sales (EZY/SQ/EK/BA etc). I’m expecting you’ll now want evidence - but as Eric Bloodaxe said, Google is your friend. The onus is not on me to prove it, rather I welcome any refutation you have.

  Paying a paltry dividend means nothing.

  The amount EADS pays out balanced against what state aid it gets (from more than one country) means it is not at a disadvantage - particularly when it continues to bleed money on the A380 and A400M and has barely any money to pour into the proposed A350 family slated at over $15bn.

  Dredge up any Airbus Global Market Forecast and the detail within it is how they set about attaining market share.

  If you have something to dispute that, I’d welcome it.

• 29. Leelaw  |  May 10th, 2009 at 12:43

  

  Falcon:

  I was merely responding to the earlier categorical statement: “…this talk of giving away A330’s is simply garbage…” I didn’t comment or opine upon about whether such “giveaways” could be expained, reasonably rationalized, or make sense…I’ll leave such matters to the busboys.

• 30. Falcon  |  May 11th, 2009 at 01:49

  

  Leelaw,
  What kind of terms is required for you to consider it to be giving away?

  Do you think the SQ A330 deal is related to the A380 as was the claim above or do you think it is related to the A350?

  Boeing Investor,
  Of course the burden is on you for your statements. Fully understand why you try to shift it away.

• 31. boeing investor  |  May 11th, 2009 at 05:32

  

  Sorry Falcon, YOU are the one claiming that EADS is forgoing market share by paying dividends when the two have very little correlation.

  So why not put your money where your mouth is and show us this loss of market share.

  You bang on about asking for proof - either show it or shut up.

• 32. Leelaw  |  May 11th, 2009 at 07:16

  

  [i]Do you think the SQ A330 deal is related to the A380 as was the claim above or do you think it is related to the A350?[/i]

  Hard to say for sure. However, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that it may have been more closely associated with A380 delay compensation since the “lease/interim lift” deal (which was btw contemporaneous with formally exercizing options for nine A380s) was finalized many months (at least six) before the “non-binding comimitment” to purchase the A350 became a firm order. IIRC, there was at least one additional A350 design iteration, to the “panel-liner,” in the intervening period. SIA could have walked away from the A350 altogether and still had a binding the lease deal for A330s. Any way you cut it, SIA was the big winner.

• 33. Leelaw  |  May 11th, 2009 at 07:26

  

  BTW Falcon:

  Regarding the “interim lift deal,” it is unprecedented for an OEM to offer new-build aircraft to a customer on six year operating leases. It is also rumored the lease rates are extremely favorable.

• 34. Vero Venia  |  May 11th, 2009 at 08:14

  

  33. Leelaw | May 11th, 2009 at 07:26 said, “It is also rumored the lease rates are extremely favorable.”

  It is not a rumour. Lease rate is plunging, aircraft prices are going down too. There is too many aircraft offered in the market as airlines are cutting capacity. You must have heard the term “negative equity” when the housing bubble burst. Something very similar is happening in aviation industry although the term “negative equity” has not been used.

  Several years ago leasing companies bought aircraft production slots speculating that the demand would increase and thus the price and lease rate would skyrocket. The reality today is not as rose as they expected. Some airlines do not renew leasing contract, others shortened the lease term. Lessors can’t sell excess aircraft because nobody wants capacity, so the possible sale price is ridiculously low. They are obliged to take very low lease rate otherwise the excess aircraft must be stored. But storage is costly.

  That is why I expect to see more deferrals and cancellations from leasing companies.

  http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/super-massive-black-hole/

  http://www.aviationtoday.com/avn/A320-and-B737NG-Lease-Rentals-Experience-Expected-&gt20-Percent-Fall_30432.html

  http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/17/323878/aircraft-values-feel-the-impact-of-economic-downturn.html

• 35. Vero Venia  |  May 11th, 2009 at 09:01

  

  Sorry Leelaw.

  I misunderstood your message.

  I do not know anything about the lease rate related to the specific “interim lift deal” you mentioned in your message 33. Leelaw | May 11th, 2009 at 07:26

  But my previous comment is still valid. Lease rates, in general, are very attractive today.

• 36. ikkeman  |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:03

  

  Boeing Investor.
  don’t be deliberately stupid, you insult Boeing that way.
  Any money lost through dividend payout can not be used to further market share. No, it’s not a huge amount - it may not make a big difference, but that’s the theory.
  And the burden of proof is always on the one making the statement, again, don’t be deliberately stupid - it doesn’t help your case.

  Leelaw,
  ofcourse the any mention of “giveaways” is false. Huge discounts do happen in aerospace. A recent link (by Vero?) showed the amount of money managed by a third party to finance aircraft purchases. when related to the list price the amazing conclusion was that both Boeing and Airbus planes were financed for only 65% (B 66%, A63% (or thereabout) apparently Boeing does provide smaller discounts) of their list price.
  Maybe the only valid conclusion is that anyone not getting a discount in aerospace is stupid…

• 37. Leelaw  |  May 11th, 2009 at 11:45

  

  “ofcourse the any mention of “giveaways” is false. Huge discounts do happen in aerospace.”

  Sure there are huge discounts, but to doctrinairely and categorically argue that any mention of “giveaways” is false, well…. When is a “discount” so unprecedented and huge that it’s tantamount to a “giveaway”? Never? Sorry, I don’t buy that argument. IMO, the SIA interim lift-lease deal, i.e. offering new-build aircraft to customer on six-year operating leases at rumored to be significantly below market (at the time) rates, pushed the envelope in terms of a sweetener/discount/loss leader, though such a deal may have been entirely justified for compelling business reasons in the circumstances.

• 38. MPTA-098  |  May 11th, 2009 at 12:57

  

  Leelaw, basing your argument on rumours (re: A330 lease deal) only weakens your argument.

• 39. Vero Venia  |  May 11th, 2009 at 13:31

  

  If you wish to see an example of an actual A330-200 transaction, please see the link below.

  But you have to be very careful when dealing with prices. Price varies in time (not always upward) and it is also function of the competition.
  Today, prices are going lower because of oversupply in the market. In my humble opinion, 767 and A330 prices are also going down because the 787 is coming into service in several months.

  The price of an aircraft depends much of the changes versus the specification or the basic configuration (Cabin changes, optional systems/Avionics and so on).
  Of course, somebody who buys 200 aircraft will have some kind of commercial concession.

  The message is, be careful with aircraft prices. They vary so much from one customer to an other depending on the context (time, options, volume etc).

  http://www.doricassetfinance.com/en/closed_investments_flugzeug2.html
  Quote: “A particular highlight of this new investment opportunity is the long-term lease as well as the attractive USD 88 million (EUR 59.8 million) purchase price for the asset.”

  http://www.doricassetfinance.com/en/matrix.html

• 40. Leelaw  |  May 11th, 2009 at 14:07

  

  Given the totality of the circumstances I find these rumors, which have been circulating widely in leasing circles for the last three years, to be credible.

• 41. boeing investor  |  May 11th, 2009 at 14:47

  

  ikkeman - the onus is not on me to prove anything. Falcon claimed to disprove my theory about Airbus being market share driven by paying dividends and has not brought forward anything to refute/dispute that except with his own verbatim.

  As you yourself said, the burden is on the one making the statement and that wasnt me. I made a claim. Period.

  Falcon is the one trying to quash it.

• 42. ikkeman  |  May 11th, 2009 at 15:29

  

  B-I
  Sorry, i must have misunderstood the following:

  28. boeing investor | May 10th, 2009 at 12:16
  “I’m expecting you’ll now want evidence - but as Eric Bloodaxe said, Google is your friend. The onus is not on me to prove it, rather I welcome any refutation you have.”

  I took this to mean you did not take upon yourself the burden of proof of your claim:
  “The French, German, Spanish (And UAE) Govts have a desire to become the biggest aerospace company - no bad thing - however, if they were profit driven, perhaps we would never see huge discounts/incentives given on airplane sales (EZY/SQ/EK/BA etc).”

  more specifically I would like to see any proof for this much rehashed myth of “huge discounts”. Generally spewed by Boink Boys in “discussion” with Bus Boys. Usually it is meant to suggest Airbus provides unsupportable discounts to steal away sales from superior, but hereby more expensive, Boeing products. The following claim usually is that the loss on these deals is simply payed for through gov’t subsidies.
  All this is not withstanding the facts than EADS is a publicly traded company held to the very same accounting rules as any other. The only remotely factual numbers on aircraft price (thanks vero!) indicate Airbus and Boeing provide largly similar discounts. And ofcourse the absolute absurdity of suggesting Boeing does not recieve many of the same gov’t support that Airbus does.

• 43. Vero Venia  |  May 11th, 2009 at 16:03

  

  42. ikkeman | May 11th, 2009 at 15:29

  First, ikkeman please stop calling me “vero”, which is usually used as a short name for Veronica. I am sorry to say this, but I am not a girl. Please name me as “Vero Venia”, which is the name of my blog: http://verovenia.wordpress.com Thank you for your understanding.

  As far as aircraft pricing is concerned, I have the feeling that rich airlines get better discount than “poor” ones. In addition, poor airlines have more difficulties to get good loan. Now, I understand why poor airlines remain poor.

• 44. MPTA-098  |  May 11th, 2009 at 16:35

  

  Sorry Leelaw, that’s not good enough. Nearly all of the information within the leasing circle grapevine is undocumented and is thereby open to change and interpretation as it moves through the “network”. If you are not a primary player (i.e. Udvar Hazy etc) in this business, there’s a real likelihood that your “information” is based on second-hand information, and a distorted information environment. If you want your “analysis” to be taken seriously, you should’ve demonstrated caution, prudence, and less absolute certainty on SQ’s A330 lease deal, because of the known fact that your views on the A380 programme are somewhat skewed.

  ——————————————————–
  Quote from someone who was very certain about something:

  “We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”
  - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, regarding alleged alleged WMD sites in Iraq.

• 45. MPTA-098  |  May 11th, 2009 at 18:18

  

  Off Topic: If anyone’s interested, Atlantis is about to launch (on its 30th mission) to service the Hubble Space Telescope for the last time. They’re currently holding at T-9 minutes.

  Live feed: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

  Forum:
  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16945.msg401335;topicseen#new

• 46. Falcon  |  May 11th, 2009 at 19:40

  

  Boeing Investor,
  As you yourself said, the burden is on the one making the statement and that wasnt me. I made a claim. Period.

  Falcon is the one trying to quash it.

  The burden is on you to substantiate your statement back in post 21. I offered an example of why you’re wrong in my original response. Man up and respond to your original statement instead of trying to push it on what happened in later posts.

  Leelaw,
  Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I remember SQ had shortly before ordered 20 x 787 instead of A350’s. Airbus then announced the A350 XWB and SQ committed to it too but since it was not formally launched no order could be placed.

• 47. boeing investor  |  May 11th, 2009 at 20:29

  

  http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/people/management/biographies/john_leahy.html

  “In 1995, when Airbus had an 18% market share, Mr. Leahy set a commercial goal to achieve 50% of the market by the year 2000. Airbus achieved this goal in 1999 and has maintained over 50% market share in five of the following six years. Airbus also has over 50 percent of worldwide aircraft deliveries. ”

  Why do I get the feeling it wont be “good enough” for Lord Falcon?

• 48. B380  |  May 11th, 2009 at 21:59

  

  To suggest that Airbus will go and buy market share at a loss to themselves is just not correct and doesn’t go beyond the greatest hits that Dick Aboulafia, Dougie and the hysterical Boeing Marketing department came up with.
  I invite you to go to the manufacturer’s websites and download the financial documents showing their profit margins. The last time Airbus was accused of selling aircraft below cost and flooding the market , in order to increase their share, was post 9/11 downturn. With deliveries occurring in the 2003-2004 period you can see below the profit margins for Boeing Commercial and Airbus for those years.

  Boeing Airbus
  2001 5.5% 8.1%
  2002 7.1% 7.0%
  2003 3.2% 7.1%
  2004 3.6% 9.5%

  Airbus delivered more than twice the margins. One could draw their own conclusions but to me it looks like Boeing’s unit cost price is higher than that of Airbus’ and hence may explain why they can undercut Boeing without hitting their bottom line, especially at a favourable exchange rate at the time.

  Boeing Investor, nice quote there from the Airbus site but hardly supports your theory. Every company has targets, to double and triple their sales and take on the opposition. Nowhere does it state that the way to get there is by losing money. The fact is both manufacturers will tie themselves in some dodgy deals with thin profit margins but that is the way the industry works. A lot of the money they hope to make come from the support packages they sell which brings in the money at a later stage.

  Some people really have to let things go and one of them is that Airbus is there to give the planes away for free, hurting Boeing in the process.

  MPTA-098, a better quote would be about the unknown unknows.

• 49. Leelaw  |  May 11th, 2009 at 22:10

  

  @ MPTA-098

  Yada, Yada, Yada. You want absolute confirmation of that which can’t be practicably confirmed. In this specific case, the circumstantial evidence is very strong. Circumstantial evidence is routinely the only evidence available to prove the prima facie case in all manner of serious crimes including murder, I’m not sure why we need a stricter standard for the purposes of informal colloquy in this blog? BTW, I don’t recall you adhering to such a strict standard of evidentiary foundation when you advance all manner of speculation about Boeing in your various musings on assorted topics which appear in this blog. Perhaps you take yourself a little too seriously?

  @ Falcon

  Here are the facts as I recall them. SIA made a non-binding commitment to the A350XWB at the conclusion of the Farnborough Air show in July 2006. On December 1, 2006 the EADS board agreed to the industrial (re)launch of the sixth iteration of the A350 aka “the panel-liner.” The deal for the lease of 19 A330s from Airbus was concluded on December 20, 2006, concurrent with exercising options for 9 A380s at which time SIA stated they had: “reached settlement with Airbus on issues relating to delays to deliveries of the A380.” On June 22, 2007 SIA placed a firm order order for 20 A350-900 XWBs.

• 50. Falcon  |  May 11th, 2009 at 22:15

  

  Boeing Investor

  Ignoring your stupid name calling how does that backup your claim that Airbus “sole target is market share, not profit.”

  All I see is that they want to have over 50% market share and in a duopoly it gets tough if you get more than 10 - 15% below so it seems a not only reasonable but also clever goal.

  Next.

• 51. boeing investor  |  May 12th, 2009 at 00:16

  

  How the hell is using the word “Lord” stupid name calling?

  Sure, used in jest but it seems like your inability to back up your own claims you have no sense of humor either.

  Next indeed.

• 52. Anon  |  May 12th, 2009 at 05:18

  

  To suggest that Airbus will go and buy market share at a loss to themselves is just not correct

  Who said that they did? I cant see that in the comments.

• 53. Falcon  |  May 12th, 2009 at 13:13

  

  Boeing Investor,

  Just because you create a new post doesn’t mean all posts before it go away.

  Now how about addressing the issue.

  Leelaw,
  I had missed the ordering dates so I did a bit more research and found this interesting paragraph.

  SIA’s A330-300 lease deal is related to the planned A350 order and Chew says the carrier has flexibility with the lease terms of the 19 new Rolls-Royce Trent 700-powered twinjets from Airbus, which he says will provide “interim lift” before A350 deliveries begin.
  http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/20/211260/sia-brings-pre-christmas-cheer-to-airbus-firming-nine-a380-options-leasing-19-a330s-and-placing.html

  Chew calling them interim lift before the A350 arrives should settle it.

• 54. MPTA-098  |  May 12th, 2009 at 13:50

  

  Leelaw, SQ have a fleet of 45 777-200/200ERs, but 15 77Es are derated so they are sort of like the 777. SQ nearly ordered the A330 in 1995, but reportedly, Boeing made SQ an (unbelievable) offer they couldn’t refuse, and the rest is history

  So, these are the FACTS:

  (i) SQ favours a young fleet for fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs, and therefore, replacement is taking precedence over certain other considerations. In 2006, SQ’s 772s and early 77Es (derated) were, according to SQ’s fleet renewal policy, ready to be replaced from 2009 and onwards. The A333 is only slightly smaller than the 772 (passenger capacity), and is a perfect replacement aircraft. In fact, SQ’s toughest competitors in SEA have been flying the A333 on similar routes where SQ didn’t have any choice but to fly the heavier triple sevens.

  (ii) In recent years, the A333 has “stolen” the sales from the 772 and derated 77E. The A333 is significantly lighter and while the initial versions were about as restricted on range as the initial 772, later models with TOW increases have pushed beyond. In fact, the A333 has much better CASM than the 772 and 77E (derated) for intra-Asian flights, and as for circumstantial evidence, the A333’s CASM may in fact be roughly competitive with that of early 788’s.

  (iii) The current, and significantly improved A333 is in high demand. There’s no reason for Airbus “to give these aircraft away” to SQ, who BTW was the launch customer, and “suffered” the least delay in deliveries compared to the other customers.

  (iv) SQ’s first 10 A388s are being leased as well. There’s circumstantial evidence that the terms for the A388-lease and the A333-lease are roughly equivalent, and that the “compensation” was part of the whole “package”. Also, SQ has preferred to pay cash for their new aircraft, but it remains to be seen whether or not SQ will prefer leasing in the future. Both the 787s and A350s could be sold to a leasor at first delivery, and then be leased back to SQ for 8-10 years.

  Now, looking at your response, it seems pretty clear that you’re not “in the loop”, and that you’re basing your claims on what you’ve “heard”. As for me supposedly “not adhering to such a strict standard of evidentiary foundation when advancing all manner of speculation about Boeing”; please point out where I’ve “speculated” about Boeing in a similar manner to yourself regarding the SQ A333 leasing deal. I’ll readily admit that I’ve speculated on both Airbus’ and Boeing’s possible product developments, but I do believe that my speculation has usually been based on data that’s readily available.

  Finally, these things aren’t that important, are they? I’m not that important either, and likewise, I don’t take myself too seriously.

• 55. Leelaw  |  May 12th, 2009 at 14:05

  

  Sorry Falcon,

  IMO, despite what Mr. Chew said for public consumption, the more salient point is that Chew could have walked away from the “panel-liner” altogether if he so chose and still had his lease deal. The facts seem to dispositvely prove that the lease deal was not ostensibly contingent upon ordering the A350. It was surely the right thing to do, but not a legal obligation.

• 56. Leelaw  |  May 12th, 2009 at 14:43

  

  “The current, and significantly improved A333 is in high demand. There’s no reason for Airbus “to give these aircraft away” to SQ, who BTW was the launch customer, and “suffered” the least delay in deliveries compared to the other customers.”

  This begs the question why Airbus was ostensibly forced to act as the lessor of last resort. If accumulating a fleet of 19 A330s commencing in 2009 makes compelling financial sense you’d think SALE (and/or other lessors), which IIRC was still an affiliate company of SIA back in ‘06, would have jumped on such a potentially lucrative deal. The far more likely scenario is that even Airbus would be extemely lucky to just breakeven on the deal given the way the transaction was structured, so they were forced to take the unprecedented step of acting as the financier of six-year operating leases.

  “..these things aren’t that important, are they?”

  Maybe not to nattering busboys, but folks in the leasing business and syndicate investors in A330s found this transaction to be of some significance.

• 57. Vero Venia  |  May 12th, 2009 at 17:33

  

  Finally someone unveiled who was behind the recent 787 cancellation.

  http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=16576
  Quote: “The Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Aviation Capital subsidiary is the customer that canceled its order for 25 787s, Airbus Executive VP-Programs Tom Williams confirmed to ATWOnline in Hamburg.”

• 58. MPTA-098  |  May 12th, 2009 at 18:11

  

  The circumstantial evidence is very strong that in the compensation deal reached between Airbus and SQ, because of late A380 deliveries, Airbus agreed to annul the original contract for 10 A380 frames, in such a way that Airbus Financial Services (AFS) would lease these 10 first frames directly back to SQ. Also, as part of the deal, SQ would lease 19 A333s from AFS while buying outright 9 additional A380 frames.

  “Singapore Airlines first announced its intention to become an A380 customer in September 2000, with an order for 10 A380s and options on a further 15. That firm order was increased to 19 in July 2006. At catalogue prices, the commitment to the 19 firm orders, including engines and spares, is in the order of US$5.7 billion.
  http://www.singaporeair.com/mediacentre/pacontent/news/NE_5207.jsp

  So, it’s on record that originally, SQ ordered 10 firm A388s. Perhaps, SQ felt that the initial A388s were assets with unknown residual value and were looking for a leasing-deal instead. It’s ironic though that the initial A388s performed better in service than foreseen in December 2006 (i.e. aerodynamics performance trumphed over added structural weight).

  In January 2008, Airbus Financial Services sold three SQ A380s to Doric Asset Finance:

  “Airbus Financial Services has sold three Singapore Airlines A380s to Doric Asset Finance at a base purchase price of $198.6 million each.”

  The financings are a boost for Airbus, given that the A380 is a new aircraft asset with unknown residual value, and the aircraft are among the first examples off the line.

  http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/14/220757/airbus-sells-three-a380s-on-lease-to-singapore-airlines.html

  So clearly, SQ had at some point been “released” from their initial A380 contract regarding the 10 firm airframes. The logical explanation is that they were released from that contract in December 2006 when they signed three new contracts:

  (i) SQ’s lease of MSN-003/005/006/008/010/012/019/021/034/045.

  (ii) SQ buying outright 9 additional A380 frames.

  (iii) SQ leasing 19 A333s from AFS.

  Since AFS is selling the 10 A388s and 19 A333 to several lessors, one would have to find out the asking price for these frames in hope to substantiate any claims that the A333s were “giveaways”. Interestingly, the first A380s were apparently sold for USD 198.6 million each, which is substantially more than what has typically been projected for “launch” customers by that programmes detractors, and I’ve seen no evidence that AWAS has paid less for their A333s than what is typical for such transactions, or, put in other words, Airbus is showing no sign of desperation regarding the sales of A388s and A333s to SQ.

  Dublin based lessor, AWAS, delivered the first of six A330-300 aircraft to Singapore Airlines today.
  http://www.awas.com/Portals/0/Singapore%20Delivery%20Jan%2021%202009.pdf

  Quote from Leelaw: “The far more likely scenario is that even Airbus would be extemely lucky to just breakeven on the deal given the way the transaction was structured, so they were forced to take the unprecedented step of acting as the financier of six-year operating leases.”

  As explained above, your assertion is false!

• 59. B380  |  May 12th, 2009 at 18:51

  

  Leelaw,

  “Airbus would be extemely lucky to just breakeven”

  – Don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion.

  The lease deals are difficult to work out but saying that Airbus will be lucky to make any money, without showing any evidence, isn’t progressing the argument. Airbus isn’t a lessor in this case. So far SIA received and are operating 6 A333s, 3 had been delivered to AWAS and 3 to LCI. Those 6 are shown on the April Orders spreadsheet. SIA are due to get 2 more in May. These 2 are also showing LCI as the customer (on top of the 3 delivered). In the mean time SIA is shown as the customer for 13 remaining frames of the 19 ordered. My guess is that SIA is selling those frames to the leasing companies as they get delivered for the best lease rates and prices, particularly because they are using the A333s as the interim lift anyway. Anyway, dealing with SIA is quite difficult, as they are very demanding and tough negotiators. Boeing also did some strange deals with them, remember the buy back of the A340s? I doubt they made a huge profit with them but managed to place a good 777 batch with them and later sold more including 77W.

• 60. Leelaw  |  May 12th, 2009 at 19:28

  

  Busboys:

  SIA’s press releases and regulatory filings (as well as Airbus press releases) at the time they entered into the lease agreement inidcated that Airbus was the lessor. The much vaunted “spreadsheet” has however indentified SIA as the “purchaser” from day one as well. The fact that Airbus has arranged to downstream these leases to third party lessors is no surpise as Airbus is not in the business of investing in operating leases, nevertheless, the notion that six-year operating leases are being downstreamed in the current economic environment at anything approaching robust prices is fanciful. The pathological need of some busboys to rationalization every last thing related to Airbus so that it is always cast in a positive light is bizaare and boring.

• 61. Erik Bloodaxe  |  May 12th, 2009 at 19:55

  

  Leelaw you must understand, it’s the Airbus über alles syndrome quite common with Airbusiens. De facto, anything Airbus says is taken as pure 100% board certified 24K gold. Anything Boeing says is shite. Just ask them. Airbus never does anything wrong, incorrect, or even marginally questionable. To attempt to argue otherwise is illogical.
  Heil Gallois. Carry on.

• 62. B380  |  May 12th, 2009 at 20:27

  

  Erik Bloodaxe, on the contrary, everything Airbus does is bad. They are losing money left, right and centre, give planes away for free and on top of that their planes are shite. This garbage had always been held dear by the true Boeing fan club. It is surprising you failed to notice it.

  Leelaw, I had said that the planes had and are being delivered (as in sold) to the two lessors AWAS and LCI. Airbus is getting money for them. You, on the other hand, offered no evidence of “Airbus would be extremely lucky to just break even” other than to again play the usual “Airbus must be losing money card” because I don’t understand how it works.

  “every last thing related to Airbus so that it is always cast in a positive light is bizaare and boring”
  – that’s funny as all I had noticed related to Airbus or in any thread not even related to Airbus (but it gets dragged in anyway, here is a perfect example) as being negative and closely related to the usual themes I listed above. That is also both bizarre and boring.

• 63. MPTA-098  |  May 12th, 2009 at 20:39

  

  Actually, A330-300 leasing values have been on the rise for the last couple of years partly thanks to the lack of 787s. In the current environment, “downstreaming” six-year operating leases for the A333s just might be a good business opportunity.

  In the May 2009 edition of Aerospace America, a “transformed” Richard Aboulafia (i.e. He’s stopped laughing at the CSeries) is saying that many of the A330 sales have gone to leasing customers, who are enjoying relatively high A330 lease rates compared with a weak broader market.

  http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/18%20-%20Industry%20Insights_MAY2009.pdf

  These 787 problems have basically been a windfall for Airbus. They have resulted in badly needed revenue and the breathing room to create a competative response. Since the 787 delays were first announced, Airbus has enjoyed record A330 demand. A total of 142 net orders were recorded in 2008, on top of 198 in 2007. The latter represent the highest order level yet achieved by any Airbus twin-aisle jet. Many of these have gone to leasing customers, who are enjoying relatively high A330 lease rates compared with a weak broader market. It is very likely that some of Boeing’s penalty payments related to 787 delays are going directly to A330 leases, indirectly benefitting Airbus.

  Finally, why the need to respond pathologically in an abusive, rude and petulant manner?

• 64. Falcon  |  May 12th, 2009 at 21:42

  

  Leelaw,
  The facts seem to dispositvely prove that the lease deal was not ostensibly contingent upon ordering the A350.

  Could not disagree more.

  As it stood end of 2006 SQ expected to receive the last of the 19 x A380 by early 2011. They expected to receive the last of the 19 x A330 by end of 2010 so only a short time before the last A380. They expected to start receiving A350 in 2013 (mid 2006 it was 2012)

  Those numbers make zero sense as being compensation for A380 delays. They overlap a bit with the A350 but not too bad.

  Add to that the comment from Chew who had no reason to say A350 unless it was true. If he didn’t want to say A380 it would have been plenty enough to just say he expected to need additional capacity in that period. What would be his gain in lying about that?

  I think there are several reasons for the confusion with the major being. A) Deals announced together and the A350 deal being delayed. B) Everyone expecting SQ to get A380 delay compensation C) The unusual length of the leasing contract. D) Seeing leases made direct with Airbus. E) Unfortunately a big one. A lot of people want them to be for the A380.

  There may also be a big difference in how we define “give away”. You might mean anything below normal price span. To me it means no payment or only symbolic payments. I have no doubt Airbus structured the deal so that it covers their expenses and a bit more. I also have no doubt it is well below their normal margins.

• 65. Leelaw  |  May 12th, 2009 at 22:11

  

  “why the need to respond pathologically in an abusive, rude and petulant manner”

  I don’t appreciate your haughty and dismissive tone so I responded in kind.

  I’ll ask my earlier question again since it hasn’t been answered: why the necessity for Airbus to act as lead “lessor/financier” in a transaction for new-build aircraft fundamentally structured as a six-year operating lease? Is their prior precedent or a subsequent instance where new-build aircraft were financed by Airbus in an identical manner? Examples of financing via capital leases don’t count, they are completely different animals.

• 66. Leelaw  |  May 12th, 2009 at 22:31

  

  “There may also be a big difference in how we define “give away”. You might mean anything below normal price span. To me it means no payment or only symbolic payments. I have no doubt Airbus structured the deal so that it covers their expenses and a bit more. I also have no doubt it is well below their normal margins.”

  Semanitcs are often a problem. I did ask in an earlier reply: “When is a “discount” [I'll now add sweetener and loss leader thereto] so unprecedented and huge that it’s tantamount to a “giveaway”?

• 67. MPTA-098  |  May 13th, 2009 at 12:17

  

  “I don’t appreciate your haughty and dismissive tone so I responded in kind.”

  I played the ball, not the man, while you did the opposite, simple as that.

  “why the necessity for Airbus to act as lead “lessor/financier” in a transaction for new-build aircraft fundamentally structured as a six-year operating lease?”

  Already answered. Likely joint lease agreement for first 10 A388s and 19 A333s (at no “giweaway prices) which is how SQ was “compensated” for the delayed A380s. Good deal for SQ because of their (i) requirements for fleet renewal, and that they at the time, didn’t plan to keep the A333s longer than for 12000 cycles/72 months thereby having to avoid the mandatory structural D-Check for the aircraft while in their fleet, and before taking delivery of the A359s that’s set to replace the A333s in SQ’s fleet, and finally (ii), the uncertainty of the residual values of the first batch of A380s. Also, this deal seems to have been a satisfactory one for Airbus (i.e. little difficulty in “offloading” the aircraft at genuine market rates due to the relatively high A330 lease rates throughout the latter part of this decade, as well as the commercial importance of Airbus WBs supplanting the majority of Boeing WBs in SQ’s fleet over the near term.

  It’s interesting to note that you didn’t comment on the fact that Airbus currently is enjoying relatively high A330 lease rates compared with a weak broader market and that in this context, the six-year operating lease is likely not a “major” problem financially for either Airbus or any of the lessors involved.

• 68. Leelaw  |  May 13th, 2009 at 12:43

  

  ” little difficulty in “offloading” the aircraft at genuine market rates”

  Where’s the dispositive evidence supporting this statement?

  “the six-year operating lease is likely not a “major” problem financially for either Airbus or any of the lessors involved.”

  Again, where is the dispositive evidence supporting this conclusory statement?

  I find it interesting that you seem to embrace the “Great Satan” Aboulafia’s musings about the A330. Do you also concur with his pronoucement in the same article that the A380 is “largely irrelevant?”

• 69. MPTA-098  |  May 13th, 2009 at 13:47

  

  Like you, I’m not “in the loop”, and demanding “dispositive” evidence in a blog as if one were in a court is absurd.

  As for Aboulafia, his views on the A330’s relatively high lease rates are based on easily established facts, while on the A380, his “musings” are based on his personal opinion.

• 70. Leelaw  |  May 13th, 2009 at 14:49

  

  Hmmm…seems to me you demand such evidence from others posting here who make conclusory statements similar to your’s above with which you take exception on a regular basis. Perhaps merely a cheap rhetorical trick rather than a firmly held conviction on your part?

  Additionally, I find it hilarious that the doctrinaire pro-Airbus apologists/flaks/spin doctors are such “cafeteria catholics” where the “Great Satan” Aboulafia is concerned. They denounce him as a pro-Boeing stooge for his views on the A380 with zero credibility, to be reviled, shunned, and uniformly ignored. Yet when Mr. Aboulafia’s musings bolster they own often Pollyanish notions about Airbus they are quick to rehabilitate and quote him.

• 71. MPTA-098  |  May 13th, 2009 at 15:49

  

  Actually, in these supposedly “conclusory” statements you’ll find included a level of uncertainty, and words such as likely, and an analysis of what might logically have happened (i.e. December 2006). This is quite different than relying on rumours from the leasing circle grapevine where information is open to change and interpretation as it moves through the “network”, and false information regarding A330 leasing rates for the latter part of this decade.

  “….pro-Airbus apologists/flaks/spin doctors are such “cafeteria catholics”

  Having seen your primary argument refuted (i.e. ” the notion that six-year operating leases are being downstreamed in the current economic environment at anything approaching robust prices is fanciful”) based on the actual A330 leasing rates; once again you play the man, and not the ball. Why do you have to continue responding in such an abusive, rude and petulant manner?

• 72. Leelaw  |  May 13th, 2009 at 16:43

  

  Since when do conclusory statements with minimal evidentiary foundation qualify as a refutal?. When you want to set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner, a self-appointed final arbiter of cloture of debate, while also adopting a very smug, haughty, and didactic manner of colloquy, then you are obligated to present far more compelling evidence, indeed dispositive evidence, to bolster your arguments/conclusions/judgements when they’re presented in such an authoritative fashion.

  Though suggesting that someone is an apologist, flak, and/or spin doctor is indeed a harsh judgement, it’s hardly abusive behavior, and certainly not petulant conduct if it’s an honest opinion developed after having read countless postings of the person concerned. I’d suggest growing a thicker skin and stop whining about being “abused” if you wish to pontificate here authoritatively.

• 73. MPTA-098  |  May 13th, 2009 at 18:30

  

  That first paragraph is a bizarre tirade in legalistic overkill … you know, covering all bases.

  Leelaw, perhaps you might appear courteous in real life, but rude online. Almost like having a dual personality, which one is genuine?

• 74. Leelaw  |  May 13th, 2009 at 21:57

  

  Sometimes the “legalistic” approach is the best way to get to the nub of the matter. If I’m indeed gulity of “overkill” you should be able to easily “refute” my “bizarre tirade.” This blog must be a frustrating environment indeed for a shameless OEM flak to operate in. You can’t complain to, jawbone, and lobby feckless, lazy and mostly sympathetic moderators to silence those who question your propaganda like you can on A.net.

  Mr. Ahmad doesn’t seem to have any interest in either mollycoddling hypersensitive fanboys and tranparent OEM flaks or the necessity of defending Mother Airbus against all perceived enemies, foreign and domestic..

  Posters can’t hide here in total anonymity like on the Seattle P-I Blog and spout jingoistic blather, employ bullying tactitcs, take cheap shots at will at the “Boeing Bete Noire,” and/or deriding everything American without any risk of losing credibility. Poor thing, you’re reduced to whining about legalism and rudeness while your own faux persona of urbane sophistication is stripped away to reveal a truly hardcore partisan, completely intolerant of and seemingly threatened by opposing viewpoints.

• 75. ikkeman  |  May 14th, 2009 at 10:14

  

  it’s great to see the way these blogs usually stay on topic.
  737 production rate musings and 787 order loss news turns into barely civil tirades of personal judgement…

  leelaw, is it weird to agree with someone (Aboulafia) on some points and disagree on others. And yes, I am jury, judge and executioner when it comes to my opinions.
  demanding “dispositive” proof on a blog is like demanding to win the lottery - it may happen, but should in no way be expected (and is to me hilarious to behold)

  just because jo once read a dictionary and practice(d) law and can thus spout archaic words and legal jingo doesn’t make your opinions more valid. Your apparent need to retreat to such tactics in fact reduces my personal opinion of you. it is very much like the “jingoistic blather, employ bullying tactitcs, take cheap shots” practice you accuse (only) the “pro-Airbus apologists/flaks/spin doctors ” of. In my view, I’ve seen plenty evidence of stupidity, nationalism and cat-calling from both sides.

• 76. Leelaw  |  May 14th, 2009 at 11:48

  

  Ikkeman:

  I truly regret disappointing you, though I don’t often agree with you, I consider you an independent thinker, respectable debater, open to consider the arguments of others, and free of doctrinaire partisan agendas. In this case I resorted to the legalistic terminology because it best describes and explains the nature of my beef with the person in question. My basic point is that if you want to adopt a dismissive, smug, and haughty tone towards those with whom you engage in colloquy, then it’s only good form that your “superior/definitive” opinions be supported with dispositive rather than merely suggestive or tangential evidence. If you want to declare that you’ve refuted someone else’s argument, then your own argument better be airtight, again supported by dispositive rather than tangential and/or suggestive evidence. Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

• 77. Leelaw  |  May 14th, 2009 at 12:02

  

  @ Ikkeman

  As for your point about Aboulafia, if someone goes to the extreme of declaring a supposedly independent analyst to be a stooge/shill/hopelessly biased in favor of a particular OEM (which isn’t at all hyperbole in this instance), then I do indeed find it “weird” that you’d want to cite his commentary for any purpose whatsoever.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed