Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Second US Launch Customer for 787

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
This is like beating a dead horse at this point but whoever gets the plane on property first is the launch customer. There can only be one.

Its like saying the guy who comes in 2nd place is the second guy to come in 1st place. Huh???

The original poster knew he was wrong but instead of admiting it he thought it would make more sense to point out that I spelled customer wrong.

You can lead a horse to water...




Anyways, there are more important things to worry about.
I sorry that I did not admit that I was wrong. You are right. The second airline that receives a new type of aircraft is not the second launch customer of jack. He just the guy who copied the first guy and he is not very original. Thank you for pointing that out.

By the way, admitting is spelt with two T's.
 
I found this on another site and the author makes a good point.

"Well in a strict sense the "program launch customers" are the airlines
who order enough planes to fulfill the minimum order requirement,
regardless of when they get their planes, e.g. Lufthansa ordering
enough 737s to allow Boeing to build it, or PanAm ordering 21 747s. In
this sense Both SQ, EK, QF etc are all "launch customers" of the A380,
while Singapore is the "launch operator" (my own term) in the sense it
will be the first to put the plane into revenue service.

ANA will be both a program launch customer and the launch operator of
the 787.


Air New Zealand, the second ever 787 customer, will only get its first
plane in 2010, the first 787-9. So in this sense ANZ is a "program
launch customer" as well as a "model launch customer" even though
first delivery is 2010, 2 years after first 787-8 delivery.


Sometimes, due to politics or other factors, the actual launch
customer is not advertised as such; the hot selling 777-300ER is a
classic example, with Air France as the actual launch customer, but
JAL was the "advertised" launch customer. Air France was first to
order and first to fly the 77W.


You find all sorts of launch customers, some more marketing spin than
others, e.g. "African launch customer" or "North American launch
customer" as well as "GE launch customer" or "RR launch customer" for
various engine\airframe combinations.


A hard and fast rule is:
1) whoever orders before official program launch ("the ones who make
the program possible")
2) whoever orders a special variant of the base model and makes that
variant possible (787-9, 787-3, 787-10, A380-900, B777-300ER)
3) whoever orders enough of a specific engine\airframe combination to
allow the engine program to go ahead can be considered that
powerplant's launch customer."
 
I found this on another site and the author makes a good point.

"Well in a strict sense the "program launch customers" are the airlines
who order enough planes to fulfill the minimum order requirement,
regardless of when they get their planes, e.g. Lufthansa ordering
enough 737s to allow Boeing to build it, or PanAm ordering 21 747s. In
this sense Both SQ, EK, QF etc are all "launch customers" of the A380,
while Singapore is the "launch operator" (my own term) in the sense it
will be the first to put the plane into revenue service.

ANA will be both a program launch customer and the launch operator of
the 787.


Air New Zealand, the second ever 787 customer, will only get its first
plane in 2010, the first 787-9. So in this sense ANZ is a "program
launch customer" as well as a "model launch customer" even though
first delivery is 2010, 2 years after first 787-8 delivery.


Sometimes, due to politics or other factors, the actual launch
customer is not advertised as such; the hot selling 777-300ER is a
classic example, with Air France as the actual launch customer, but
JAL was the "advertised" launch customer. Air France was first to
order and first to fly the 77W.


You find all sorts of launch customers, some more marketing spin than
others, e.g. "African launch customer" or "North American launch
customer" as well as "GE launch customer" or "RR launch customer" for
various engine\airframe combinations.


A hard and fast rule is:
1) whoever orders before official program launch ("the ones who make
the program possible")
2) whoever orders a special variant of the base model and makes that
variant possible (787-9, 787-3, 787-10, A380-900, B777-300ER)
3) whoever orders enough of a specific engine\airframe combination to
allow the engine program to go ahead can be considered that
powerplant's launch customer."
The war's over man. Let it go.
 
Could you imagine how many mullets, fat people and people with breathing machines they could fit on that. Now boarding group ZZ 89-138
 
Amen to that. Been there done that in a past life and I like the sh!t out of three time zones. Never more than 5 hours from the house and I speak the language in most parts of America.

Gup
 
The hubris of the SWA crowd never ceases to amaze me.

Had 9-11 not happened you would still be losing pilots to other airlines every month just like you were up and until the day the towers came down.

And had 9/11 not happened those companies would be in the condition they are in anyway. Their balance sheets sucked before and 9/11 just accelerated the current state. Come on dude...
 
Enjoy flying the same aircraft domestically for the rest of your life. You wouldn't like the layovers in Asia anyway.

You must be the same kind of retard that chooses his/her career based on aircraft size and int'l layovers. Guess I was wrong to choose the most secure airline ?
 
the airline that works for one pilot doesn't have to work for the others.

let it go-- it's a dumb debate-- I think SWA is used to having to justify itself-- you really don't have to anymore
 
You must be the same kind of retard that chooses his/her career based on aircraft size and int'l layovers. Guess I was wrong to choose the most secure airline ?

The same BS that the PAA, TWA, EAL guys used to say. What a PFT moron!
 
Nothing lasts forever.

Even cold November rain.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom