Vietnam Airlines to acquire 10 A350 XWB and 20 more A321s

Post by **sn26567** » 02 Oct 2007, 09:59

Vietnam Airlines has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for 10 A350-900 XWBs, as well as for 20 additional A321s. With this further commitment for Airbus aircraft, Vietnam Airlines becomes a strategic customer for the A350 XWB programme. Furthermore, with this commitment for the A350 and for additional A321s, Vietnam Airlines will become one of the largest Airbus operators in Asia.

Vietnam Airlines currently operates a fleet of 23 Airbus aircraft, including 10 A320s, 10 A321s and three A330s (two -200s and one -300). Five previously ordered A321s are still to be delivered.

"We thoroughly reviewed the A350 XWB programme, and we are very confident that this aircraft will set new standards of passenger comfort, operating economics and low emissions in our growing long-haul markets. The size of the A350-900 XWB responds very well to our expected traffic growth over the next decade," said Mr Nguyen Sy Hung, Chairman and CEO of Vietnam Airlines. "Our A330s already provide us with an excellent level of economics combined with superior passenger appeal. The A350 XWB will further consolidate our successful growth and long term development into the future."

"We are very proud to have one of the most successful and well respected airline like Vietnam Airlines to confirm its choice for the A350 XWB", said Thomas Enders, Airbus Chief Executive Officer. "We are very grateful for this strong endorsement of the A350 XWB programme, and together with the additional A321s, we are also pleased to be playing a major role in Vietnam Airlines' continued expansion of its regional network. We are delighted with our long-standing partnership with Vietnam Airlines, and look forward to continuing this relationship into the future."

With Vietnam Airlines' endorsement, total firm orders and commitments for the A350 XWB programme stand at 264 aircraft (154 firm orders and 110 commitments).

The A350 XWB (Extra Wide-Body) is Airbus' newest aircraft model and will be the world's most technically advanced aircraft when it enters service. Designed to increase productivity and offer unparalleled levels of passenger comfort in its class, the A350 XWB will offer the lowest operating costs and lowest seat mile costs of any aircraft in that category. Addressing environmental concerns and cost-effectiveness, the A350 XWB will be one of the most fuel-efficient aircraft ever.

The A321 is already the aircraft of choice for more many customers and operators around the world and is the unquestioned leader in its class with a commanding market share and a continually expanding operator base. As part of the A320 Family, the A321 provides the operator with a significant competitive advantage in the market today through very low operating costs per seat, as well as the widest and most comfortable cabin in its category.

Airbus press release 1 October 2007

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 02 Oct 2007, 11:29

Whenever I read 'new standards in passenger comfort' I always read it as 'we can cram in even more people before they start complaining'.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 02 Oct 2007, 17:37

earthman wrote:Whenever I read 'new standards in passenger comfort' I always read it as 'we can cram in even more people before they start complaining'.

He didn't say they were higher standards, just new standards.

regi · Post by **regi** » 03 Oct 2007, 15:07

a good friend flew Vietnam Airlines BKK to CDG and he said it was an unpleasant experience from the start to the finish.

The luggage restriction was very severe. 20 kg and nothing more
Seat pitch too small
food: not good
a stop ( fuel?) in Dubai or Abu Dhabi , I don't remember , resulting in late arrival in Paris ( waiting family )

The price ( booked in Bangkok ) was comparable with Kuwait Airways, Gulf or Emirates, but just some thai baht lower.
It doesn't mean that Vietnam Airlines is bad. It means that you get what you pay for.
I took them from BKK to SGN in 1995 and 1999 and it was good. Certainly the last flight which was with the new airplanes.

I do have somewhere some older pictures from 1990 showing the B747 from Air France in SGN. It was forbidden to take pictures. But come on, who cares?

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 03 Oct 2007, 15:12

Chairman and CEO Nguyen Sy Hung

[i]"Most of them are next-generation aircraft," he said, adding that VN's plans for still larger planes are on hold as the 747 "is an aircraft using out-of-date technologies" and the A380 "is too big."[/i]

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=10383

DC3 Fan · Post by **DC3 Fan** » 03 Oct 2007, 23:11

12 787s also:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ing02.html

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 05 Oct 2007, 01:47

The real meat to this is ordering both 787s and A350s (which the title fails to say, nice bias job) It looks as much a political decision (A350) as an operational decision (787).

I really don’t buy that it’s a considered financial move being the driver on the decision on the A350s. How can you evaluate a product that is in the throes of its design changes ? (4-5 major redesigns?) .

As they are –900s for the A350, that looks like a long range move to replace the 777s (and or rattle Boeing cage for negotiations). They not only get killer pricing, they will have some killer guarantees on delivery and performance (and I mean killer, penalties probably high to start with, and also the ability to axe the purchase).

And then there is the benchmark Finnair clause (we had the option to convert the A340s to A330s) . I guess they can convert it to anything in the Airbus lineup.

While I think the overall A350 concept is set (777 competitor), what Boeing does in response is wide open (tart up the 777 or all new). They will have to at some point, though I think they want Airbus locked into their design before they do.

I love the Johnny come lately remarks about the 747. Old technology. Snort. Lets see, the A320 series goes back how far? The A330s go back how far? The A380 is just too big (get out the violins), but its nothing more than an end of technology trail Aluminum skin and airframe, and those go back to (1920s?). Sheese, give me a break.

The 787 sales are another nice addition to Boeings portfolio.

achace · Post by **achace** » 05 Oct 2007, 04:30

Well RC20, Boeing have had a couple of attempts to topple the A320 with re-inventions of the 737.

The A320 still stacks up pretty well dont you think?

Cheers
Achace

CX · Post by CX » 05 Oct 2007, 05:38

RC20 you think in an Airbus press release they will also announce that an airline ordered Boeing planes?

And hey, the hot selling 773ER is also aluminum skin and frame.

And, what is it about the re-design of the A350 that you don't like? Do you remember before the re-design iterations occured, people (not sure if including you) were urging Airbus to re-design and make something all new? Industry was urging them to 'listen to customers' and now they did, and it is now suggested that the plane should not be bought because they listened to customers? unbelievable.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 06 Oct 2007, 06:38

The subject line is misleading in that it does not define the actual order.

It should read something to the affect that both Airbus and Boeing made sales, as well as cite each one, or a newspaper article that covers the topic.

Goodness yes, the 777 is pretty much all aluminum as they get (composites in the tail feathers if I have that right and some other non structural wing areas).

If Airbus ever did a an offering beyond the A380, I would fully expect them to try to maximize the airframe (that’s a for instance, I am not sure what could be done to it beyond the stretch).

I don't blame Boeing for trying to do the same for the 737-777-747, its in their interest (as well as Airbus) to maximize the sales of each type.

I just think its duplicitous to say one is old and outdated and another is not, when the difference is minor.

By that standard a 777 with a composite wing would be equal to the A380, but its being bantered about is like something out of WWI vintage.

I think the latest A350 concept is another step closer to matching Boeing, though still a generation back (I believe Boeing has moved two generations ahead).

That’s also not really correct, as I don't see the concept ever being used by anyone again. Either they will stick with aluminum and composites (the 777-A380 range of those) or go all the way. I am not an expert, but the debate does not seem to occur that the composite stringer and skin is a full match to the spun fuselage concept.

Its obvious that Airbus cannot make that jump, and will do the interim step. Its all wasted technology and research if it does not apply to the next aircraft they come out with (and they have made statement that it will be a spun barrel section like Boeing).

I would also think they would have done the whole fuselage that way. Its that strange way they are going about it, through out a concept, try to sell it, get defeated (make statements about how it will not ever change, this is it) then change it, and do it repeatedly.

That’s the hallmark of an organization in extreme distress, and very much out of touch with their customers.

Airbus has very much made it clear that they not only want to be considered equal to Boeing, but with the A380 absolutely superior. The legacy they are leaving is that they could do incremental improvements in a well understood material (Aluminum) and add technology to it (fly by wire), but they cannot handle a real technology change.

For some time I have contended that they will be a bit player in the wide bodies, and if Boeing chose to launch the 737 replacement in the next year or two (say the P&W geared turbine proves its measure giving them the power plant they say they have to have) then it would be true to the larger single aisles as well (with a host of entities nipping on both their heels in the low end of that segment, particularly in shorter range singe aisle aircraft).

As much as I view Leahy with a great deal of disdain, I thought his statement on the A330+ (first A350) was prophetic. Each major redesign has left the orders pretty much stagnant, while moving the entire project up the scale in size. A skeptic like me then asks, if they needed a better A330 (787) size aircraft then, and they now want a 777 size, there is something bogus going on in the business case.

Boeing has literally taken the A340 out of the air, the A330 disappears when the 787 has enough capacity to fill that market (not because it was superseded by the A350, but because they just abandoned that segment).

There certainly is a market in the 777 and 777+ segment, but its far more limited sales wise than the 787 range.

Having watched Douglas/McDonald Douglas slowly wither away, that’s what I see happening with Airbus. Other will rise up to challenge that second spot, creating a cost cutting dogfight that may very well sink them (or as we know Airbus in its current form, and you are seeing some of that already as well). The last throes of MD was when they moved a production line to China.

What I have no ability to say is, how do you turn it around, or if its even possible. Have they put so much of the future into the A380, that the future is mortgaged? Its an awful dilemma, and the decisions are not even purely financial, as al the political aspect play in as well. Having seen entire US industries go down the drain, I know its possible.