|
Post by addasih on Sept 27, 2016 14:11:22 GMT 1
Is it known why RAM refused LN17 ? There must have been serious reason since it was painted..... If I am correct really delivered are only 12,13,14 But it looks like all the other - i.e. excluding LN17 - did found it's destination. It is heavier than contractual specs
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Sept 27, 2016 14:14:14 GMT 1
There is no doubt, but the price was for sure different and they had to agree to it before it was painted..... so they must have changed their mind and they had to have serious reasons for BO to accept the NTU
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Sept 27, 2016 14:17:52 GMT 1
Is it known why RAM refused LN17 ? There must have been serious reason since it was painted..... They seems to take their LN4xx without any problems. If I am correct really delivered are only 12,13,14 But it looks like all the other - i.e. excluding LN17 - did found it's destination. It was painted 6 years ago; the new customer behind LN 17 is Crystal Cruises. Just like the other early 787s, the plane will be repainted.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Sept 27, 2016 14:23:37 GMT 1
But the date of the "ntu" (according to planespotters) is 20 JUN 2016 ?!?!Sorry it is date of the next agreement..... You are - as expected - correct
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 27, 2016 15:30:49 GMT 1
There is no doubt, but the price was for sure different and they had to agree to it before it was painted..... so they must have changed their mind and they had to have serious reasons for BO to accept the NTU The rejection happened many years ago (2012 ?). RAM just used its right to reject the aircraft for late delivery (she was more than three years late) and inferior performance, as did some other customers.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Sept 27, 2016 17:16:36 GMT 1
Yeah - my mistake - it is the same story like the ANA .... I was mistaken by the date "ntu" and thought than RAM took them "cheap" like ET.... as cleared by XFW - one post earlier.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Sept 27, 2016 17:17:52 GMT 1
Is it known why RAM refused LN17 ? There must have been serious reason since it was painted..... They seems to take their LN4xx without any problems. If I am correct really delivered are only 12,13,14 But it looks like all the other - i.e. excluding LN17 - did found it's destination. It was painted 6 years ago; the new customer behind LN 17 is Crystal Cruises. Just like the other early 787s, the plane will be repainted. I heard that Crystal Cruises cancelled this order to, they changed their business model and don't need it anymore ! it is now showing with a Boeing registration, another one going back into stock.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Sept 27, 2016 17:56:54 GMT 1
I was trying to google what the weight difference is and it seems to be somewhere between 6-8 tons or 1000nm range penalty.
It would be interesting to know - calculate - into how much fuel the weight difference transforms how much it would be during the realistic/average life/operation of the plane - and than we might speculate how much oil is going to be to get some real idea about the price discount.
If I try to calculate the cost for 15 hours daily operation two 7 hours flights 3% weight more .... I end on unbelievable numbers - probably made somewhere mistake ... but still we are looking at hundreds of thousands USD per 20 years !
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 27, 2016 19:07:42 GMT 1
The main drawback of the troubled teens is that each of them has a specific maintenance schedule. That must be a hassle.
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Sept 27, 2016 21:53:07 GMT 1
|
|