2010: Testing Times For Boeing
December 10th, 2009
First Flights Mark A Year Of Tests Toward Certification
Production Ramp Up Will Be Key To Financial Success, Stability
As Boeing gets ever closer to first flight for the 787 Dreamliner and 747-8F, the challenge during next year won’t just be the certification efforts.
Planned increases in production on the 767 and 747 were held back, along with a cut to the 777 line, commencing next summer - Boeing’s focus on flight tests and initial deliveries will then turn to solidifying the supply chain, particularly that of the 787, and look to increase production as quickly (and painlessly) as is possible.
Revenues during 2010 will be under pressure.
While the 777 has thus managed to survive deferrals en masse, until a wider industry rebound occurs, the decrease in production means that the 787 will become the focal point for money spinning. Thus far, the 787 has escaped falling into the forward-loss position that the 747-8 family finds itself in, despite the recent shot-in-the-arm order from Korean Air, but the litmus test of the 787 will be not only to be produced in meaningful numbers, but to be delivered against a backdrop of a consolidated supply chain.
Image courtesy of Boeing
Criticism of the distributed work share statement on the 787 may have forced Boeing’s hand in reacting to making the purchase of Vought’s share in the supply chain, however, the fact remains that just as Airbus is experiencing woes on the A380 production line, the goal of getting towards making thirteen 787’s-a-month by 2013 or later will be an onerous task - not least because Boeing needs to eat into the backlog and get airplanes into its customers hands.
The supply chain consisting of the three key Japanese “heavy” partners will be integral to this.
If Boeing does look within the next 5-10 years at supplanting the 777 with an all new design, the chances of the wings being made in Japan look promising.
At present, the Japanese heavies are physically restricted in their operational capability and will need working capital to expand - not just to cope with the anticipated 787 ramp up as well as the second line in North Charleston, SC, but they’ll also want to verifiably demonstrate that they have what it takes to produce a new 777 replacement wing (and components) too.
The 747-8 family may have an easier ride by all accounts. The question is resources. And future sales.
Image courtesy of Newairplane.com
Despite the A380 not having a freighter variant, the 747-8F is still likely to languish in terms of new orders until such time cargo yields and traffic reverse the losses seen this year. That’s unlikely to happen with the next 12 or even 18 months.
By the same token, the 777F makes a compelling argument for freight operators instead of 747-8F, but that’s a good problem to have when your rival doesn’t offer anything in comparison today. (Or tomorrow, in fact).
The 747-8I has the saving grace that those existing 747-400 operators are not buying A380’s in large numbers, if at all. Given the loss on that program, all of the hard work garnered by years of 747-400 sales and profitability, it seems ironic that the first major stretched variants of the iconic jumbo have swung into negative territory.
As Mo Yahyavi mentioned to me, he’s ready and able to increase production - it’s just a matter of timing.
You can argue that ensuring 787 production is on track will rank more importantly than flight testing, particularly when Boeing has a plentiful supply of experience when it comes certification efforts.
Without deliveries, there’s no revenue - significant inventory build up, cost overruns, late design changes and untold sums of compensation payments have to be covered before the 787’s sales success over the last five years translates into financial success.
When that happens, it’s only a matter of time before the 777 needs to be addressed - and it’ll be a whole different ballgame to the one Boeing played with the 787.
Entry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8F, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-8, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Randy Tinseth
33 Comments Add your own
1. Tweets that mention &hellip | December 10th, 2009 at 18:02
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FleetBuzz Editorial, Uresh Sheth. Uresh Sheth said: RT @FleetBuzz: Testing Times For Boeing In 2010 http://is.gd/5ij6t [...]
2. Boeing Investor | December 10th, 2009 at 18:19
Coming shortly before the First Flight of the 787, you have taken its success for granted but pointed out what important challenges lie in front of Boeing.
I hope the delays and steps towards tightening up the supply chain have moved the production line to a better state . Is it possible that we will be surprised and the worst of the problems are behind. I am sure their are skeptics but many lessons should have been learned during this “recess” and it is possible that we will be surprised.
This is a good overview and once the plane is up in the air, we know the route that follows and wish it to be well planned, properly identified and efficient .
Here is to some good luck in the next phase.
3. Vero Venia | December 10th, 2009 at 18:53
Yes. 2010 will be a very challenging year for all aerospace companies, especially the suppliers.
The most hard hit will be those who were preparing to increase their production output during 2007 and 2008 only to find out that their investment becomes useless in 2009 and 2010.
I anticipate the failure of several suppliers during 2010.
Airbus and Boeing need to address the issues with their suppliers on top of their task to solve internal problems. This is the essence of my blog entry that I posted back in May: http://wp.me/piMZI-7c
4. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | December 10th, 2009 at 19:52
On supplier trouble, here’s some in the defense market - related directly to A400M delays.
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5281829
Well, 2010 will surely be an exciting time at Boeing - mainly for the 787 - that’s the future. The rest of us can take comfort in the 747-8 being a damn fine plane.
5. keesje | December 10th, 2009 at 20:12
There’s more news on the 787, a big MTOW rise to compensate structural overweight. 8 tonnes. I guess that is twice the A380 overweight (that is more then twice as big).
The 787-9 longer wing is shelved. I expect a 787 HGW (wing) will be developped later on, enabling bigger engines and versions up to 350 seats, replacing the 777s.
6. Paula K | December 10th, 2009 at 21:27
@keesje
The 787-8 maximum take off weight has risen, not OEW.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf
Big difference.
Also the 787 wing for the -8 and -9 are the same. Its just the winglet extension by Korean Air Aero that is shorter now.
IIRC, the A380 OEW was up by 5-6t.
7. Vero Venia | December 10th, 2009 at 22:31
The MTOW of the 787-8 has risen. That’s a fact.
It’s possible that this is a way to recover the payload range capability of the aircraft. We still don’t know what the actual performance is. Once the actual extra weight is known, we can estimate the part which is for payload range capability recovery and if there is part for range improvement.
If the weight saving effort for later aircraft is possible, the higher MTOW and the -9 wing design will open the possibility of a 787-8LR in 2013.
The fact that the -9’s wing will retain the same size as the -8’s is a very good sign.
8. ikkeman | December 10th, 2009 at 22:51
let try to get some holiday spirit - just think of how great the last month of this year (some might say decade) will be.
Gulfstream - G650, Boeing 787, Airbus A400M, Boeing 748
just enjoy the holidays!
9. Vero Venia | December 10th, 2009 at 22:52
BTW, I love to show you my chart with My Dream Fleet
The hypothetical 787-8LR is the ULR aircraft with about 210 seats.
http://verovenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/mydreamfleet3.jpg
10. ikkeman | December 11th, 2009 at 06:56
9. Vero Venia | December 10th, 2009 at 22:52
Why would your dream quad have it’s own engines of 70klbf and not 4 75klbf engines of the lightest birds. Surely commonality of spares and tools would help turn the dream away from nightmare?
11. Aotearoa | December 11th, 2009 at 08:08
5. keesje | December 10th, 2009 at 20:12
You never give up do you Mate? I tell you what. If you lived in Everett, Washington, somwhere near Paine Field, you’ll be able to look out your window in the next week or two and see a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flying through the air.
Can you show me a window in FRance or anywhere elae for that matter, I can look out of and see an Airbus 350? No? I didn’t think so.
Maybe in two, three or even four years time, we’lll all see what really comes out of the Airbus factory and how close it measures up to Leahy’s promises shall we? I’m picking someting less than what you are hoping for, especially if the last couple of Airbus product examples are anything to go by - (340 and 380)
12. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 09:33
10. ikkeman | December 11th, 2009 at 06:56
Because it would be slightly too big (and thus heavy). But, they can still share the engine core, which is the most expensive part of the engine (to build and to maintain).
That’s about 75% to 85% of commonality. You surely have heard something similar in the real life lately.
13. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 09:39
Oh, I forgot to mention that the TO thrust was only indicative. You may have observed that the numbers are multiple of 5 (75, 110, 70 klbs). It’s only an order of magnitude. I need to run complex computations to obtain the “right” thrust. Those numbers are more than enough for a post in a personal blog.
Here is the post where the chart was first presented http://wp.me/piMZI-h6
14. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 09:52
10. ikkeman | December 11th, 2009 at 06:56
You might be interested to read a follow up discussion about My Dream Fleet (”Voluntary Simplicity”): http://wp.me/piMZI-sS
15. ikkeman | December 11th, 2009 at 11:15
14. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 09:52
sorry, not interested
16. Mike M | December 11th, 2009 at 11:34
Um, can we perhaps discuss THIS topic?
Anyway Paula has proven Keesje wrong (and not for the first time) and the 787 is cleared for first flight :
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=990
http://www.newairplane.com/787/
The 747-8F *should* be on track for certification given that most of the testing has already been done via previous models.
I think Saj is right when it comes to the matter of resourcing - had it not been for the engineering drain and diverting toward 787, perhaps the 747-8F would have entered service this year as originally planned.
17. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 11:36
15. ikkeman | December 11th, 2009 at 11:15
Ha, that’s one less visit to my blog.
You should try to go there. It’s free.
18. Vero Venia | December 11th, 2009 at 11:46
16. Mike M | December 11th, 2009 at 11:34 “I think Saj is right when it comes to the matter of resourcing - had it not been for the engineering drain and diverting toward 787, perhaps the 747-8F would have entered service this year as originally planned.”
True. And the market is bleak anyway so spreading the available people and spending across the two programs (and in time) appears to be a good compromise.
But the pressure will increase again at the end 2011 when the demand will surge for both the 787 and the 747-8. They’d better get prepared for a smooth production ramp up.
19. Ed | December 11th, 2009 at 13:12
Saj is right, the market will not recover for at least 12-18 months from now. Even then, which parts of the world will recover first or fastest? Not North or South America, and certainly not Europe. The ME is just beginning their economic slow down, and they will probably suffer harder than the rest of us. That leaves Asia, which I think is where the recovery will begin and spread from. Korean Air’s recent order for the B-747-8I, combined with their other Boeing and Airbust orders, plus ANA and JAL being the first to get their B-787s puts these airlines (and other Asian airlines) in a good place to be ready when the economic recovery begins in earnest.
Boeing needs to get started on flying both the B-787-8 and B-747-8F, and later the -8I to put themselves in a positive position to take advantage of the Asian airline’s recovery, then the spread around the world. That means Boeing needs to pace themselves with two successful certification programs AND get the suppliers and production of these two airplanes fully under control. Boeing can read the tea leaves, and is setting up the SC production line, which they will desprately need. They also need to work with the supply chain to assure all needed parts and sections arrive on time. That will mean they will need to increase the B-747-400LCF fleet from the current 4 airplane to around 7 or 8. Better get going on that now, Boeing, B-747-400s are available and relitively cheap right now.
On the other side of the Big Pond, EADS/Airbus is doing nothing on the commerical side to gear up for the recovery. They only have one product available to increas in production rate, if needed, the aging design of the A-330. The updated A-330, the A-350, is years away from anything that can help EADS/Airbus remain competitive with Boeing. When it begins flight testing/certification, it will already be 2-3 years behind the economic recovery.
Yes, I know I have not mentioned the only money makers each OEM has right now. The lines for the B-737NG, B-777, A-32X, and A-330 are they only steady sourse of revenues, right now for either Boeing or Airbust. That is a given, for right now.
That brings us to the military side of the airplane production business. Both Boeing and EADS have to win the USAF KC-X program, if it does ever go into production. Although any profits mat be slim because the USAF’s demand for fix pricing, it will inject a badly needed cash flow into the winner. The other two major military programs are the Boeing C-17 and the EADS A-400M. The C-17 is a huge success, but it needs orders to stay into production for the next 5+ years. The A-400M, even if it flys successfully today (and I’m sure the PR release on the FF was already written yesterday by EADS), it still has the little problem of being priced at the level of the C-17 with half the capability (if that much). If the 7 EU customers agree to a 25% price increase and a cut of 25% in their combined 180 airplane order (to 135 airplanes), that brings production down to an average rate of 13.5 airplanes per year for 10 years, or just 9 airplanes per year for 15 years.
At those very low rates, there is a good possibility some EU customers like the UK, and Turkey could cancel their A-400M orders altogether and buy more C-17s for the RAF and a new order for C-17s from Turkey. I also expect South Africa to order either the C-17 or C-130J sometime between now and June 2010. Malaysia will not wait for long on their order of 4 A-400Ms, either. They already gave an ultimatum to EADS to keep the price at the current contract at just $177M US per airplane. EADS in is a fangerous position of loosing the Malaysia order right now.
20. JMBEE | December 11th, 2009 at 21:55
Both EADS and Boeing have bleen bleeding cash for in a few high profile programs as of late. On the civilian side for Boeing the 787 and 747-F delays have cost them billions, and on the military side the tanker loss of last year plus delays to the Wedgetail have cost Boeing dearly. Jim McNearny laid out what Boeing must do in 2010 best when he said, deliever the 787 and 747-8 and win the KC-X contract. If Boeing can succesfully do these three things they will stop their cash hemorrhage and put them in a good position for the next decade. It also helps that the Wedgetail finally looks to be on schedule and Boeing won’t have to pay out any more penalties for being late with it.
EADS has similar problems, the A380 has been a money looser from day 1. It is still well behind it’s deliver schedule and continues to be a big drain on EADS finanances. Additionally A350 development is just starting to swing into place and it will be expensive and a very long time before EADS recoups the $17 billion at least, US needed to develop the plane. Finally, the A400M as everyone knows is well over budget and the A330 MRTT project will never make money winning onsy and twosee orders. EADS needs to win the USAF KC-X contract if they ever want to make money.
The difficulty for EADS in this situation though is their way out is in many ways much harder than Boeings. Boeing basically just needs to get the 747-8 flying and fix and admitidly complex 787 supply chain. For EADS to restore their civil program to health they need significant new orders for the A380, however, it is difficult to see any significant ones in the near to mid-term future. They also, need to obtain significant financing for the A350 (good luck given the WTO ruling) and hope they don’t run into any of the delays that plaged the 787.
On the military side Boeing looks in even better relative shape since they have appeared to put the Wedgetail fiasco behind them and appear poised to win the KC-X contest. With the KC-X contract, P-8, Wedgetail, F-18 and other strong military programs Boeing IDS should be very profitable in the comming years. EADS meanwhile is saddled with the A400M, the A400M is a very good design and should be a good aircraft, but European nations must agree to take most of the 180 alloted aircraft they agreed to and pony up most of the money for the cost overuns. Once the A400Ms problems are fixed and it is available for export mid-decade, the plane won’t be profitable or successfull for EADS unless their sugar daddies are willing to pony up the cash. Getting the seven orginial nations to do this will be tough and their is no guarantee the frame numbers and cash provided will be successful to stem the losses on the A400M and make it a success. Additionally, without the KC-X win EADS is sadled with yet one more unprofitable military aircraft program without any major prospects. Beyond that there are few new military aircraft prospects on the horizion in Europe in the mid-term future. Things could be very tough for EADS Military in the comming years. Airbus looks in significantly better shape, but the A380 will be a drain on the company for the next decade if not longer.
21. keesje | December 12th, 2009 at 21:04
Mike M if you really think the MTOW rise to maintain payload has nothing to do with a EOW rise, because Boeing didn’t say so.. you in for another “unexpected” dissapointment soon.
JMBEE don’t agree. I think the longer you look back the better the Boeing position looks. They now have a lot of end of life cycle products. The 737, 747, 767, C17, F15 and even 777 it appears. Upgrades are proposed. The 787 is the only new product & problematic as we speak.
The a380, A400M & A350 are new. The A320 & A330 still hot and with new engines/versions still very competative.
I think the US government is extremely important for Boeing. It’s by far their biggest customer (IDS, space), bank (ImEx), R&D supplier (NASA, Darpa), Advocate (WTO), Sales support (mil deals), Tax agent (tax cuts), etc.
This minght not land well with some patriotic free market enthousiast but has been a reality for more then 70 yrs. That a good look and you realize just how deep and extensive this cooperation is and always has been.
22. Chris Wallace | December 13th, 2009 at 00:40
I love how the A320 is said to be “future-proof” while the 737NG is said to be “end of life” even though the A320 entered service a decade prior than the 737NG.
And of course the A330-200’s extra payload is held up as incontrovertible proof that it can compete with the 787-8 even though it will burn a not-insignificant more fuel on the same mission. And yet, the 777’s own hinted at payload advantage over the A350XWB is said to be totally worthless in the face of the not-insignificant more fuel it burns on the same mission.
Looks like doublespeak and Newthink are alive and well 25 years after 1984 has come and gone.
23. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | December 13th, 2009 at 06:47
Just woke up to a lovely sunny South African morning. And don’t some of the aircraft programmes mentioned here need that? While South Africa cancelled its contract for 8 A400M’s, I don’t think we’ll be we’ll be heading for St. Louis or Bethesda any time soon for anything made in Southern California. Just a feeling. Although, I’d like to see us get the Globemaster or/and Hercules for our special role on the African continent. South Africa (probably) just has a better trade deal with the EU than the US. Could it harm SA interests if it choose a US product over one from the EU? My feeling is that the South African cancellation had more to do with domestic issues than the A400M’s schedule/cost. And domestic issues include the parastatal power utility jacking up kwh costs by a now proposed 35% p.a. for 3 years (down from 45%) - which would place South African power amongst the most expensive in the world. The storm that would create with the highly inflated A400M would not be appropriate at this time of job loss. Me thinks that at some point, we’ll be back for the A400M. And justification will be our industrial participation. At this moment, the South African A400M partners are considering jobs cuts because of delays to the project. On the commercial side, I’d be surprised if we ever went Boeing again - we just traded out 747’s for not-so-good A340’s. On the other hand, I’d be shocked if we tried to bring the carrier to its knees with the Whalejet. Just a feeling…
24. Mike M | December 13th, 2009 at 09:54
Thank you again Chris Wallace for telling it like it is to Keejse - of course, he wont swallow that.
25. JMBEE | December 14th, 2009 at 03:42
Keesje,
In all honesty, you have to judge each manufactures wares by their position in their respective markets. In terms of civil aircraft both Boeing and Airbus appear to be fairly evenly matched. In the all important narrowbody segment I would give a slight advantage to Airbus simply because it appears easier to upgrade the A320 to a larger Pratt GTF turbofan than it appears to upgrade the 737, otherwise the aircraft are pretty equal. In the widebody twin market, Boeing has the 787 and 777, which given that the 787 should be flying shortly and that it complements the 777 fairly well, they make a stronger pair than the undeveloped A350 and the A330, which the A350-800/900 will replace. The A350-1000 also appears to not quite be the 777-300 killer as advertised. In the VLA market who cares, this is a minor niche market the most that can be said is the 747-8 might make a little money, while the A380 will never be profitable. Overall, they appear to fairly evenly matched as long as Airbus doesn’t have the same type of problems with the A350 they had with the A380 or Boeing had with the 787.
It’s in the military market though that EADS is showing it’s weakness. The A400M will simply never be a profitable airframe. The biggest problem is that assuming it’s problems are fixed who will buy it when it is availabe for export mid decade? The USAF won’t touch it and beyond the USAF and Europe there really isn’t a very big market for transports of its capability. The only other potential major purchasers; Russia and China will go with domestic aircraft and other potential customers, Australia, Canada, India, etc. are all going C-130J/C-17. Once, the A400M is available for export what limited market there was for it will be gone.
Similarly, if as is now expected the KC-30 looses to the KC-767 what market will there be for it. The USAF is pretty much the market for tankers and everything else is small potatoes. EADS has ceded the maritime market to Boeing and it’s P-8A, and the recent anouncement of the intention to build a joint Israeli/EADS AEW aircraft on the A320 frame appears to be more an act of desperation than anything else. Also, despite being old, the F-15 Silent Eagle would appear in many ways to have superior export prospects to the Eurofighter (Beyond the current buyers what real prospects does it have). Given the paucity of new programs in Europe, and EADS very weak position in the hot growth market of UAVs (dominated by US manufactures), I honestly do not believe that EADS military business looks very healthy at all. EADS N.A. CEO O’Keefe indicated as much when he said that EADS growth plans in North America would be severaly curtailed without a win on the KC-X.
26. Erik Bloodaxe | December 14th, 2009 at 23:41
“Looks like doublespeak and Newthink are alive and well 25 years after 1984 has come and gone.”
No… just Airbussien Fanboi-ism. For which Keesje is Fanboi number 1. Keesje is a primary example of someone who can find no fault what so ever with anything Airbus does, or has ever done. Everything is solid gold. He is a knee jerk reactionary.
Of course, Airbus and Boeing are pretty evenly matched. They HAVE to be, there isn’t anyone else in the large aircraft market at this time to make it anything but. That “could” potentially change with the entry of the CSeries or the C919, or maybe (outside chance) the MC-21. The anoying part, is that neither Boeing nor Airbus is exactly, directly head to head. Everything they have is off just a wee bit from each other. The closest you get is in the narrow bodies where it’s just a handfull of seats difference. Such is the nature of a duopoly.
Both Boeing and Airbus have pretty massive problems, and for much the same reason… piss poor management. Whether its A380 or 787, the ultimate fault is incompetent management.
27. keesje | December 15th, 2009 at 00:05
I think 8 A330s a month are rolling of the assembly line while the 787 will hopefully make its first flight tomorrow. The fact the A350 hasn’t flown should not be taken more serious then the 787 that hasn’t flown for yrs.
The A350-1000 not being a 777-300ER killer who knows, its yrs away. On the A380 you state it will never make money. Can you look ahead 30 yrs?
Then you state A400M will never be a profitable. How can you possibly say that 2 days after first flight?
I think opinions should be stated as opinions, because they are nothing more.
The A400M market, how many Herc’s / An’s Illiushins are fying around in the world? Will they fly for ever? Will they all replaced by 4x as large C-17’s?
IAI ask Airbus if they can provide A320’s as basis for their AEW kit. (They have an issue with Boeing after Korea). Airbus might agree to provide A320 as platforms. Your quick conclusion on Airbus : “the A320 frame appears to be more an act of desperation than anything else”
I think your posts in this thread are often factual incorrect and state clear opinions as facts fat to often..
Chris I think the battle between the 777-200ER/LR and the A350-900XWB is over. The 777-200ER/LR aircraft backlog stands at 36 (?). Luckely the 777-300ER is still selling well.
I think the 787 will be more efficient then the A330’s, mainly because of its new RR and GE engines. Still the A330 sold hundreds since the 787 was launched. And that’s no opinion.
On cargo, I think cargo onboard passenger aircraft is not as important as it used be 20 yrs ago. Probably mainly due to the grown scale and efficiency of dedicated cargo networks. An old Atlas 747 has lower ton/km costs then the belly of a spanking new KLM 777. And it flies better logistic places & times too.
28. Mike M | December 15th, 2009 at 03:18
Keesje
The A350-1000 is not a 777-300ER killer. Nor wil it ever be. The A380 will never make a profit, even in 130 years let alone 30!
It is old conventional technology that will be obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Composite is the way to go.
The A400M is E20bn and EADS is crying for another E7bn to stop it from collapse. The EADS cash position would be wiped out overnight with the A400M failure. Export orders are at a trickle and the A400M fails to cover the the jets it seeks to replace.
On the 777, you love to poin out its backlog while failing to mention the over 400 jets in service. Add in the 767 family and thats nearly 1500 jets against less than 250 A350-900’s.
Still, the 777-200LR/-300ER sold over 400 units since the 787 was launched and thats no opinion.
And on cargo, the 777F has better costs than the 747F (NOT -8F) and operates in tandem with 747F fleets to exactly the same airports - you’re speaking outta ya Euro-ass on this and you know it.
Go back to bed and come back when the A350 makes it into the skies. Fool.
29. Leelaw | December 15th, 2009 at 07:14
There’s an interesting quote from the “Great Satan” Aboulafia in yesterday’s SP-I blog:
“…The real question will be whether the initial production aircraft meet Boeing’s promised performance, he [Aboulafia] said. “The most probable worst-case scenario is that they have to spend a couple of years building a bunch of aircraft that aren’t quite there yet, then eventually they refine the design and production methods to get something the customers want.”
And that would leave an opening for the A350.
“It’s kind of a zero-sum game in a lot of ways,” Aboulafia said. “If the 787 really is the future, the A350 will be regarded as just a sort of a not-quite-optimal approach to composite design. But if the 787 disappoints in any way, the A350’s going to be in a very good position.”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/188198.asp#extended
“Keesje is a primary example of someone who can find no fault what so ever with anything Airbus does, or has ever done. Everything is solid gold. He is a knee jerk reactionary.”
However, every once in a while, he’ll express a cogent idea which he hasn’t refracted through the prism of “Airbus Uber Alles.” Some people who aren’t doctrinaire “Airbusiers” find his “Econoliner” concept interesting.
30. Vero Venia | December 15th, 2009 at 08:21
Keesje is right when he says that whatever is said about the future of VLA is merely an opinion. Call it an opinion, forecast or prediction if you wish, but he is right to say it is still not a fact.
However, the A380 has been marketed since the 90’s with the industrial launch in 2000 so we can admit as a fact that the aircraft is already in the market since about one decade. The 747-8i was launched in 2005, so it has also been around since years. The fact that the sales are only about 225 for both the A380 and the 747-8i since one decade can be considered as a relatively low demand. And this is a fact.
If you take the averaged sales level during the past decade, then you come out with about 22 or 23 orders per year for both the A380 and the 747-8i.
Very frankly, I can’t see 23 sales per year as a very high number especially when you consider that there are two aircraft types included, the A380 and the 747-8i.
Therefore, if you allow me to make a production forecast, the about right production level of VLA would be around 23 aircraft per year in the next decade. The assumption is of course that there is not a sudden surge of VLA orders in the coming years.
Quite honestly, I do not know what will happen during the next ten years. But I am sure that the A380 was launched well before the launch of the 787, 747-8i and the A350. Although these three aircraft are not direct competitor of the A380 they provide airlines with some alternatives for their fleet planning strategy.
As I mention in two or three latest posts in my blog, the air transport landscape undergoes a serious mutation. So, we still do not know if the VLA market will grow or will shrink. In only three years from now, we will know the trend. My opinion is that it won’t grow.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/
31. Erik Bloodaxe | December 15th, 2009 at 14:31
Leelaw,
Keesje’s “Ecoliner” isn’t his idea, it’s an EU R&D concept that has been floating around for about 7 years already. I have yet to see anything cogent or productive come from his mental masturbation. It might be interesting, if it hadn’t been thought of before by REAL designers and not a fanboi.
32. keesje | December 15th, 2009 at 22:55
Erik thnx I learn something new here all the time. D you have even the slightest kind of refrence / link to your EU R&D concept ?
I think a real man makes a stand & comes up with prove after such insulting insinuations. I’ll check tomorrow.
33. keesje | December 16th, 2009 at 23:23
Erik,
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/y/you_fail-12825.jpg
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