A320neo
Thread Starter
A320neo
Due to the current low fuel cost the A320neo is not financially viable for some carriers due to the higher capital cost of the aircraft. With the fuel cost projected to be 'low' for some time a number of carriers are in discussion with Airbus seeking a solution to the problem.
The P&W powered A320neo is a further problem for P&W and Airbus due to a engine problem associated with hot weather operations.
The P&W powered A320neo is a further problem for P&W and Airbus due to a engine problem associated with hot weather operations.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the B737-8 (the Max) list cost is $110 million, and the A320neo list cost is $107 million, I still don't see the issue.
If comparing the costs between A320neo and ceo, then there's a $12 million advantage to the ceo - but the neo's fuel savings over time would render that difference in purchase price merely small change.
If you are suggesting that some airlines are going to ask Airbus to continue building the A320ceo for longer than planned, I'd suggest it would be a very shortsighted request.
If comparing the costs between A320neo and ceo, then there's a $12 million advantage to the ceo - but the neo's fuel savings over time would render that difference in purchase price merely small change.
If you are suggesting that some airlines are going to ask Airbus to continue building the A320ceo for longer than planned, I'd suggest it would be a very shortsighted request.
I suspect it will slide some planned deliveries to the right as operators try and wring a year or two out of their existing fleet before spending the dough in replacement airframes.
The big thing, though, will be which manufacturer does deals. Nobody (except one or two I can think of) pays "retail" for their aeroplanes, so the difference between the list price of the Max and the Neo is in most cases irrelevant.
If Boeing does better deals than Airbus then the price differential will change. That said Boeing and Airbus have a slightly different approach to pricing and at the end of the day it is whole of life costs that make the difference - purchase price is just one factor, as is fuel. Spares, heavy maintenance cycles - just one heavy maintenance visit extra when compared to another type can swing the cost balance, add on's as technology shifts etc can significantly change the cost profile of one type of airframe vs another.
Interesting times though as it would be a gutsy move to decide that fuel isn't going to return back to the higher levels it most recently was and base your refleeting decisions on that assumption.
The big thing, though, will be which manufacturer does deals. Nobody (except one or two I can think of) pays "retail" for their aeroplanes, so the difference between the list price of the Max and the Neo is in most cases irrelevant.
If Boeing does better deals than Airbus then the price differential will change. That said Boeing and Airbus have a slightly different approach to pricing and at the end of the day it is whole of life costs that make the difference - purchase price is just one factor, as is fuel. Spares, heavy maintenance cycles - just one heavy maintenance visit extra when compared to another type can swing the cost balance, add on's as technology shifts etc can significantly change the cost profile of one type of airframe vs another.
Interesting times though as it would be a gutsy move to decide that fuel isn't going to return back to the higher levels it most recently was and base your refleeting decisions on that assumption.
