10-der
December 13th, 2007
Since the Dubai Air Show, the lack of sizeable orders attained or won by Boeing has come under scrutiny again by some of its more fiercest critics.Critics, I might add, who still play the “orders game” and fail to accept Boeing’s oft-stated position that it is their customers, not Boeing, which makes known their orders and that it doesn’t “stock up” on announcements like Airbus does for the sake of media glare.
With large focus on the Emirates order for upto 120 Airbus A350’s, an equally large focus swayed straight over to the 787-10, the as of yet, unlaunched fourth model within the fastest selling airplane family, the 787 Dreamliner.
Image courtesy of Boeing
In a nutshell, what does this campaign loss at Emirates mean for the 787-10’s future?
“We’re within a few months of defining the centre of the market,” Scott Carson said in an interview at the Dubai Air Show.
“We’ve been working for two years to find out what the (bigger) 787-10 wants to be.”
“There are six to eight (sales) campaigns around the world (for the planned stretched 787-10) and each one wants a different thing,” Carson said, adding that customers were looking for about 200 planes.
Carson also pointed out that feedback from customers varied greatly, with some potential customers with a desire to see 425 seats being able to fly roughly 5,000 miles, while other customers want a 380 seater model that can fly 7,500 miles or beyond.
Therein lies (part of) the dilemma about the proposed 787-10. The other (and widely unreported) ingredient into this mix is the Airbus A350-1000 itself.
With a paltry 40 orders for an airplane marketed over three years ago and allegedly destined to supplant and make obsolete the successful 777-300ER, Airbus has thus far refused to publically acknowledge a major problem both Qatar Airways and Emirates have known for months.
Range.
It’s an issue for Airbus to come clean about, not least because of financial difficulties and a cost cutting project in Power8 that remains largely stagnant.
Publically, Airbus maintains that the 14,800km (8,000nm) range of the 350 seat (tri-class) A350-1000 will be met - behind the scenes, even once vocal proponents like Qantas know that the airplane is struggling to meet that range target.
One airline source states that the jet is missing the range target by over 500nm.
Just as the A380 was reclassified a 525-seat jet, there rumors within Emirates (and likely Airbus itself) that the A350-1000 seat count may well drop to facilitate/trade into a slight increase in range. If that happens, the assertion that the A350-1000 is somehow a natural successor for the 777-300ER will no longer stand true. Not from a true tri-class seating arrangement anyway.
Image copyrighted and owned by BOEING777 and FleetBuzz.com
So what does that mean then for the undefined 787-10?
The Y3 concept incorporating and eventual 777/747 replacement is possibly 5-7 years away - depending on when Boeing decides to launch its 737RS and the resources required to facilitate its development.
For now, getting the 787-8 into the air is a priority. Not least because it will form the groundwork for the -9, -3 and -10 variants.
Boeing would likely prefer to optimize the 787-10 at around 320 seats. This allows operators of the 777-200/ER/LR and A330-200/-300 families to replace these jets with a similar sized 787. Emirates complained that the 787-9 wasn’t big enough, yet did not order the A350-1000 in sizeable numbers as it has done with the 777-300ER.
Instead, it chose to order more 777-300ER’s.
A very telling statement despite some quarters claiming that the type will be rendered “obsolete” by something that is clearly not a “like-for-like” replacement.
That in itself is a tell tale sign that the A350-1000 is clearly not yet at the stage to be considered a true like-for-like 777-300ER replacement. Peruse the image below taken from one of Randy Tinseth’s presentations:
The A350-1000 cannot match the 442 seats Emirates operates on the large Boeing twin with 10 abreast seating - (another area the A350 family as a whole cannot emulate) unless it uses awfully more cramped seating, resulting in narrower aisles - requiring a redesign of food carts and more stringent evacuation tests.
Doesn’t quite look “extra wide body” now does it?
Most people though, are smart enough to see through the misguided marketing Airbus uses - this isn’t the first occurence and it’s unlikely to be the last. Four engines for long haul?
As time goes on, the view that the A350-1000 will be that 777-300ER “killer” will shift to make obsolete the 777-200ER family.
This strategy is two-fold:
Firstly, the 777-200ER family will be approaching 20 years of age. Those customers who have not ordered or are toward the rear of the 787 queue will be unable to replace these 777’s fast enough and/or may even turn to the A350-900. In short, the A350 family, despite being six years behind the 787, brings no new technology to the marketplace and is targetting a completely different segment - albeit saturated.
Customers taking A330 or 777 deliveries today are unlikely to swap to A350’s just because Airbus is building them.
Airplanes are a 15-20 year investment - and unless oil prices triple from today’s levels and the A350 proves to be the green camps most environmentally friendly airplane, airlines will not be dumping en masse to acquire the big Airbus twin just yet.
Secondly, Airbus has been forced into selecting the second best method for composite fuselage construction due to the patents held by Boeing on the monolithic method, including processes.
Most 777-200/-200ER/-200LR operators have configurations of less than 305 seats in a variety of cabin classes - equally, the A350-900 will seldom find an operator with a tricked out jet at 314 seats. For the sake of legroom and range, most A350-900’s will cater anywhere between 240-280 seats.
Boeing then, is likely to place the 787-10 between the A350-900 and A350-1000, leaving a 777-300ER/747-8 replacement to an all new widebody toward the end of the next decade.
Just as the A350-1000 will not be fully laden with 350 seats, Boeing will study and place its 787-10 to counter the Airbus jet, which is not due to enter service until later next decade. This move spells potential trouble for Airbus, as such a 787-10 would have at least a 4 year headstart if EIS is slated for 2013. The reality however, is while Boeing is ironing out production issues on the current 787 lineup, the 787-10 may not see service entry until mid 2014 or even beyond.
As per my interview with Randy Tinseth in Dubai, Boeing has time on its hands to deliberate what it should/not do.
Image courtesy of Boeing
Naturally, the 777-300ER is not going to be around forever, but deploying this strategy pits the 787-10 dead against the A350-1000.
A 787-10 with 320-seats (tri class) is the preferred option for at least a half dozen carriers I have spoken to. Of these airlines, four are already 787 customers, the other two are European airlines.
Such a model would retain commonality with the existing 787 lineup - albeit as with the growth variants of the 777, the technical characteristics will alter. In will come the 6-wheeled bogie landing gear, already earmarked extended range variants of the 787-9 and wing/spar/fuselage strengthening to accomodate the extra passengers, freight and fuel.
This does not however, rule out the possibility that an entirely new wing could be developed.
Range on such a potential 69m/70m length 787-10 would be estimated at around 7,500nm.
Given that the 787-10 will likely be the second and final stretch of the Dreamliner, it is likely Boeing will try to retain the existing wing rather than develop a new one to be used solely on one airplane to keep costs and prices as low and attractive as possible. It’s a critical issue for both customers and plane maker alike - and one that has to be right.
Afterall, its taken Airbus 17 years to address the 777 family with the A350XWB.
That sort of lead time incorporating design after redesign is not what airlines are accustomed to and is part of the reason why Airbus’ failure to see twinjet airplanes as the future of long haul travel has cost the A340 family an early grave.
Now, it has (reluctantly) joined up the very segment it vilified with it’s irresponsible scaremongering that two engines were somehow less safer than quads in an attempt to shift more A340’s and A380’s.
For Boeing, Y3 then, could evolve into a 320-seat plus airplane to supplant the 777-300ER and 747-8 families, but Boeing already has a full plate to juggle - the 787, 777-200F, 747-8F, 747-8I and talks of a new 737 model too.
Y3 will be discussed in another piece.
Airbus too has a full meal to digest - not least because of the ageing, but popular A320 family backlog, A330-200F, A350XWB family and future A380 projects like the extended range A380-800R and stretched A380-900.
Image courtesy of CamSim
For the interim, Emirates may yet opt for the 787-10 as a neat 300 seat, tri-class jet wedged in between its A350-900 and A350-1000 airplanes.
When Boeing stretched the 777-200, the 777-300 was a relatively straightforward stretch but as with the 747-300, its sales potential was never realized once the 777-300ER left the table. Boeing is likely this time around to push for a longer range, high gross weight 787-10 from the outset.
The double stretch 767-400ER, while a cheap enough derivative, found few customers because of its inability to match the A330-200 on range and freight capability. Optimizing the 787-10 to avoid previous “pitfalls” is ultimately going to define how the airplane evolves.
No decision has yet been made to formally offer the model, but a mooted 2013 service entry would likely mean 2010 as being the year for its formal industrial launch. That’s still a long way off.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Critically, the development of the large Airbus twin will end up dictating what Boeing does/not do on the 787-10.
After years of procrastinating over the A350, the big challenge for the European manufacturer is to build, test and certify on budget and on time.
Customers are all too wary of the A380 delays and will loathe to be in the same quagmire again, let alone Airbus shelling out larges sums of compensation in return.
John Leahy made the foolish assumption that somehow payments in lieu of performance shortfalls would placate customers - most notably on the failed A340 family, whose newer -500/-600 models developed with low fuel prices in mind are being dropped quicker than lead weights in water as fuel bills rise and efficiency takes command.
You have to ask then, if Airbus did not see the 787 as a threat, would they have bothered to move on the rehashed A330/A350, much less the A350XWB?
Unlikely.
The revamp of the A350 itself has yielded limited success - but nothing to the extent some would have us believe.
The A350-900 has by far and away been the better seller of the range - albeit if you look across the customer base, many of the airlines are either Government owned or backed - not a bad thing per se, but it is still devoid of a broad spectrum of customers like the 787.
Perhaps Scott Carson was right in the program update this week when he says that the Dreamliner is the right airplane for the market?
As it stands, the A350-900 (can be and) is “all things” for all customers - one only need to go back to ILFC head honcho Stephen Udvar-Hazy and what he said about Airbus and being able to deliver on the A350 program.
“Look, Airbus, you’ve got six years to get your act together. When you’ve built this airplane, if you come up 2%, 3%, 4% short—we hope you don’t, but if you do—you will have to write us a check every month for the shortfall.
…Airbus can’t refuse that type of a commitment, otherwise it can’t sell the airplane. Because now there’s a benchmark called the 787.“
“If the A350 can only offer the old engine, no matter how good it is, Airbus will be at a serious competitive disadvantage. And it is having difficulty publicly admitting that.“
With the 777-300ER snarling up the majority of sales from the 777-200ER/-200LR, Airbus seems to have addressed this portion well with the A350-900 - but the airplane is still 6 years away - like the 787, it has to promise and deliver on time.
Investor confidence in EADS/Airbus is far lower than that of Boeing - Airbus’ credibility is in tatters over the A380 delays and the ongoing investigation into stock selling. It has almost no margin for error on the A350. Any slippage to the already costly $16bn project will damage the A350 beyond repair.
Analysts predict over 700 frames have to be sold to get anywhere close to breakeven - but that is based on list price.
The way the A350 has been sold with stunning 50%+ discounts at Emirates and Qatar Airways (both of whom hold the bulk of the orders for the A350 family) suggests like the A380, breakeven is unlikely to be attained, if at all - regardless of the number of airframes sold.
Like the A350, the undefined 787-10 is not without a major headache.
Engines.
Rolls Royce has the capacity to push the Trent 1000 for all current and proposed 787 models, yet those customers who have selected the GEnx will likely see the very same problem the A350-1000 customers have. GE has thus far avoided powering the big Airbus twin so as not to erode sales of the 777-200LR/-300ER.
Image courtesy of Volvo Aero
The 787-10 would likely require a 90-93,000lbs thrust engine- which is currently only attainable by the Trent 1000, although the rival GEnx has been run at 85,000lbs. GE has avoided an all new engine, but the customer and Boeing push to get the 787-10 into being may force GE to re-evaluate its reluctance to power the A350-1000.
With the A350-1000 not scheduled to enter service until late 2015, both Airbus and Boeing have adequate time on their hands to refine and define their respective big twins.
Image courtesy of Boeing
Unlike the chasm that exists between the 777 and A340 families, the gap (if any) between the 787 and A350XWB will be smaller.
For the eventual 777/747 replacement, Y3 will/could be placed above the 787-10 upto a potential 460 seat tri-class jet that could even see the first 11 abreast seating arrangement (unless Emirates introduces it first on its high density Airbus A380-800’s!)
Boeing already has patents in place for such a large airplane using the same 787 styled monolithic composite structure, leaving Airbus to press on with what essentially amounts to a second best composite panel alternative.
In one aspect of this embodiment, the structural panels 210 are operably coupled together to form an exterior portion of the fuselage 202 adjacent to an interior portion 204. The interior portion 204 can include a passenger cabin configured to hold a plurality of passenger seats 206 ranging in number from about 50 to about 700 seats, e.g., from about 100 to about 600 seats. In another aspect of this embodiment, the structural panels 210 can be composed largely of metallic materials such as aluminum, titanium, and/or steel. In other embodiments, the structural panels 210 can include one or more composite materials, such as graphite-epoxy materials.
Regardless of what transpires, the next couple of years will be crucial to both major rivals, as they periodically peer at one another to make a more competitive and attractive family of airplanes. 2008 will be delicately poised for both the 787 and A350.
The 787 will take to the air and the A350 approaches design freeze. It’s a tender time for both projects.
Neither one can afford the luxury of a slippage.
Sphere: Related ContentEntry Filed under: Aeroplane, Aerospace, Air Transport, Air Travel, Airbus, Airlines, Airplane, Airplane Order, Airplanes, Airport, Airports, Boeing, Boeing 787, Dreamliner, Dreamliner First Flight, Dubai Air Show 2007, Emirates, Farnborough Air Show 2008, Randy Tinseth, Richard Aboulafia, Travel
30 Comments Add your own
1. Dougloid | December 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Interesting article. You make the point that the A380 has had a capacity markdown to increase or maintain all up range closer to the advertised figures.
Well, that’s another way of saying it’s overweight and that that problem has never been adequately fixed. It was rumored for years, Tim Clark complained about it, we calculated the numbers we had, and there were dark suspicions, but the veil was lifted only ONCE, and that was, I believe inadvertent and what one might expect when you invite a bunch of nosy reporters to go for a ride.
Remember back in February when Airbus invited the media for a joyride on the A380, and 200 or so of them went swanning around the countryside? Well, some ACTUAL figures about all up weight and fuel loads came out. Some extrapolation and estimates added into the mix for 200 reporters, drinks, eats, and cabin crew and presto! There it was. And it was not very good. I blogged about this back on February 16, 2007.
Everyone else seems to have missed the significance of it, and then we were treated to revisionist history ala Airbus: “Oh, ity’s not really a massive cattle hauler, it’s a luxury cruiser for the few who can afford it….the very few.”
Flight International tells us that the joyride aircraft (MSN007) had 215 people on board which included 170 press people. It took off at a gross weight of 361 tonnes (808,640 pounds) which included 48 tonnes (107,520 pounds) of fuel. It is also said that the aircraft has 519 seats-although BBC reporter Tom Symonds who was on the flight, says there are 443 seats and The Nation says there are 507 and TOW was 364 tonnes (815,360 pounds), but nevermind. We’ll go with Flight International’s numbers and seat count.
MSN007 is one of two aircraft configured with a passenger interior, and it was used for the emergency evacuation test last year.
Let’s do the math.
808,640 GW
- 107,520 fuel
- 43,000 bodies
- 10,000 incidentals (meals, lav service)
________
648,120 Basic Operating Weight, this flight.
As this is a passenger demonstrator aircraft, it is unlikely that there is a lot of extra instrumentation on board. Likewise, we don’t know whether it has been ballasted for some reason.
Even so, the BOW figure thus derived is food for serious thought and it is 40,000 pounds more than the Airbus BOW that has been circulating this last year or so.
2. NYC777 | December 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I think a 777X which is all composite and incorporates new technologies would be the answer to the A350-1000 while the 787-10 would counter the A350-900.
3. Stitch | December 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Very good article.
I still think a 250t MTOW 787-10 should be a fine 77E / A333 / A343 replacement and there are a lot of those planes around. The extra 1000 miles of range an A350-900 will likely have on the 787-10 might not be all that important, and the smaller passenger capacity and cargo holds would mean a 787-10 would carry more physical payload at MZFW missions and as long as MZFW for the 787-10 is around 5000nm, it would be mighty popular me thinks…
And it would not need new undercarriage, a new wing, nor new spec of GEnx / Trent 1000.
4. AlanfromBigEasy | December 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Just speculation.
A new wing for the 787-10 should allow a 787-11 (near 80 m long). This could have several advantages for Boeing.
It would allow the Y3 to follow the 737RS (IMHO a composite 737 would gut A32x sales, and gut the finances & workforce at EADS).
It gets a viable a/c to market sooner (as oil prices double again, fuel economy will be everything to the airliens still flying). and allow the 787 to create a comprehensive family with extraordinary range (-3, -8, -9 -10, -11 plus LR versions).
Now the 787-11 will be a bit long for easy deplaning & quick turnaround. 757-300 perhaps. But it can provide excellent fuel economy quickly. And later be displaced by the Y3.
BTW, my work with the Millennium Institute and Peak Oil leads me to target oil at $350/barrel in 2011. Consider the ramifications on aviation for that !
5. Aurora | December 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Wow! Discounts of fifty percent or more to QR and EK! No wonder they bought the things. Given the range issues you highlighted, I’m wondering what QR and EK actually bought for this stunning price? Anyway, does it really matter at this point? I almost forgot about Mr. Udvar-Hazy’s comments in that Aviation Week interview. I see compensation aplenty in these airlines’ not-too-distant future. Let the good times roll!
You referred to two European airlines who stated they preferred the 787-10 in the 320 seat range. British Airways wouldn’t happen to be one of them, would it?
6. Boeing Investor | December 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Another informative piece. Quite lengthy but I guess required to discuss the varied criterion.
Even if the 787-10 goes beyond 350 seats, it can still be in the air a lot sooner than the A350XWB-1000
7. Jacobin777 | December 14th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Great post!
Though while I believe the A350-1000 will be a great plane, I dont’ think it will be a “true” B773W replacement..and I do believe it will fly less distance than they are stating at this present moment.
The new A350 plane is going off to a great start but Airbus/EADS have a lot of challenges in front of them, especially with the Power 8 program…..
I for one am glad however we have to good companies pushing each other and pushing the boundaries of aviation..
If Boeing goes with a hypothetical B787-11, then I can see them offering a -10HGW because the costs needing to make a new wing box, adding extra wheels as well as other strengthening procedures can be amoratised with the hypothetical -11. Otherwise I don’t expect Boeing to deviate too much from what they are saying..
On a final note, I still think Boeing will wait until they get a CLEAR indication as to what the A350-1000 specs are and what their “baseline” B787-8 will be capable of..they will then be able to give carriers a much more accurate bit of information.
8. MNSFO | December 14th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Very informative piece. I’m fairly excited about the 787-10 and can’t wait to see it.
This is even getting press over on A.net, and sadly, a few Airbus fans are crying fowl over bias. As NYC777 so eloquently pointed out, its a BLOG so of course it will be full of opinions and this one tilts to Boeing. Get over it. And it’s not like Airbus cheerleaders are a rarity over at A.net.
Still, the blog contains more than enough worthwhile information to stand on its own. Hopefully, we’ll see some consolidation on the -10 in the next year or so. I’ve always opined that there is more than enough time for Boeing to respond to the challenges of the XWB, 2013 is a long time away.
9. FFin | December 14th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Interesting post. Although like mentioned it’s quite heavily biased and presents only those “facts” that are favourable for B787/777/Y3 instead of A350.
No matter what, airlines all over the world seem to love the concept of A350 with more than 300 orders only this year, although the plane isn’t going to be delivered for 5-7 years and although there’s a 787 option available. I bet when A350 will enter service it has more orders before EIS than any other plane in the history.
10. boeing777 | December 14th, 2007 at 8:33 am
FFin, thanks for your comment(s).
You stated:
“…it’s quite heavily biased and presents only those “facts” that are favourable for B787/777/Y3 instead of A350.”
Well thats partly because this entry deals largely with the as of yet undefined 787-10 and the competition it faces from some of the A350XWB models already on offer.
I dont see how its any different to other op-ed pieces written in the past on the A350 prior to its “XWB” relaunch vis a vis its competition to the then already launched 787-8, -3 & -9.
In relation to the thread on a certain “site”, critics would do well to either contest or refute the content or perhaps start their own opinion piece(s) if they find what is written here so offensive.
11. MNSFO | December 14th, 2007 at 9:42 am
“In relation to the thread on a certain “site”, critics would do well to either contest or refute the content or perhaps start their own opinion piece(s) if they find what is written here so offensive.”
But its far more easier to dismiss what you don’t agree with as raw bias than to come up with some counter arguments. Are you surprised?
12. boeing777 | December 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
MNSFO - you’re spot on
And no, coming from the site widely regarded as the biggest pit full of Airbus apologists, its not surprising
13. keesje | December 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Where are the hot selling A330´s in Tinseth picture? They can´t be left out if the slow selling 772ER is in..deception if you ask me.
It looks like the general feeling in this article is Boeing has no issues but only opportunities & Airbus the orther way around. Unfortunately that is not the reality.
IMO Boeing should start a sub 787 family for the higher MTOW including a log range 325 seater, a 375 seater and a freighter. Significant mods required: landing gear, wings, new engine etc.
Its probably a good idea anyway since the 747 passenger has sold 20 during the last 5 years. btw no need to get soft on the 787- 3 either..
Apart from that great : thnx for working out a challenging article!
rgds keesje
14. Dave Farmer | December 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Very good article and covers what might well be the defining future of these two Aircraft manufacturing companies. No if the table will level out on fianancing help.
15. 787fan | December 15th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Great Article.!!! I can always count on you to have the insight into
the way things are unfolding.
My thoughts are that Airbus will not have to worry about the -1000
because they will have their hands full trying to get the -800 & -900
flying with the concept of Composite Panels, under weight and massive cost development that will be required. If they do get that far, I will be totally shocked. When Boeing undertakes the 737x
redo, I fell that will probably gut Airbus sales and bankrupt the
or overstress the Company to a point that they will be watching
Boeing Fly right past them.
Fly 787 Fly..!!!!
Again, that article is what I keep coming bck here to read…Fantastic..!!!!
16. MrEKO | December 17th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Boeing777, you seem to have some reasonable arguments to advance so I wonder why you need to shoot yourself in the foot quite so often. It merely weakens your own credibility.
We do we start?
The A350-1000 was being “marketed over three years ago”? So in November 2004 airlines were being shown the plane that QR and EK have bought in 2007? I rather doubt it.
EK “did not order the A350-1000 in sizeable numbers as it has done with the 777-300ER”. Well, 20 is a pretty good start. And, as you obviously know, EK didn’t order (or lease) all of their 777-300ERs in one go. Far from it. In fact, EK have traditionally acquired planes (A330s, 777s, A380s) in incremental packages. Only the recent large order for 70 A350s has broken with that trend. So to infer that EK are lukewarm about the A350-1000 because they “only” bought 20 is pure spin. Shame on you.
“Most people though, are smart enough to see through the misguided marketing Airbus uses”. Really? If so, it hasn’t stopped them ordering 1,200 Airbus planes this year. And are Airbus alone in spinning facts to suit their marketing needs? I would have thought it was pretty commonplace.
“…the failed A340 family, whose newer -500/-600 models developed with low fuel prices in mind are being dropped quicker than lead weights in water…” (Do you know what ‘journalese’ is?) We all know that the A340-500/-600 has become a dead-end and is being seriously outsold by the 777-200LR/-300ER. Stating the facts should be adequate. But you seem unable to resist going way over the top and thus devaluing you argument. AC, EK and recently QR have given the A346 the thumbs down and AC have disposed of their two A345s. It has recently been announced that Hainan are taking the three CX A346s. To the best of my knowledge, these five are the only A345/6s to be remarketed and, note, they quickly found homes. Rumours that SQ or TG would drop them appear to have come to nothing. EK have even just signed a long-term deal with RR to maintain their Trents on their 10 A345s. EY and IB have ordered more of them this year. LH have ordered them three times and are still taking delivery. Of course, the 777 has ‘won’ this war but “dropped quicker than lead weights in water”? That’s simply untrue.
“The A350-900 has by far and away been the better seller of the range…” Again, I’d have more respect for you if your facts were correct. As of the end of November Airbus had 316 firm orders for the A350XWB. Of these, 40 (13%) were for the -1000, 127 (40%) were for the -800 and 149 (47%) were for the -900. “Far and away…”?
“…stunning 50%+ discounts at Emirates and Qatar Airways…” I’m in no position to know how much EK and QR paid for their A350s. Are you? Or is this just irresponsible speculation?
Are there those on A.Net who wish to dismiss your arguments as Boeing cheerleading? Well, why make it so easy for them?
Stick to the facts, be objective, avoid taking cheap swipes at Toulouse and you’ll be taken more seriously.
17. boeing777 | December 17th, 2007 at 8:54 am
MrEKO - thanks for the reply.
Where to start?
““Most people though, are smart enough to see through the misguided marketing Airbus uses”. Really? If so, it hasn’t stopped them ordering 1,200 Airbus planes this year.”"
Apples to oranges - I didnt question Airbus getting orders - I questioned the claim that the A350XWB is somehow the “widest” airplane in the category, when its evidently untrue - a point you fail to acknowledge also.
Or do you also subscribe to Airbus’ once proud notion that four engines were/are somehow safer than twins too?
“Of course, the 777 has ‘won’ this war but “dropped quicker than lead weights in water”? That’s simply untrue.”
Perhaps you would tell us the cumulative orders for the A340-600 over the last 3 years and compare with the 777-300ER, for example? During this time, Airbus and Boeing have experienced huge sales, even while fuel was still lower than today - the A346 has been a miserable seller. Period.
So far this year, the A346 has notched up just 8 orders against 85 for the 777-300ER. Together the A345 and 777-200LR niche market ULH jets have equally fared very poor sellers this year with less than 10 sales between them.
Perhaps you could also tell us how many A340 freighters have been sold vis a vis the 777F too?
“I’m in no position to know how much EK and QR paid for their A350s. Are you?”
With respect to Emirates, absolutely.
In relation to other sites wishing to “dismiss” “X/Y/Z” - they are welcome to do so. If all they can say is “Boeing cheerleading” then that says everything - obviously the contigent are incapable/unable to refute or discuss in kind and stick to the two words their restricted vocabulary allows. That is neither my concern or problem.
I find it so very ironic these same people never shout “Airbus cheerleading” to the likes of Scott Hamilton in the same manner. Very odd. But then, Im not a member on the site you mention, so I care even less about the vitriol spewed there.
As for facts, thats always been done. To be fair, if this wasnt being taken seriously, would respondents even reply?
I just find it amusing unlike the other comments thus far received, you didnt discuss the 787-10 once or offer up your own assessment on what that airplane could turn out to be if launched. Thats what this entry is about, not my use of the English language toward Airbus. Very disappointing given your lengthy, but largely off topic reply.
Im not seeking an electoral “vote of confidence”. Either the reader likes what is written, or they dont - critics are most welcome to start their own editorials.
18. MrEKO | December 17th, 2007 at 9:12 am
“I questioned the claim that the A350XWB is somehow the “widest” airplane in the category, when its evidently untrue - a point you fail to acknowledge also.” With respect, I wasn’t aware that what what we were arguing about. Had you asked me, I’d have said that I am well aware of the dimensions of the 787/A350/777 and that I’ve always thought “XWB” to be a crass name. Where in my argument was I defending any Airbus claim?
As for the A345/A346 being “dropped”, I’d suggest that “dropped” implies ‘got rid of’. That is not really the case. I acknowledged that the 777 continues to outsell the A340 (I even said “seriously outsold”) but I see no evidence of airlines “dropping” them wholesale.
And as for dragging in a non-existant A340F to win the argument, you must be a little desperate!
“…the contigent are incapable/unable to refute or discuss in kind and stick to the two words their restricted vocabulary allows…” I think you missed the point I was trying to make about keeping your posts objective. Do you want to win the argument or just shout louder than everyone else?
Meanwhile, you ignored my first two points. Are you planning to address them?
19. boeing777 | December 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
The initial point you made was the marketing, to which in my piece I alluded that Airbus’ claim that the A350 marketing was skewed. Hope that clears up that issue.
“And as for dragging in a non-existant A340F to win the argument, you must be a little desperate!”
Nothing “desperate” at all Sir, that is what is known as sarcasm
“I think you missed the point I was trying to make about keeping your posts objective. Do you want to win the argument or just shout louder than everyone else?”
Again, Im disappointed you assert this to be some kind of “win-lose contest”. An editorial is just that. Either the content is liked or it isn’t. It has very little to do with “winning” or “shouting”.
Your prior two points - I don’t disagree with them. Its pretty evident without explicit acknowledgement (that you seek) that the A350 has moved leaps and bounds since authority to offer to its Farnborough 2006 relaunch.
Also, on your second point with EK, I do not disagree with your findings
20. keesje | December 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I think the A350XWb and 787 families don´t overlap too much, only -9 and -800 versions.
If both are a step ahead over current 777s and A330s, both can afford the luxury of a slippage, just like the A380 and A400M.
On being or not being objective. It aint over yet. I´m sure its possible w´ll see a great next blog focussing on the 747-8i, analysing the business case, sales process, market responds and reaching tough conclusions on management, vision and technology.
21. Maxorin | December 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Just as the A380 was reclassified a 525-seat jet, there rumors within Emirates (and likely Airbus itself) that the A350-1000 seat count may well drop to facilitate/trade into a slight increase in range
What has the A380 reclassification to do with range? Before and after that reclassification the A380 has been using the same range charts. Before they where stating a 8000nm range with 555 pasangers and they increased it to 8200nmwhen they started to use the 525 figure, as you can see at http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/a380/specifications.html
Cheers
Maxorin
22. boeing777 | December 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Maxorin - Do you even know what you are asking??
“What has the A380 reclassification to do with range?”
You answered your own question!
“a 8000nm range with 555 pasangers and they increased it to 8200nmwhen they started to use the 525 figure”
23. TJ | December 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
The key for both Boeing and Airbus in the future will be to lower the overall weight. Fuel is too expensive and is the number one cost of carriers. Weight is will continue to become ever more crucial, and every single pound will be under scrutiny.
Composites will play a major role in this effort as both airplane manufacturers search for lighter stronger components.
TJ
http://www.sandwichpanels.org
24. Maxorin | December 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ok ok….
I didn’t explain myself, the a380 was always an 8000nm aircraft, they didn’t change the numbers for meet their promises.
25. boeing777 | December 17th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Yes I realize that the A380 was marketed as an 8,000nm airplane - the reclassification sacrificed pax for range.
ILFC boss S. Udvar-Hazy commented recently that the A380 is “dismal” for freight because of it having to haul so many pax and their baggage along with ancilliary supplies for flights.
That man wasnt wrong about the A330-derived A350 before the revamp - I have no reason to believe he is wrong on the A380 this time either.
26. 787 Record Breaker «&hellip | December 27th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
[...] also extends to the 787-10 model too, which is currently in development with a variety of airlines. British Airways has been a [...]
27. Boeing 787 Encounters Sec&hellip | January 16th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
[...] on the 787-10 remains in discussion with a number of customers and is likely to require a similar exit [...]
28. Advantage: BA « BOE&hellip | January 29th, 2008 at 7:15 am
[...] powered by the GE90-115B engine as an interim solution until the A350-1000 variant and possible 787-10 are more fully [...]
29. Gunning For Orders - 747-&hellip | February 4th, 2008 at 7:35 am
[...] on announcing the second wave of fleet renewal orders towards the end of 2008, and whilst the proposed 787-10x, 777-300ER and Airbus A350XWB offerings are being seriously evaluated at the airline, once again [...]
30. Bee | February 20th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Heard about the second wave BA order, nice to hear the 747-8 has been ruled out again.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed