China Eastern orders with Airbus and Boeing

LONDON--China Eastern Airlines Corp. (0670.HK) Thursday said it would renew its widebody plane fleet and buy Boeing Co. (BA) and Airbus Group SE (AIR.FR) jetliners for a combined value of about $10 billion at list price. China Eastern Airlines said it would buy 15 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners and 20 Airbus A350-900 planes. They would replace six Boeing 767 widebodies and 12 Airbus A330 long-range jets, the airline said in a stock market filing.

That made me wonder: when renewing a fleet that already consists of alot of different type of aircraft (China Eastern for longhaul uses 767, 777, A330, A340), what could business-wise be the reason to invest in two different aircraft with a comparable range, size, etc. ? I understand you have to renew, but why not focus on either A350 or 787, but not both..?

There could be lots of reason for this.

Political might have play a role, as all China aircraft order must be approved by CAAC, and Chinese government want to maintain good relationship with both Boeing and Airbus, and countries behind them, as both manufacturers have also committed large investment in aircraft production in China, which in turn will be a good opportunity for technology transfer as China is also advancing its capability to produce its own aircraft.

I'm also will not be surprise if the pilots and engineers in the management might somehow influence the decision to have order from both manufacturer. Some airlines also known to order possibly every popular aircraft type for the sake of having their engineering division posses the corresponding skills as to offer broader maintenance services to other airlines as well.

If they plan to have a sizable fleet of each type, then I think it would be a good decision to order both A350 and B789 to give them flexibility in expanding their network.  

4 X 787s based in Kunming. 

3 X 787 based in Xian. 
2 787 each in Lanzhou, Wuhan and Nanjing. 
2 787 based in Beijing for longer Asian leisure. 
 
All 350s in based in Pudong. 

Quoting from another forum, it appears they will use the 787 for secondary hubs while 350 will be concentrated in their primary hub. Nice to see the airline doing their homework properly and identify the right aircraft for their market.

China Eastern does not operate any A340 they got rid of the last ones last year and they do not operate any 767s either. I belive that airlines order more aircraft so that they can grow quicker. For example even low cost carriers like Pegasus and Norwegian have chosen to have both A320s and 737s. When I really want to grow a airline quickly I order both 737s, A320s and later decide which one to take away.

Quoting from another forum, it appears they will use the 787 for secondary hubs while 350 will be concentrated in their primary hub. Nice to see the airline doing their homework properly and identify the right aircraft for their market.

Maybe they just want to save maintenance cost putting them at different hubs, SAS uses the same strategy with their 737s in Norway and Sweden while their A320s are in Denmark.

I talked to a mechanic worked in China Southern once, and he told me they even use different types of engines for one model, e.g. both CFM and IAE engines for A320 so that they can create more job in the company (you can't have one person for two engines for such a large company). Most likely it will also provide more jobs when you have more a/c types. Since nearly all the airlines in mainland China are nationalized, China eastern probably has the same reason. 

Besides all that, the days are gone that airlines choose on engine manufacturer.

A )

The actual performance of the engines is much more important, now that the engines barely undergo maintenance out of schedule because of very high reliability. 

B )

Airlines seek to improve utilization and have loads as high as possible on every route now. A Boeing 747-200 back in the days flying some “2nd tier” longhauls just because it could? Nowadays unthinkable. You rather drop routes if you dont have the perfect plane. The ongoing talk about 787 vs A350 vs 777X is rather exhausting since neither of them really is trying to get into the other’s market. Their rivality has been sorted out already by customers denying to order the A350-800 because it’s “XWB” makes it too heavy anyways and thus putting the A350 into an own market “above” the 787. The 777X is even so big that the A350-1000 is too small to really be a competitor to the 777-8 (which probably goes the fate of the A350-800 or 777-200LR (low frame count or not even built)) since the A350-1100 will likely finish the rest of her off - what is left after the A350-1000 gets some fixes to meet 100% customer needs. There will be a 777-10 tho which will be pretty huge… :smiley:

But then again... who the heck know which surprise are yet to come to change this all once again.

So basically there is no reason not to fly 787-9 and A350-900 (which is even 4m longer) in the same airline especially if you wanna fit into every market perfectly. The A350 is a nice fit for higher yielding markets through it's higher comfort in the same cabin arrangement while the 787 is a nice plane for low yield markets with mainly Y and below paying pax (thus the use in already many price sensitive charter airlines).

i know it's great to have the right a/c flying the right routes, but adding more types increases the management issue and safety concern. It's actually a really bad idea to fly a fleet with a mixture of Boeing and Airbus because of the ways pilot flying them. The flight control methodologies are completely different. If you can always keep pilots on the same type of a/c, this won't be an issue at all, but most likely you will have pilots flying props and RJ first, then narrow (can be either 737 or 320), and finally wide body. AAR 214 in SFO already showed this problem in a certain way. 

Of course, this might be off topic since both 350s and 787s are widebodies, but it might be a problem if you are renewing the fleet. 

i know it's great to have the right a/c flying the right routes, but adding more types increases the management issue and safety concern. It's actually a really bad idea to fly a fleet with a mixture of Boeing and Airbus because of the ways pilot flying them. The flight control methodologies are completely different. If you can always keep pilots on the same type of a/c, this won't be an issue at all, but most likely you will have pilots flying props and RJ first, then narrow (can be either 737 or 320), and finally wide body. AAR 214 in SFO already showed this problem in a certain way. 

Of course, this might be off topic since both 350s and 787s are widebodies, but it might be a problem if you are renewing the fleet. 

I think it's really a training problem, I have flown with captains transitioning to A320 from B747, B737, as well as some props. They have no problems handling the aircraft automation as well as occasionally hand fly them during low work load. Those that do have problems, which I coincidentally observed during simulator session, end up terminated by the company. Some of my friends also don't have problem transitioning from A320 to B777/787. Although personally I would stick with the sidestick, it's nice to have table to eat your meal properly. 

Even after the SFO crash, there's no single recommendation pointing to safety concern of having various type-rating. So yeah, it's down to the training department to make sure every pilot can fly the aircraft proficiently according to their type rating. Also airline incorporating new aircraft type usually fly them on short sectors for a month or two, so their pilots can build some hours and master them. The airline decision maker should not be worry about this and can confidently order any aircraft type that will match their business case better. 

I think it's more a cockpit standardization consideration from a safety view. I agree with the training sector, but the transition of a/c type is just part of the problem. There are also maintenance, operations, and more issues when more types of a/c are added. SFO accident actually generated some arguments on the what was related. The recommendations were just the weakest link in the error chain which was the best to be solved. 

There's nothing serious about adding more a/c types, but it just generates potential issues. Just the difference between 'limitations' and 'prevention', same as the argument between Boeing and Airbus  :lol:

Ordering planes from different production lines helps you get the fleet sooner. It also helps keep good relations (i.e. future discounts) with both companies. And it means in the future you're able to add planes from either fleet without too much increased cost, in other words, you can make Airbus and Boeing have to work themselves out to ensure the order as you can easily go to the other if they play hard. It's a win-win.

Even Qatar flies so many types of wide-bodies. It might be because they want to quickly expand their fleet. This also keeps airlines in spot light (just a thought <_< )