Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4891672/

Topic: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LipeGIG
Posted 2010-08-07 09:56:15 and read 22499 times.

Continuation of the first part, as it reaches more than 270 posts.

See the first page here.

CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 (by kaitak Aug 2 2010 in Civil Aviation)


Enjoy the forum

Felipe

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-07 10:07:46 and read 22497 times.

Picking up from where we left off:

Quoting Baroque ():
Probably not, just as it would not fit all that well under a 787-10 or 11 come to that, unless they are a "bit different" to the current manifestations! Which leave GE trying to develop a 115MkII for the 77W only or an entirely different engine that could fit stretched 787s and or 350s. And the word to Airbus was "niet" for one of those apps.

I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.

I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range - or at least to a level of efficiency they feel is necessary to make such an engine competitive to the Trent XWB.

What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

So I wonder if GE can't update the GE90-115b with contra-rotation, IBR compressors and a new fan with wide chord blades for the 777 while working with Pratt to improve the GP7200 to not only power the A350, but also improve it's position vs. the Trent 900 on the A380 program. It would also make sure that if Rolls does offer the Trent XWB for the A380-900, EA has an equal engine, as well.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: A342
Posted 2010-08-07 10:11:31 and read 22465 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range

Having said that, it would have been interesting to see how they would have tickled 83k out of the GEnx for the -900.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-07 10:32:56 and read 22402 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
hey can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.

Airbus wanted an engine that can power the A350-800, A350-900 but also A350-900R, -900F and -1000.

GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.

Aircraft like the said A350s but also 787-10 and 777-200NNG would need that.

The GE90-11X is too big, the GenX too small.

No doubt RR will offer Boeing a Trent XWB based 85-100klbs engine for a 787 or 777 in the 300 seat segment.

Maybe Boeing can't buy it, like GE can't tap into the A350 market.

I think the Boeing - GE >80 klbs exclusivity is really working for both Boeing and GE.

Those hundreds of newly ordered 777s in the next few years will prove it.


Now up for AF/KLM ordering 100 twin aisles, both are long term loyal GE customers / partners...

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-07 11:14:49 and read 22256 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.

Yes they do. It's called the GE90-7xb and GE90-9xb.

Admittedly, those engines are not going to be competitive on an SFC basis with the current generation, but again, GE could conceivably develop a new fan and add both IBR and contra-rotation to improve SFC by a significant amount.

The GP7200 has been tested to almost 82,000lbs of thrust, but GE found another 20,000 pounds in the GE90 family so I don't see why Engine Alliance can't do so, either. I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EPA001
Posted 2010-08-07 11:38:22 and read 22189 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.


No doubt GE can pull this off and no doubt it will take a lot of money. But the question is: what is GE willing to do? So far they have not made a move after their "no" to the Airbus request for an all new engine for the A350-XWB.

The stakes are getting higher for Boeing and GE when it comes to this one. But no doubt they will find an answer to change the current situation. And then the competition can make their counter move a generation (or quicker then that) later.   Which keeps us on our toes.  .

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-07 11:59:49 and read 22110 times.

Quote:
Presumably that wing would then be available later for a retrofit to longer range 789s? Or is that too simple?

No I don't think that is too simple, and that is the approach I've been advocating for a while. Do a 787-10 with a modified and enlarged wing and then go back and fit that to a -9 fuselage to make a 787-9LR. The only potential catch is that the landing gear might require modification as well, which would increase the money and effort required but isn't an insurmountable obstacle.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-08-07 12:38:26 and read 22000 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines

I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.
I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range

Agree

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

The only thing that I see as an issue here is that even at 118", RR are going to have to go to a new technology level on the 93k lb Trent XWB to achieve all of the characteristics, i.e. SFC, thrust, emissions etc.

I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-08-07 13:05:46 and read 21909 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers. Given that it would be in Airbus' interest, I don't actually see there being much resistance - except maybe from RR!   

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-07 13:57:42 and read 21788 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.

I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap

True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.



Quoting scbriml (Reply 8):
It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers.

Oddly enough, they evidently did sign off on the GP7100 series for the 767-400ERX, since that engine and the Trent 600 were announced at the program launch.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-08-08 01:07:45 and read 19294 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.

That's as maybe, but Airbus's "dismissal" of the GEnx would surely have been based on whatever GE were prepared to contract to at the time, not "might-have-beens" that have subsequently become manifest.

Of course there's no saying the Trent XWB won't beat it's figures by 2% a couple of years after EIS either..  

In truth, though, I suspect it was the size limit that really put the nails in the coffin for the GEnx..

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-08 01:42:12 and read 19060 times.

It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models. I can see offering exclusivity on the -1000 because GE isn't keen on making an engine of the thrust required but they wouldn't have any issues with the -800 and -900. It seems to me like they are potentially shooting some sales in the foot.

I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

Still, I don't run a major airline producing company so my logic may be a bit flawed.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2010-08-08 03:28:20 and read 18401 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

Same with exclusive GE engines on the 777ER and 748....only one carrier really ordering the 777ER in large numbers now and that's EK.

Sales of the 748 haven't exactly gone through the roof either.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-08-08 07:21:47 and read 16769 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.



Any particular sales that you're aware of lost due to a lack of engine choice?

History suggests that a lack of engine choice is not a barrier to sales (737 best example). I believe Leahy himself said he's never lost an order because of a lack of engine choice.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-08 08:36:25 and read 16188 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models.

Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

It think there's high pressure on GE to come up with a state of the art 80-90k lbs engine from
- Boeing (787-9HGW, 787-10, 777-200NNG),
- Airbus (A350-900R, -900F, -1000) and most important :
- a dozen of major GE loyal airlines,
- GE risk sharing engine shops and subcontractors.
- the competition, RR is having a field day with the Trent XWB and probably has proposed a XWB variant to Boeing already!



GE has lost hundreds of potential orders. No doubt there are 2 camps within GE and they have already started preliminairy studies for either a lighter modified GE-11X, an enlarged GENX or something new.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-08-08 08:47:55 and read 16101 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
or something new

Eventually it is going to have to be "something new" but so far, that school of thought does not seem to be winning. Probably a look inside the GE finances would give a clue. But lack of a new engine probably means anything but inaction, just nothing to see - yet!

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: PM
Posted 2010-08-08 09:20:47 and read 15787 times.

I'm actually going to break ranks and suggest that GE means what it says. To hell with the A350!

They are already No.1 by some margin. They are winning (so far) on the 787. They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747 and EA is pulling ahead on the A380.

You can't with 'em all. The A350 is juicy and they've missed the boat (to mix my metaphors) but it's hardly a life-or-death issue.

...which it was - or at least more so - to RR.

RR has the A330 nailed but T700 sales can't last forever. RR have a solid 35% of the 787 but they're lagging behind GE. RR aren't on the 777 or 747 and, after an initial lead, the EY order for 10 and EK's continuing demand for A380s has handed EA the lead.

RR need a good, solid widebody application.

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

And that's fine by me!!   

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Scotron11
Posted 2010-08-08 11:09:46 and read 15249 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Careful what you wish for!

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-08 12:15:16 and read 15110 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling. These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-08 12:21:13 and read 15099 times.

I could see where Airbus might fear an airline would buy the A350-800 / A350-900 with GE power and then eschew the A350-1000 (with RR power) for the 777-300ER because it would also have GE power and they might already operate the type, so it would be an incentive to continue to add more of the same rather then start adding the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-08-08 12:43:40 and read 15041 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling.

Yet you still haven't offered any evidence to support this claim. Which airlines have purchased the 787 and not the A350 becuase there was no GE offering on the A350? See reply 13 - Airbus say they've never lost a sale because of a lack of engine choice.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.

Engine commonality might not be an issue for an airline that only ordered one model. While it is true that airlines that have ordered the -800 and -900 might never order the -1000, the reverse is far less likely. Given that 75% of current -1000 customers have also ordered the smaller A350s, I suggest engine commonality across the entire range is far from meaningless.

To come somewhat back to topic, given that CX has 30 options AND the contractual option of switching some of the order to -1000s, do you think engine commonality wouldn't be an issue for them?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-08 14:46:37 and read 14812 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747

265 777 in the backlog, 85% 300ER.

The backlog of 80-100klbs GE90s is non existant, it's gone.

747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.

300 Seats is a market sweetspot. IMO GE will come up with a plan soon.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-for-2nd-a350-engine-launch-25556/

The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-boeings-777-successor-drive.html

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2010-08-08 15:47:58 and read 14689 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
RR need a good, solid widebody application.

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Absolutly, at one time it looked like RR could be locked out of future widebodies, had to fight PW to get on the 787, locked out of the A350 for at least 3 years production, 772 business dead, not on 77L/W; but they were handed a lifeline when the original A350 project collapsed and they leapt at the second chance with the XWB, they would have been happy to fight GE to 50/50 but GE didn't come back for the fight, which was a huge win for RR.

As to GE being able to sit on their hands, presuming that GE secured exclusivity on the 748 the old fashioned way, ie by taking a risk sharing stske where does that leave GE if the program is in loss?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-08 17:11:16 and read 14564 times.

The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats). Another possibility is to stretch the 772 by about 8 feet, making it a 350 seat aircraft, with 773 NG at current length coming in at 400 seats.

My calculations suggest that 773 NG will do well against A350-1000 for long/dense routes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-boeings-777-successor-drive.html
Quote:
However, the 787-9 could hold more potential to fill the role the 777-200ER holds, says the managing director of a lessor who has reviewed detailed dimensions of both aircraft. The leasing company says that the cabin lengths of both aircraft are nearly identical at around 49m (161ft), placing the 787-9 with nine-abreast seating and a range of 8,000-8,500nm (14,800-15,800km), nearly on par with the larger -200ER.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: PM
Posted 2010-08-08 17:35:23 and read 14525 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
265 777 in the backlog, 85% 300ER.

The backlog of 80-100klbs GE90s is non existant, it's gone.

I can't decide if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me!  
Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.

"a loss position"? Perhaps, but the -8F will surely keep selling. As of today Boeing have sold 109 747-8s (all models) so that's 450+ GEnx engines with more to come. Don't tell me that isn't good business for GE. (At worst, GE will sell as many GEnx2s as RR sold Trent 500s and no-one suggests that RR lost money on that disappointingly short production run.)

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.

I wonder what would happen if Boeing asked RR for such an engine, explicitly to challenge the A350...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

TriStar?

But you're missing the point, I think. The days when PW could hang JT9Ds under the wings of 747s and A310s (among others) and GE could do the same with the CF6 have gone.

Each application now really demands a bespoke engine. Even the GEnx1 and GEnx2 have significant differences. (And, yes, I know that there were different versions of the CF6 but much the same engine did (does) power very different airliners.)

GE does not have - and never did - an engine they could simply take off the shelf for the A350XWB. Even a GEnx (GEnx3?) for only the -800 and -900 would have required a fair bit of work.

So, at present, there is no "other engine [that meets] spec on some of the models".

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-08 18:40:01 and read 14649 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 20):
Yet you still haven't offered any evidence to support this claim.

It's not a claim of any sort If you read my previous post you would have read, among other things this;

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

It's an opinion.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 20):
Given that 75% of current -1000 customers have also ordered the smaller A350s, I suggest engine commonality across the entire range is far from meaningless.

I never said there still couldn't be the option of commonality. RR would still be an option on all three models even if a GE option was offered on 2.

Quoting PM (Reply 24):
But you're missing the point, I think. The days when PW could hang JT9Ds under the wings of 747s and A310s (among others) and GE could do the same with the CF6 have gone.

Nah...I get it. It's business, nothing else. Compromises are made with every business decision. Every decision is designed to maximize profit in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. GE knew up front that saying no to the -1000 meant saying no to the 350. Airbus knew that GE wasn't going to bid on the -1000 but they insisted on a common engine family for all three models so they knew that they would only be offering RR engines on the 350.

The nuts and bolts of WHY these decisions were made might never be known but the results can be analyzed and speculated upon.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: PM
Posted 2010-08-08 19:02:22 and read 14673 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):
the results can be analyzed and speculated upon.

Well, the "result" so far is that Airbus have sold getting on for 600 A350s with no engine choice. How many more sales they might have had, we'll never know but it's hard to believe that Airbus are kicking themselves.

The other "result" is that RR are on around 830 of the new twins (787 & A350) and GE are on around 430.

No GE on the A350 = bad news for GE (yes), bad news for Airbus (questionable), but exceedingly good news for RR!   

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-08 19:33:38 and read 14760 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats).

But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of the 777-200 to make it a better competitor on all but the longest of flights.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-09 07:20:21 and read 14252 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats).

But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of the 777-200 to make it a better competitor on all but the longest

Looking at what airlines said & decided in the last 5 years, I think it has to be the 787-10 iso a reengined 777. RR would have an engine "of the shelve", GE not.

If GE has decided to pass on a new (a350) 80-90k lbs engine and sticks to that decision, IMO it is simply a bad decision and they will have to chance their strategy.

Maybe they thought the 777-200LR/ERs would hold on longer..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-09 10:01:45 and read 13902 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23):
The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats).

But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of the 777-200 to make it a better competitor on all but the longest of flights.

I agree that a 787 with capacity of 330 seats would have better economics than 772NG. Anything upto 370 seats, a 9 abreast platform should outperform a 10 abreast platform for similar technology.

I am bringing up 772NG as a possibility if Boeing decides not to pursue 787-10. It will be interesting to see what Boeing does on B772 NG length--keep it at current length(330 seats), or stretch it(350 seats).

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-09 10:09:50 and read 13884 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 16):

Excellent post PM and well summed up. I think those on here speaking of 'dire straits' for GE forget how successful GE still is and have been. The exclusivity on the 77L/77W/77F and 748I/F programs alone, not to mention their success on the 787, and the growing success with their EA sales will ensure their survival just a little longer... 
Quoting keesje (Reply 21):

Oh Keesje, you and your doomsday scenarios for anything Boeing or GE. Give it a rest would ya!!   

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-09 11:00:51 and read 13737 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Maybe they thought the 777-200LR/ERs would hold on longer..

Gross orders for the family this year are looking pretty solid and the cancellations are due to GFC-related issues, not dissatisfaction with the family or a desire for "something new" so if those customers survive, the odds seem good they will order again.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-09 11:39:09 and read 13632 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 29):
I am bringing up 772NG as a possibility if Boeing decides not to pursue 787-10.

Honestly I think that if Boeing passes up the 787-10 in favor of a 777-200NG just to save some money by having parallel development with the -300NG, the -200 might end up like the 747-8I. Plus, I would have to think that the larger versions would still have to make some compromises.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-09 12:09:40 and read 13565 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Honestly I think that if Boeing passes up the 787-10 in favor of a 777-200NG just to save some money by having parallel development with the -300NG, the -200 might end up like the 747-8I. Plus, I would have to think that the larger versions would still have to make some compromises.

Ideally, Boeing should do both 77W NG(400 seats) and 787-10(310-330 seats) concurrently, but lack of resources will dictate one before the other. I foresee B77W NG(along with B772 NG) first, and then 787-10(and perhaps 787-11).

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-09 12:23:41 and read 13501 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 33):
I foresee B77W NG(along with B772 NG) first, and then 787-10(and perhaps 787-11).

If I were them, I would reverse that with the caveat of getting weight reductions and engine improvements on the 77W as soon as possible. I think that Boeing can gain more quicker if they go at the A350-1000 from the lower end first and then when they do get around to adding a new wing to the 777, Emirates will still be there waiting for them. Of course, an A350 delay or two could help Boeing out a lot.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-09 15:07:23 and read 13314 times.

I believe, we will not see a B787-10 soon.

It is more likely that Boeing is looking at a combined replacement for both the B77E and B77L first.

An updated B777-200, that could cover the complete range of both aircrafts.

The improvements would incorporated into the B77W and B77F as well, so that we could see an updated B777-family in following order:


1. B777-200X (B777-2) (300 seats)
2. B777-300/X (B777-3) (350 seats)
3. B777-200F/X (B777-2F) (115 tons cargo)
4. B777-4 (390-400 seats)

[Edited 2010-08-09 15:09:09]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-09 16:11:03 and read 13190 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 35):
An updated B777-200, that could cover the complete range of both aircrafts.

The problem with that is that a 787-10 and 777-200NG cover the same size segments (the 787-10 would be a bit bigger and the 787-9 a bit smaller) but with the possible exception of extremely long flights, the 787-10 would do a better job. The only way a 777-200NG would really become viable is if a) airlines really want a plane with even more range than the current 777-200LR, which I don't think is the case and b) if they do want that, a 787-9LR with the wing and possibly increased MTOW from the 787-10 could not cover that market.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-09 19:27:46 and read 13028 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):

I'm of a similar mind. I think Boeing already has the 787-9 sneaking up on the 777-200 segment. It would probably take less time and effort to make a 787-10 an efficient 300+ seater than making the 777-200 capable of fending off the 350's.

For the 350+ segment, the 10 abreast capabilities of the 777 make future proofing for larger sizes an easier proposition.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-09 23:29:05 and read 12809 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
I'm of a similar mind. I think Boeing already has the 787-9 sneaking up on the 777-200 segment.

I think that we will see quite a few 777 operators choosing the 787-9, and some choosing the A359 and 787-10. I think that it is better for everybody to cut the 777NG off at the -300 (except perhaps for a freighter, and maybe not even then depending on weights), since I can't see a 777-200 being competitive with the A350 and 787 and the 777 will be better off being optimized around the larger model. The 777-200LR should be rendered obsolete by range improvements in the 77W anyway.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-08-10 05:23:31 and read 12485 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 34):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 33):
I foresee B77W NG(along with B772 NG) first, and then 787-10(and perhaps 787-11).

If I were them, I would reverse that with the caveat of getting weight reductions and engine improvements on the 77W as soon as possible.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
It would probably take less time and effort to make a 787-10 an efficient 300+ seater than making the 777-200 capable of fending off the 350's.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 38):
since I can't see a 777-200 being competitive with the A350 and 787 and the 777 will be better off being optimized around the larger model.

  

I also struggle to see how a 772NG would be competitive with the A359 or 787-10. The simple stretch 787-10 would be utilising the latest technologies and be relatively light in R&D terms (and very structurally efficient) - not sure if recent decisions regarding the 789 wing size pose any issues here. The (standard) 787-10 would also be relatively quick to market from launch - important when the A359 is selling like hot cakes on the other side of the pond.

Any follow on HGW 787-10 must still be cheaper in R&D terms than a 772NG - not sure if I'm missing something but I cant see the attraction of any 772NG over a 787-10 as opposed to a 77WNG.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-10 09:16:18 and read 12289 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Maybe they thought the 777-200LR/ERs would hold on longer..

Gross orders for the family this year are looking pretty solid and the cancellations are due to GFC-related issues

No, I think the combined777-200ER/LR backlog stands at ~35..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2010-08-10 10:40:42 and read 12169 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 33):
Ideally, Boeing should do both 77W NG(400 seats) and 787-10(310-330 seats) concurrently, but lack of resources will dictate one before the other. I foresee B77W NG(along with B772 NG) first, and then 787-10(and perhaps 787-11).

The best use of resources may be to do a 77W NG and a simple stretch 787-10. Such a -10 may trade range for capacity, but with the rising traffic in Asia and Middle East, a A330 kind of range should be suffice. Without major R&D and production process cost, this -10 will be very price competitive against the A350XWBs (same as A330 vs 787). I wonder if Boeing has already taken this into account while designing the -9.

A 787-11 and 787-10LR later will completely replace the 777W NG.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 12:08:51 and read 12034 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 39):
The simple stretch 787-10 would be utilising the latest technologies and be relatively light in R&D terms (and very structurally efficient) - not sure if recent decisions regarding the 789 wing size pose any issues here.

They could do a 787-10 as a straight stretch, but it would have to be done with the understanding that you would build it, sell 100 or so, and then build a version with a better wing and maybe increased weight.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-10 14:13:25 and read 11939 times.

Everybody here seems so enthusiastic about a possible B787-10X, but as far as i know, Boeing has not even decided IF it will be started or not.


I am not sure the concept of the B787-10X will work fine against the A350-900 and a NG B777-200.


Why?


- It would be a double stretch of an aircraft which still is a lot overweight and not certified

- It would need new engines

- It would need more wingspan

- It would need a stronger 6-wheel main gear or on additional center gear

- It would need a lot of structural changes


All of these changes, excluding the new engines for sure, would make that aircraft heavy.

The question now is: Which aircraft is heavier?


1. The B777-200NG

2. the proposed B787-10X


The next question would be: When is the EIS?

We are already talking about a late 2013, maybe early 2014 for the B787-9, so when could the B787-10X be delivered?
I would guess around 2016/2017, but not much earlier.

So i am not really sure if it would not be a better (safer and quicker) to start a new B777-version.


By the way: Probably someone could provide us with an estimated empty-weight for both alternatives?

[Edited 2010-08-10 14:18:06]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-10 14:53:51 and read 11870 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
All of these changes, excluding the new engines for sure, would make that aircraft heavy.

The same issues you mention also effect any aircraft of that weight class. Yes, it will be heavier than a -9 but would it be heavier than a 350-1000? Or a 772NG?

Perhaps Boeing can use the same wing for a possible 773NG as the basis for the -10. The fuse would be a stretch of the -9 and the wing could be a somewhat lighter version of a CFRP 777 wing.

Regardless, this thread seems to have turned away from the original topic. Perhaps further discussions of a 777NG can be added to an already existing thread or a new one started to include -10 options as well. Just a suggestion.

[Edited 2010-08-10 15:01:14]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 15:18:40 and read 11805 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
- It would be a double stretch of an aircraft which still is a lot overweight and not certified

The weight is coming down.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
- It would need new engines

Or just higher thrust versions of the current engines.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
- It would need more wingspan

So? Design a new wing.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
- It would need a stronger 6-wheel main gear or on additional center gear

Possibly, but that isn't a deal breaker.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
The question now is: Which aircraft is heavier?

Definitely the 777, and unless enough carriers really need an extremely long range, it isn't weight well spent.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
I would guess around 2016/2017, but not much earlier.

Probably a safe bet, and that isn't too bad. The A350-900 will be in service well before that, but a lot of production is already taken up. The A350-1000 is scheduled to enter service at the end of 2015, but I would have some doubts about that since Airbus is basically planning one variant per year between 2013 and 2017.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
So i am not really sure if it would not be a better (safer and quicker) to start a new B777-version.

Safer and quicker doesn't mean crap if nobody buys it. A 777-200NG could quite easily end up being another 747-8I but probably wouldn't have freighter orders to bail them out.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
Yes, it will be heavier than a -9 but would it be heavier than a 350-1000? Or a 772NG?

Probably not.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):
Perhaps Boeing can use the same wing for a possible 773NG as the basis for the -10. The fuse would be a stretch of the -9 and the wing could be a somewhat lighter version of a CFRP 777 wing.

Well, you would want to share what you could, but using the same wing for both probably wouldn't work that well due to differences in weight and payload/range.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-10 17:47:12 and read 11670 times.

@ BMI727


Sorry, but most of your answers are speculations.


And as nobody here can provide us with more technical details for a proposed B787-10X or B777-200NG i have my doubts about a competitive aircraft to the A359 with EIS 2013.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 17:52:59 and read 11670 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 46):
Sorry, but most of your answers are speculations.

As are yours.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 46):
And as nobody here can provide us with more technical details for a proposed B787-10X or B777-200NG i have my doubts about a competitive aircraft to the A359 with EIS 2013.

There is no way Boeing will have either by 2013. They will have the 787-9, which should be a bit more efficient than the A350-900 on shorter routes and will probably be pretty attractive to airlines that don't need the extra capacity.

But I see no way that a 777-200NG will be more efficient than a 787-10 on all but the longest routes.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-10 18:01:57 and read 11660 times.

@ BMI727


The B789 is no real competitor to the A359, it is somewhere in the middle between the A358 and A359.


Boeing should really hurry about a B77E replacement.

I do not expect many B77E operators to downsize to a B789.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 18:19:14 and read 11622 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 48):
The B789 is no real competitor to the A359, it is somewhere in the middle between the A358 and A359.

It is, and I think it is close enough to compete with both.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 48):
I do not expect many B77E operators to downsize to a B789

I disagree. I think some airlines that need capacity or more range will choose the A350, and some that are not as concerned about those factors will choose the 787. Hopefully Boeing will build the 787-10 sooner rather than later, which will bracket the A350-900 in terms of capacity.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-08-10 18:33:22 and read 11611 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 48):
The B789 is no real competitor to the A359, it is somewhere in the middle between the A358 and A359.

Apparently you did not read or alternatively comprehend what I posted in Reply 264 of the first part of this thread. Based on what is known at this time which has been analysed in PIANO X, the only advantage the A390-900XWB has is passenger seats. It has no payload advantage and for the payload that it carries it's projected fuel burn is higher.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-10 18:37:59 and read 11613 times.

@ sunrisevalley


I did not read your reply, but tell your argument to SIA and the other airlines which bought both the A359 and B789...

Something in your conclusion must be wrong.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 18:42:15 and read 11646 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 51):
Something in your conclusion must be wrong.

Or, SQ believes that there are some routes that need the extra capacity and some that don't. Plus, although the nominal ranges are nearly identical, I wouldn't be surprised if the A350 had better payload range performance on very long flights.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-10 19:27:24 and read 11605 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 48):
I do not expect many B77E operators to downsize to a B789.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following 777-200ER operators who have ordered the 787-9, but not the A350-900, at this time include:

NZ
BG
BA
CO

The following 777-200 family operators have ordered the 787-8, but not the A350-900, so they may also be potential 787-9 operators:

AM (777-200ER)
AC (777-200LR)
AI (777-200)
CZ (777-200ER)
DL (777-200ER / via NW)
ET (777-200LR)
NH (777-200ER - they're pretty much guaranteed to select the 787-9)
JL (777-200ER - if they survive as an international carrier, they're pretty much guaranteed to select the 787-9)

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: PM
Posted 2010-08-10 20:26:05 and read 11579 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
The following 777-200 family operators have ordered the 787-8, but not the A350-900, so they may also be potential 787-9 operators:

ET (777-200LR)

Actually, ET have ordered the A350-900: 12 of them.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
Off the top of my head, I can think of the following 777-200ER operators who have ordered the 787-9, but not the A350-900, at this time include:

NZ
BG
BA
CO

Of course, for what it's worth, the number of 777-200xx customers who have ordered the A350-900 is a little longer:

Asiana
Emirates
Ethiopian
Qatar
Singapore
United
Vietnam

That said, and ET excepted, most of the names on your list should be good bets for 787-9 orders.

(...unless they make the same calculations Cathay evidently did!    )

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-08-10 20:41:24 and read 11557 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
They could do a 787-10 as a straight stretch, but it would have to be done with the understanding that you would build it, sell 100 or so, and then build a version with a better wing and maybe increased weight.

I would be a bit more optimistic than that - the 330 has won around 600 sales in recent years due to 787 delays and other issues so I think a straight stretch 787-10 could do very well. This is the aircraft that Boeing can get to the market in the shortest time frame (2015/16 ??) and by then the 787 line will be partially amortised so Boeing could offer very competitive pricing.
It wont set range or payload records but it should have unbeatable CASM and hence be a very good revenue earner for airlines.

If the R&D cost was in the range of $500M to $1B then why wouldn't you want to do it ?


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-10 21:19:41 and read 11520 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
AM (777-200ER)

Capacity wise, the 787-9 might be a better fit for them than the A350, but their hot and high hub in Mexico City might make the A350 more attractive.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
AC (777-200LR)

This one could go either way, since they have 787-8s on order but if they want to replace their 77Ws with A350-1000s, they could achieve commonality that way as well. Probably the determining factors will be performance of the 787-8s they already have extrapolated to the -9, price, and projections about capacity.

Quoting PM (Reply 54):
Emirates

I can't imagine them being interested in any 787 variant other than a -10, and maybe not even then.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
I would be a bit more optimistic than that - the 330 has won around 600 sales in recent years due to 787 delays and other issues so I think a straight stretch 787-10 could do very well.

Maybe, but I still think that Boeing would have to go into with the knowledge that they will most likely have to go ahead with a longer range version as well.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
This is the aircraft that Boeing can get to the market in the shortest time frame (2015/16 ??)
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
If the R&D cost was in the range of $500M to $1B then why wouldn't you want to do it ?

That is probably the case on both counts. I think that a straight stretch would probably turn a profit for Boeing and make it to market quickly enough, but I think that long term competitiveness dictates that an enhanced version be made somewhere down the line.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-08-10 22:10:14 and read 11496 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 50):
Apparently you did not read or alternatively comprehend what I posted in Reply 264 of the first part of this thread. Based on what is known at this time which has been analysed in PIANO X, the only advantage the A390-900XWB has is passenger seats. It has no payload advantage and for the payload that it carries it's projected fuel burn is higher.

I read that also. But I'd be a bit careful of reading too much into the numbers.
They were generated a long time ago, and the aircraft configurations have evolved since then. WBP makes a lot of assumptions to derive those numbers...

Simplistically, at spec,
a 268 tonne A350-900 with an OEW of 134 tonnes, carries its 30t payload (315 pax) 8 100Nm nominal, carrying 104 tonnes of fuel.
a 247 tonne 787-9 with an OEW of 120 tonnes carries its 28t payload (290 pax) 8 000Nm nominal, carrying 99 tonnes of fuel.

Of course, this calculation is sensitive to my OEW assumption

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-08-11 01:38:59 and read 11253 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 43):
- It would be a double stretch of an aircraft which still is a lot overweight and not certified

- It would need new engines

- It would need more wingspan

- It would need a stronger 6-wheel main gear or on additional center gear

- It would need a lot of structural changes


Yes but apart from that it would be a snip - Mrs Lincoln!    And so pretty, much appreciated by Dachshund fanciers I imagine, just like the 346!

New engines in particular seem a bit thin near Boeing over the past 3 or 4 years??? Internal competition might not help either whereas internal competition seems less of an issue for A???

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-11 01:56:19 and read 11218 times.

I'm not sure why the engines would be a problem. Unless RR has an exclusivity agreement to only use the xwb engines on the xwb, there shouldn't be much problem fitting one of those too a -10 should another likely candidate not happen by.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2010-08-11 06:05:23 and read 11011 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 57):
I read that also. But I'd be a bit careful of reading too much into the numbers.
They were generated a long time ago, and the aircraft configurations have evolved since then

True, but the known detail of the evolution is at the best , I thnk , sketchy. My understanding of PIANO X is that each type of aircraft in the data base is based on data provided by the manufacturer and thus is authorative at a point in time. Probably updates have been made but without a WBP or equivalent those on this list are not privy to what the output of an analysis would be at this time. Or am I wrong in my assumption of the source of the data in PIANO X ?

best wishes...

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-08-11 08:18:49 and read 10837 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 59):
I'm not sure why the engines would be a problem. Unless RR has an exclusivity agreement to only use the xwb engines on the xwb, there shouldn't be much problem fitting one of those too a -10 should another likely candidate not happen by.

You might be forgetting a.net law #5, that A350 sales are s***house due to lack of engine choice!   

Joking aside, you would not be able just to bolt one (or even two) on. It would need a spot of work. It would be quite amusing in a spectator at a circus maximus sort of way if Airbus pulled a reverse gambit with the TXWB that was done with the 77W. Wonder if they would be tempted.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-11 10:59:20 and read 10687 times.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 61):
Joking aside, you would not be able just to bolt one (or even two) on. It would need a spot of work.

To start, RR would need to make a bleedless model.  



Personally, a straight stretch 787-10 makes sense as an A330-300 and even 777-300 replacement.

But I imagine that customers are telling Boeing "Yes, we'd certainly buy the 787-10 to replace our A330-300s, 777-200s and 777-300s, but we also need it to replace our 777-200ERs and A340-300s, so it needs more range for those missions, even if it has more than enough range for the other missions."

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-11 11:44:29 and read 10607 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
But I imagine that customers are telling Boeing "Yes, we'd certainly buy the 787-10 to replace our A330-300s, 777-200s and 777-300s, but we also need it to replace our 777-200ERs and A340-300s, so it needs more range for those missions, even if it has more than enough range for the other missions."

I imagine that is exactly what customers are telling them. The decision is whether to do it with one model, which is cheaper, or do it in two models (like the 777-300) which would be more expensive but gets some of those planes in the air sooner. I would guess that airlines are giving Boeing input on that too.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-08-11 11:48:11 and read 10603 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
This is the aircraft that Boeing can get to the market in the shortest time frame (2015/16 ??)

How? With the -9 design having been firmed up just recently and years away from significant production, a -10 variant would be hard pressed to see EIS in that timeframe. There is also a not insignificant existing backlog to consider and/or further production/supply chain capacity considerations to tackle. Mind you that Boeing continues to have production problems for the existing models and is at serious risk if Alenia does not improve its performance. AND, let's factor in the 737 and 777 as demands on resources. Those aircraft lines need attention first or the Boeing portfolio approach will suffer. The 777 can be effectively and competitively revamped sooner AND have the production/supply chain capacity to support early rather than later deliveries.

I know its good fun to theorize about the -10, but quite frankly, I can see where it stands to be better defined on A.net than on Boeing's drawing boards for years to come.

Besides, isn't this a A350-900XWB thread?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-11 13:07:51 and read 10517 times.

The CX will be a handsome aircraft.   


Aviation-Designs.Net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Luis Contreras
Template © Luis Contreras

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-11 13:10:02 and read 10504 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 30):
Oh Keesje, you and your doomsday scenarios for anything Boeing or GE

Nonsense. For the market larger then 300 seats Boeing has a good aircraft and a backlog until Q3 2013, around the time the A350 enters service. The 787-10 is on the back burner, the 777-200 versions went out of favor with the airlines and the 747-8i doesn't sell.

-> That is not a satisfactory long term strategy for Boeing in this segment, to state it mildly.



That's why they will come up with a new plan and GE is probably part of that.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-11 14:43:43 and read 10390 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 66):
The 787-10 is on the back burner,

That is there biggest mistake. If they get off their ass and get the 787-10 moving, they can make a lot of airlines look more carefully before signing on the dotted line for the A350. But once they sign, Boeing probably will never get those orders back, so they need to move quickly.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-08-11 16:34:27 and read 10344 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 64):

Besides, isn't this a A350-900XWB thread?

Apparently yes, and an airline called CX purchasing them with the option of also getting A350-1000XWB and the extended range -900XWB. They were compared to the 787-900 and the 777-200LR as part of the Boeing/GE counter offer. The 787-10 was not looked at as it does not exist.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-08-11 19:42:40 and read 10203 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):
hat is there biggest mistake. If they get off their ass and get the 787-10 moving,

Actually, in a way they are getting off of their ass on the -10. Every bit of data concerning the -8's currently in flight testing will somehow relate to the -10. The more data they receive, the better they will be able to design a -10 to meet whatever markets requirements will result in their greatest share.

By the time the -9 is up and flying, Boeing will have enough real world data to make the best decision possible.

Dang...this thread gets further off topic with every post...and I'm as culpable as the next dude/dudette. Maybe we need another 772NG/787-10 thread.

[Edited 2010-08-11 19:46:26]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-08-11 19:58:31 and read 10172 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):
Boeing probably will never get those orders back, so they need to move quickly.

They can't move any faster. They've been trying to for the past two years but the slip-ups keep coming in one form or another. The 787 program is way behind schedule and is at risk of a slower production ramp-up with one of its major suppliers experiencing a significant quality control audit. The 747-8 flight testing has fallen behind and deliveries will be later than anticipated. Then there's the 737 and the 777 programs and the respective decisions to refresh or build new product offerings. All this talk of a -10 would have made sense if the 787 program stayed on track and cashflow had been filling the bank, but as it stands Boeing needs to get actual birds into customers hands and keep its other programs fresh.

Boeing had Airbus pinned down and slipped. With the void, Airbus has risen again. The loss of the CX order is a good example of Boeing realizing the direct consequences of poor program management - not being able to compete with the right products because you're mired in developing other ones.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: 328JET
Posted 2010-08-11 20:28:29 and read 10130 times.

@ WarpSpeed


Your last sentence is the best in this whole discussion here!!!


In my opinion Boeing is exactly as poorly managed as Airbus was three years ago.

Boeing is really focusing too much on the B787 and loose the rest of the Boeing family out otf their minds.

In german newspapers they alreday state another unconfirmed delay of the B787-8, which i really hope is wrong.


But apparently Boeing were just able to reach around 463 flights with 5 instead of 6 aircrafts and around 1446 hours only.

There is not a real chance for a delivery in 2010 anymore.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-08-11 20:43:19 and read 10126 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 71):
In my opinion Boeing is exactly as poorly managed as Airbus was three years ago.

Agreed. Fortunately for Airbus, there was/is no real competitor to the A380 and its customers could only vent steam and seek delay compensation. In Boeing's case, there is now a choice for customers in which to turn.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-11 21:07:02 and read 10093 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 70):
They can't move any faster.

I don't think we can definitively say whether they are or they aren't since we don't know what they are asking customers. But I fear that the 787-10 is indeed on the back burner, based on how much "chatter" we have heard about the 737 and 777 but nothing about a 787-10 in some time.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 69):
By the time the -9 is up and flying, Boeing will have enough real world data to make the best decision possible.

If they wait until the 787-9 flies in 2013, it will be way too late. The only variant they could hope to compete with would be the modified 787-10, and even that will probably have lost a lot of orders by that time.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 70):
Then there's the 737 and the 777 programs and the respective decisions to refresh or build new product offerings.

I think that whatever happens with the 737 is going to happen regardless of what happens with the widebodies. I think Boeing needs to compete with the A350-1000 from the lower end first which also allows them to compete with the A350-900 from above more than they need a 777NG at this point. As far as the 777NG goes, I think Boeing has to delay any major work on it until the 787-10 is in the air and in the meantime start removing weight and improving SFC.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-08-11 21:12:27 and read 10098 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 61):
Joking aside, you would not be able just to bolt one (or even two) on. It would need a spot of work.

To start, RR would need to make a bleedless model.

True. During the T1700 interval, it appeared that RR could swap from not so much bleed (as even the bleedless still bleed a bit) to bleed relatively easily - as does GE it seems.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-08-11 23:46:27 and read 9977 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
Personally, a straight stretch 787-10 makes sense as an A330-300 and even 777-300 replacement.

But I imagine that customers are telling Boeing "Yes, we'd certainly buy the 787-10 to replace our A330-300s, 777-200s and 777-300s, but we also need it to replace our 777-200ERs and A340-300s, so it needs more range for those missions, even if it has more than enough range for the other missions."

In a perfect world Boeing would be able to offer one aircraft for all missions but Boeings' world is anything but perfect at the moment. The sooner they can deliver anything to compete with the A359 the better.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 64):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
This is the aircraft that Boeing can get to the market in the shortest time frame (2015/16 ??)

How? With the -9 design having been firmed up just recently and years away from significant production, a -10 variant would be hard pressed to see EIS in that timeframe. There is also a not insignificant existing backlog to consider and/or further production/supply chain capacity considerations to tackle. Mind you that Boeing continues to have production problems for the existing models and is at serious risk if Alenia does not improve its performance. AND, let's factor in the 737 and 777 as demands on resources. Those aircraft lines need attention first or the Boeing portfolio approach will suffer. The 777 can be effectively and competitively revamped sooner AND have the production/supply chain capacity to support early rather than later deliveries.

Your points regarding the demand on Boeing's resources for other projects are very valid - hence the suitability of a simple stretch requiring minimal time, capital and resources. I suggested 2015/16 as the earliest time frame - as you suggest it could be a lot later (after many healthy A359 sales and deliveries).

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 64):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
I know its good fun to theorize about the -10, but quite frankly, I can see where it stands to be better defined on A.net than on Boeing's drawing boards for years to come.

I think behind the scenes at Boeing the 787-10 will be receiving a lot of attention - the sight of a 30 frame order for A359's to a blue chip airline such as CX would be quite painful for Boeing.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 64):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
Besides, isn't this a A350-900XWB thread?

If Boeing were offering a standard 787-10 now then I think CX would give it serious consideration - not for long haul but for regional routes currently operated by 330's and 773A's as Stitch suggests.

Boeing have a hole in their product range which is being well exploited by Airbus with the A359.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-12 00:05:23 and read 9957 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 75):
The sooner they can deliver anything to compete with the A359 the better.

I believe the 787-9 does compete with the A350-900. It's a bit smaller, yes, but it's also a bit lighter and if Boeing's CEO's performance claims are accurate, perhaps a bit longer-legged at nominal design range (even if said nominal capacity is lower than the A350-900).

I don't believe it's at the heavy disadvantage at least one person has tried to imply on this forum. And I believe that as Boeing continues to apply improvements to the design both prior to and after serial production begins, the model will secure more orders - and not solely from conversions from existing 787-8 orders.

Yes, the A350-900 secured a shedload of orders out of the gate, but I don't see that as a sign of market indifference to the 787-9 anymore than it appears the shedload of orders the 787-8 secured out of the gate proved to be a sign of market indifference to the A330-200(HGW).

[Edited 2010-08-12 00:06:23]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-12 00:30:50 and read 9918 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
I believe the 787-9 does compete with the A350-900.

I agree, but there is definitely a certain segment of airlines that will want the extra capacity of the A350. The more important market for the 787-10 to compete in is against the A350-1000. The 777NG will be larger and heavier, which works great for Emirates and other carriers that want high capacity on very long segments. But it will be too large and too heavy for many airlines, and Boeing will need a plane that will have virtually the same capacity as the A350-1000 and be as or more efficient on flights up to 7000NM or so.

Even if the A350-900 doesn't make a huge dent in the Boeing order book, the A350-1000 will. It is just a matter of time, and the sooner Boeing can get a 787-10 launched, the better they will be able to blunt the effect.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-12 00:46:53 and read 9894 times.

I think the option to upgrade to A350-1000 in the future was the A350 biggest selling point with Cathay.

In recent years the A330-300 also took a significant bite out of the 300 seat long haul market. Combined A330-300 + A350-900 ( + A340-300) sales vs 777-200ER/LR + 787-9 (+767-400ER) sales during the last few yrs show Boeing has to act ASAP.

The 777 has a backlog until Q3 2013 at current production levels, the 777-200ER /LR backlog stands at 35 aircraft.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
I believe the 787-9 does compete with the A350-900. It's a bit smaller, yes, but it's also a bit lighter and if Boeing's CEO's performance claims are accurate, perhaps a bit longer-legged at nominal design range (even if said nominal capacity is lower than the A350-900).

I would like to see a real world apples to apples comparison between those. The installed power and wing area of the 787-9 is significant smaller. That means lower payload-range in my book..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-08-12 00:51:06 and read 9860 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 75):
The sooner they can deliver anything to compete with the A359 the better.

I believe the 787-9 does compete with the A350-900. It's a bit smaller, yes, but it's also a bit lighter and if Boeing's CEO's performance claims are accurate, perhaps a bit longer-legged at nominal design range (even if said nominal capacity is lower
than the A350-900).

The 789 obviously does the trick for some airlines but not all. The issue is not that the 789 is lacking but that Boeing have the ability to offer a compelling product in the segment above the 789 with relative ease at a time of high demand for resources on other projects. It's not that the 789 is at all bad but that a 787-10 could be very good with CASM unmatched by any other platform out there.

Boeing has other avenues to offer a 300 set product to compete against the A359 but they all involve heavy investments of capital and resources and will be much later to market than a 787-10.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-12 00:52:26 and read 9866 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 78):
That means lower payload-range in my book..

One would think so, but Boeing is still holding firm to their range figures of 8000-8500 NM. I would think that Boeing has learned their lesson with overpromising and underdelivering, so until I have any firm reasons to think differently, I have to go by what they say. My suspicion is that the A350-900 will have slightly better payload performance on very long flights, but the 787 will be more efficient on shorter flights with its lower weight.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Baroque
Posted 2010-08-12 02:02:21 and read 9739 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 79):
It's not that the 789 is at all bad but that a 787-10 could be very good with CASM unmatched by any other platform out there.

Errrr!!! Really????

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-12 02:25:47 and read 9689 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
One would think so, but Boeing is still holding firm to their range figures of 8000-8500 NM. I would think that Boeing has learned their lesson with overpromising and underdelivering, so until I have any firm reasons to think differently, I have to go by what they say.

Most "brochure" ranges are with a full passenger load, no cargo.

To compare the two, 300 passengers at 100 kg/passenger from HKG (from May to the mid-September average temperature is 28C (82.4F) and fill the belly with say 20t of cargo (50t payload). A and B are very shy with payload range diagrams, understandably.

Lets assume (old 787 graphs) 5200NM, imagine diversion reserves, temperatures, runway lengths and headwinds.

http://theaviationspecialist.com/787prc.gif

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5200NM+%40HKG&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

My gut feeling says the outcomes of such a comparison are partly behind Cathay's decision. The 787-9 can do Pacific very well if you leave a lot of cargo home. Cathays 777-200ER do better, switching to the 787 would also mean leaving cargo at HKG.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf

The A350 can be had with up to 92 klbs (-R), the 787 up to 72 klbs and has less wing. That makes it optimized for lower payload range missions. (With all respect, Boeing predictions on the 787 have a shaky track record, you don't have to go by what they say.)

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: parapente
Posted 2010-08-12 02:34:29 and read 9660 times.

Not to be peverse,but I disagree with the whole 787-10 senario.If my memory serves me correctly the -10 emerged on Boeings powerpoints placed in exactly the same slot as the 772er but with slightly shorter range.This aircraft became possible with the (at the time) increased wing area (lift) of the 789. The slight range shortfall was (I imagine) due to not wishing to have to develop a whole new undercarrage.All fine and dandy.

But then the whole 787 programme went pear shaped - for a while.Today we see a plane with the smaller wing only and (at present) higher overall weights.And never - not once from what I have read has Boeing ever raised the -10 subject again.

Clearly such an aircraft (to match the 359 would require a new /extended wing - new engine and new undercarrage.No wonder they don't mention it!

Is there not a much more elegant solution?

We know they are embarking on a major upgrade of the 777.They have stated this.Many here speculate (and indeed Boeing have stated that it is one of the options) that this will involve a new carbon wing.The body of the 777 is circular and very efficient (in weight terms).Indeed it could be made evn lighter if they dusted off the origonal AlLi plans.

People (correctly IMHO) speculate that the GE90 engine core will need to be made contrarotating to match the 351 performance.And the the thinner side walls speculated will make the plane available as 9 or 10 abreast.All of this speculation has been related to the 300er.But I cannot see why all of it could not equally be applied to the 200er.

I would have thought that this was a far better suited and natural platform to take on the -900er/erx than an over engineered 787.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2010-08-12 02:37:44 and read 9629 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 78):
I think the option to upgrade to A350-1000 in the future was the A350 biggest selling point with Cathay.

I think that on this forum we do get a bit fixated about "like for like" replacements.

Aircraft being replaced today were often ordered 20 / 25 years ago based on market projections then. How likely is it that projections for 20 / 25 years out from now will require the same number of the same size aircraft?

The replacement will often need to be bigger, to cope with market growth, or smaller, to recognise market fragmentation.

In CX case, they have flown passenger A330s around at night with no passengers, only freight. I can easily see them "replacing" some A330 / A340 with A350 - 1000 simply for the additioopnal freight capacity, but they will probably not want to be launch customer for the substantially upgraded TXWB on the 350 -1000.

[Edited 2010-08-12 02:39:15]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-12 02:37:57 and read 9664 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 82):
My gut feeling says the outcomes of such a comparison are partly behind Cathay's decision.

That depends on what Cathay plans to do with their A350s.

Quoting keesje (Reply 82):
The 787-9 can do Pacific very well if you leave a lot of cargo home.

Someone should tell Qantas and Air New Zealand that.

Quoting keesje (Reply 82):
(With all respect, Boeing predictions on the 787 have a shaky track record, you don't have to go by what they say.)

I have no data to discredit what Boeing is saying, so for now I have to go with what they say. And, honestly, I don't recall any public displeasure from either Qantas or Air New Zealand when Boeing went to the smaller wing, and those would be two carriers who are rather sensitive to such issues.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-12 03:50:05 and read 9571 times.

Various airlines has raised concerns about the 787 range for some time. Doesn't who didn't publicly are automatically satisfied. Having the same wing on the -9, adding fuselage / OEW should not automatically lead to better payload-range IMO.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-expected-787-range-shortfall.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...arly-787-customer-dreamliners.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...g-deliver-the-787-within-spec.html

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
And, honestly, I don't recall any public displeasure from either Qantas or Air New Zealand when Boeing went to the smaller wing, and those would be two carriers who are rather sensitive to such issues.

QF is a bad example, they ordered the 787 in during its 2005 Honeymoon, recently cancelled 15 787-9's and has renewed interested in the A350. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...qantas-cancels-15-787s-defers.html

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-08-12 04:18:27 and read 9520 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 55):
This is the aircraft that Boeing can get to the market in the shortest time frame (2015/16 ??) and by then the 787 line will be partially amortised so Boeing could offer very competitive pricing.

How meaningfull is 2015 EIS for an aircraft coming from a production line that is already fully booked until far later? Sure, the 781 would "work" on the market. But at the cost of the 788 or 789. For every delivered 781 one 788 or 789 would be delivered less. Boeing can not earn a single additional dollar in this decade by bringing the 781 (ok there might be a slightly higher price per unit, but that does not justify the effort). And there the incentive goes...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
I think that whatever happens with the 737 is going to happen regardless of what happens with the widebodies. I think Boeing needs to compete with the A350-1000 from the lower end first which also allows them to compete with the A350-900 from above more than they need a 777NG at this point. As far as the 777NG goes, I think Boeing has to delay any major work on it until the 787-10 is in the air and in the meantime start removing weight and improving SFC

Nothing to gain by selling 781's. See above...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 77):
I agree, but there is definitely a certain segment of airlines that will want the extra capacity of the A350.

IMO the problem is not that there exist two A350 models which are larger than the largest 787 model. It is lack of size AND payload. The 787 on that long ranges is quite payload constraint. That is no wonder, it is designed to be a better 767. It was invented to serve first the 767 replacement market. And it performed very well for that job. You expect the miracle for one job (get 1000 orders from the 767 market) to work out another miracle for that other job (= the 777 market). That will not work.

The 777 role (even that of the smaller 772ER) is not natural 787 territory. Even if you can derive similar figures for range and floorspace.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-12 07:21:55 and read 9329 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 82):
The 787-9 can do Pacific very well if you leave a lot of cargo home. Cathays 777-200ER do better, switching to the 787 would also mean leaving cargo at HKG.


Keesje, come on man, seriously. You're in a very small minority of folks who believe Boeing is in a dire situation.

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
I would have thought that this was a far better suited and natural platform to take on the -900er/erx than an over engineered 787.

   I agree.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
Someone should tell Qantas and Air New Zealand that.

Yeah I know, right. It's interesting that two prominent Pacific airlines both chose the 787-9. I guess they made a terrible mistake.  
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
IMO the problem is not that there exist two A350 models which are larger than the largest 787 model. It is lack of size AND payload. The 787 on that long ranges is quite payload constraint. That is no wonder, it is designed to be a better 767. It was invented to serve first the 767 replacement market. And it performed very well for that job. You expect the miracle for one job (get 1000 orders from the 767 market) to work out another miracle for that other job (= the 777 market). That will not work.

Well Boeing has cleaned house with the 767 replacement as well as the early A330 replacement. There are far more planes to replace in the 767/A330 market, which is exactly where the 787 fits, than in the 777/A340 market. I think Boeing made the right call. Why folks on here think that Boeing has somehow screwed up by not immediately offering a 777 replacement blows my mind. They've captured over 800 orders for the 787 already, the 77W continues to sell very strongly, and the 77L is even picking up orders, even new customers! Boeing will address the 300 seat market, and contrary to what some on here believe, Boeing are hardly in a hard place right now.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-08-12 07:56:40 and read 9257 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 88):
I think Boeing made the right call.

Me too. I only raise concerns now when the A350 starts eating the 777. Those who believe that the 787 would be a miraculous product to reap the 777 market as well are wrong IMO. the 787 was miraculous to own the 767 market. But defending the 777 market against the A350 will not be the same easiness. Not for the 787, not for any 777NG.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-08-12 08:11:26 and read 9207 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
But then the whole 787 programme went pear shaped - for a while.Today we see a plane with the smaller wing only and (at present) higher overall weights.And never - not once from what I have read has Boeing ever raised the -10 subject again.

Clearly such an aircraft (to match the 359 would require a new /extended wing - new engine and new undercarrage.No wonder they don't mention it!

Is there not a much more elegant solution?

There is no perfect or elegant solution as the 300 seat segment sits at the boundary between the 787 and 772. Boeing has various choices available but none are ideal. I dont see the Boeing sales team being content to sit on their hands for the next few years while the A359 continues to win sales.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
How meaningfull is 2015 EIS for an aircraft coming from a production line that is already fully booked until far later?

At least the production line is up and running and most of the required technology is in hand. Any 772NG is still a long way away - no launch, no EIS and not yet a viable competitior to the A359.

All in all a very good situation for Airbus.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 88):
Boeing will address the 300 seat market ....

How soon and what will they offer ?


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-12 08:18:00 and read 9206 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 89):
Those who believe that the 787 would be a miraculous product to reap the 777 market as well are wrong IMO.

   I agree. Hopefully Boeing makes the 777NG or perhaps Y3 to head on the 300+ seat market. 777NG seems much more likely at this point, and if done right, I think could effectively compete with the A350XWB.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-08-12 09:00:20 and read 9126 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
if they dusted off the origonal AlLi plans

That's interesting! I did not know this was considered. Could you elaborate why they chose not to use this approach originally? Could CFRP be used in its place?

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
Is there not a much more elegant solution?

And perhaps more practical as well? The 777 line and supply chain is more established and has significant capacity the get planes into customers hands sooner. Once Airbus clearly defines the -1000XWB, Boeing could move quickly to compete.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 75):
Boeing have a hole in their product range which is being well exploited by Airbus with the A359

Do we know that for sure? Some argue the 789 will be good enough to take on the A359. And, there are holes in the product range elsewhere. How about a 737/757 replacement? Airbus is currently in the market touting the NEO and A321 with sharklets as a capable 757 replacement. The C-Series and others are nipping at the bottom end of the market. What about addressing the 350-1000 before it eats a hole into one of Boeing's crown jewels - the 777-3ER? Maybe Boeing is better addressing the the 359 with a 772-NG.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 90):
At least the production line is up and running and most of the required technology is in hand.

The line is up but saying its "running" is a big stretch. In fact, if you add in the rework, one could argue it is going backwards at times. And, we know it stops to take a breath every few months even after having a two year head start.

Boeing and its supply chain is and will be hard pressed to produce all the 787s on order. IIRC, the planned production rate is the highest rate ever sustained by Boeing. To layer in another variation ( the -10 a/k/a the "Dreamsaver") will require a significant investment up and down the supply chain. How will this be funded? Cannibalize other programs? Launch-aid?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-12 10:18:33 and read 9040 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 92):
Maybe Boeing is better addressing the the 359 with a 772-NG.

Do you envision 772 NG based on the current 77E? 77E is about 15,000 lbs lighter than 77L. I expect the 772 NG, based on 77E, to be be around 25,000 lbs heavier than A359, but with a 10 abreast capacity of 330--about 15 more than A359. Even with a state of the art engine, it would struggle against A359--much heavier, and less cargo space.

The dividing line between 10 abreast and 9 abreast platform, for similar technology, is around 370 seats. IMO, only the 77W NG(10 abreast, 400 seats) has a real shot against A350-1000(350 seats).

If Boeing is going to use one wing for both 772 NG and 77W NG, then the 772 NG is likely to be heavier by about 35,000-40,000 lbs than the A359.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-12 10:49:08 and read 9027 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 88):
The 787-9 can do Pacific very well if you leave a lot of cargo home. Cathays 777-200ER do better, switching to the 787 would also mean leaving cargo at HKG.

Keesje, come on man, seriously. You're in a very small minority of folks who believe Boeing is in a dire situation.

Smoke and mirrors. Look at the graphs, the 777-200ERs of cargo hungry Cathay will replace carries significant more payload accross the pond then the 787-9. (regardless of # LD3 positions)

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: kaitak
Posted 2010-08-12 10:56:19 and read 8991 times.

Amid all of the discussion about the replacement for the 777 and whether the 787-9/10 is up to the job, I'd just like to focus on CX again for a moment.

Right now, CX has 97 aircraft, consisting of (based on quick visit to Wikiland):
20 744s
18 77Ws
17 777-2/300
31 A330
11 A340-300

In addition, KA has 14 A330s, (plus 17 A32X).

Of course, we know the A350s are on order, but how is the rest of the fleet going to evolve?

- Unless the 772s can be sold (BG had a look but didn't bite), I see these acft remaining in CX service until they are ready to be retired.
- The 340 fleet will ultimately be wound down completely, as more 77Ws arrive.
- The A350 will primarily be used to replace the A330s, for both CX and KA - that will be a significant further requirement, assuming one for one and not allowing for growth in numbers (as distinct from capacity); some rumours on PPRUNE suggested 789s for KA, but - while I can't say if they are incorrect - I simply don't see any need for the 789 at KA, if CX has A350s.
- By the time the A350-1000 is ready to enter CX service - around 2017, the baseline 773s will be coming for 20 yrs old. The 773 still has a significant capacity advantage over the A3510, because of its wider fuselage - however, see below. That said, I still believe that the A351 will be a significant player in the CX regional fleet.
- The A330's fuselage is 17'4" wide and the A350's will be 18'3". I fully expect CX (and indeed most carriers) to have a 9 abreast layout on the A350 (which will be the same as the 777).
- The 747-400, if they still remain as pax carriers in the fleet by 2015-16, will be well over 20 years old. Realistically, there is only one replacement. As much as I adore the 747, the reality is that the 748 is the end of the line, whereas the A388 is the beginning of the A380 line; there will be an -800R and a -900.
- In summary, I see CX's fleet in 2017 consisting of:
A380
777-300ER
A350-1000
A350-900
A330-300

I wasn't even going to try to guess numbers, but I'm thinking 12-15 A380s, 24 77Ws, 20 A350-1000s, 45-50 A350-900s in service or on order and a few A330s still hanging around until the A350s are on board.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: parapente
Posted 2010-08-12 11:10:05 and read 8971 times.

With regards to the origonal AlLi 777 I am sure there are guys with better technilogical knowledge than me on this forum.But yes,the 777 fuse was origonally going to be built out of AlLi.Indeed was and is designed for it.However quite (very?) late in the day the manufacturer of the metal could not get over a problem that was known as "microfracturing".This appeared with the constant expansion and contraction of the (new) metal.

The sad thing was that this microfracturing did not in any way compromise the integrity of the metal.It was (sort of) a marketing thing.They thought (perhaps correctly) that it may scare consumers if they heard about it. (it does sound nasty doesn't it).So they made the late switch back to the latest Al blend - whatever that was/is.Today the problem has long since been overcome so it would not be tough for them to revert to the origonal plan (I would have thought) if the weight saving was deemed necessary.

But the 772 with a carbon wing (carbon keel?) maybe enough.I am not knowledgeable on these details.I know it's one hell of a plane.Airlines love it and know it.It would also help GE to more easily ammortise the costs of contrarotating the core if it had a use on both sizes of 777. I think many airlines might well prefer this solution to this market size as they know the product so well already.

Everybody "says" that these new carbon bodied aircraft are much lighter.I accept the wing arguement - but the fuse? I am not convinced that the 787 tube is or that the 350 "pannels" will be.One notes that the MRJ and the new C class seem to have learn't something.They don't seem to be so sure.So are we really so sure a NG 772 (with a carbon wing) will definately be too heavy?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-12 12:32:11 and read 8860 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 94):
Smoke and mirrors. Look at the graphs, the 777-200ERs of cargo hungry Cathay will replace carries significant more payload accross the pond then the 787-9. (regardless of # LD3 positions)

Last I checked Boeing didn't design the 787-9 as a 77E replacement. It is/was a 764ER/A333/A343 replacement. Boeing hasn't designed a 77E replacement, so an airline seeking to replace 77Es has no choice but the A359, unless they are choosing to down size in capacity and payload, then the 789 is a great choice.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-12 12:35:15 and read 8860 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
And never - not once from what I have read has Boeing ever raised the -10 subject again.

McNerney was chatting it up again late last year, but not with any gusto.


Quoting keesje (Reply 86):
Having the same wing on the -9, adding fuselage / OEW should not automatically lead to better payload-range IMO.

The 787-9 flies farther than the 787-8 because the former is fuel volume limited and the latter is MTOW limited. So a 787-9 can fill her tanks, while a 787-8 cannot, and can therefore fly farther.

Give the 787-8 the 787-9's MTOW and she'd fly just as far, if not a bit farther, since she could fill her tanks.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-12 12:48:34 and read 8842 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 95):
- In summary, I see CX's fleet in 2017 consisting of:
A380
777-300ER
A350-1000
A350-900
A330-300

I wasn't even going to try to guess numbers, but I'm thinking 12-15 A380s, 24 77Ws, 20 A350-1000s, 45-50 A350-900s in service or on order and a few A330s still hanging around until the A350s are on board.

I would agree if you said 2019-2020..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-12 12:50:38 and read 8851 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 86):
arious airlines has raised concerns about the 787 range

Concerns about the range of early 787-8s. Nothing about the -9 in there.

Quoting keesje (Reply 86):
Having the same wing on the -9, adding fuselage / OEW should not automatically lead to better payload-range IMO.

First, by many accounts the 787 wing is performing better than planned. Good enough in fact, that Boeing decided that the difference between that wing and the wing that was planned for the -9 did not justify the extra time and resources to develop it. Secondly, Boeing has given those range figures after the wing change decision was made.

Quoting keesje (Reply 86):
QF is a bad example, they ordered the 787 in during its 2005 Honeymoon, recently cancelled 15 787-9's and has renewed interested in the A350

That cancellation had as much to do with finances as anything, and they switched orders to the 787-9. And they'd be stupid to not look at the A350.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
Sure, the 781 would "work" on the market. But at the cost of the 788 or 789. For every delivered 781 one 788 or 789 would be delivered less.

I think that the 788 has a shelf life anyway, but those problems might not be so insurmountable with the second production line coming.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
The 787 on that long ranges is quite payload constraint.

Then why have airlines chosen to buy the 787 and fly it on long range routes?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
You expect the miracle for one job (get 1000 orders from the 767 market) to work out another miracle for that other job (= the 777 market).

It doesn't have to do the entire 777 job, just half of it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
The 777 role (even that of the smaller 772ER) is not natural 787 territory

Actually reality is more like the 787 role is not natural 777 territory. There are plenty of 777s flying routes shorter than ~6000 NM, which at those weights is a waste. Boeing can offer a 787-9/10 for flights that are shorter and a larger 777NG for ultra long range flights.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 89):
Those who believe that the 787 would be a miraculous product to reap the 777 market as well are wrong IMO.

...but the A350 is miraculous in a way to replace both 767s and 777s? Nobody is saying that the 787 can take over for the 777. You will never see a 787 flying DXB-LAX.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 90):
There is no perfect or elegant solution as the 300 seat segment sits at the boundary between the 787 and 772.

The 787 can be stretched to over 300 seats without too many problems. Boeing could probably do that and a 777NG for less money than a Y3.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 91):
Hopefully Boeing makes the 777NG or perhaps Y3 to head on the 300+ seat market.

They don't have money for a Y3 at this point.

Quoting parapente (Reply 83):
.But I cannot see why all of it could not equally be applied to the 200er.

Because it will still yield a plane that is larger and heavier than a 787-10 and thus less efficient on all but the longest routes.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 92):
Some argue the 789 will be good enough to take on the A359.

It will be for some airlines.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 95):
- The A350 will primarily be used to replace the A330s, for both CX and KA - that will be a significant further requirement, assuming one for one and not allowing for growth in numbers (as distinct from capacity)

How far afield does CX send their A330s? If they don't go as far as Europe, then the whole point about the A350 carrying more payload at long ranges would basically be rendered moot.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Lutfi
Posted 2010-08-12 23:20:44 and read 8553 times.

I don't think Cathay are ordering the A350 to replace A330/B772/B773 at all - the furthest they fly is Australia. I think they are buying them to replace A340, and growth. They'll happily fly the A330 and A market 777's until 20+ years old around the region.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-08-12 23:43:41 and read 8582 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 93):
The dividing line between 10 abreast and 9 abreast platform, for similar technology, is around 370 seats. IMO, only the 77W NG(10 abreast, 400 seats) has a real shot against A350-1000(350 seats).

I don't believe the delta in real world configurations will be 50 seats between a 10-across 773ER and a 9-across A350-1000. I suspect it would be nearer 30, and they would all be Y seats
The cabin size delta is a whole 4%......

Quoting parapente (Reply 96):
Everybody "says" that these new carbon bodied aircraft are much lighter.I accept the wing arguement - but the fuse? I am not convinced that the 787 tube is or that the 350 "pannels"

The bits that are made out of carbon fibre ARE a lot lighter.
"Everybody" forgets all the gear on an airliner that is NOT made out of CFRP, like engines, landing gear, systems (pumps, vent, hydraulics, actuators, cables) , cabin outfit, etc., all of which are flippin' heavy  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
How far afield does CX send their A330s? If they don't go as far as Europe, then the whole point about the A350 carrying more payload at long ranges would basically be rendered moot.

For what its worth, Tyler quoted both "capacity" and "range" as the differentiator which advantaged the A350

Quote:
Tyler is, however, extremely interested in the new A350, "if it does what it says on the box".

"The 787 (is) a very good aircraft, a bit small for us, perhaps not quite the range we want," he says. "The (787) -10, if it really happens, might be a stronger competitor. But then you're starting to get into 350 country."


Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-08-13 01:08:35 and read 8456 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Concerns about the range of early 787-8s. Nothing about the -9 in there.

I still don't get how the 788 (smaller) can have range issues but the 789 (larger) not. The 789 shall easily beat the 788 and meet the promises while the 788 does not even meet promises? The tanks of the 789 should be all the 788 needs to become the dreamliner with the longest range (as it is typical for the smallest version within aircraft families).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
The 787 on that long ranges is quite payload constraint.

Then why have airlines chosen to buy the 787 and fly it on long range routes?

Show me evidence that 787's are deployed on long ranges in significant numbers. E.g. most A332 are operated well below their advertised range....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 87):
You expect the miracle for one job (get 1000 orders from the 767 market) to work out another miracle for that other job (= the 777 market).

It doesn't have to do the entire 777 job, just half of it.

A single aircraft family that serves in a 767 role and in a 772ER role equally well seems not plausible to me if I actually look at a 763ER and a 772ER!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alejandro Ruiz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alan Tsui

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 89):
Those who believe that the 787 would be a miraculous product to reap the 777 market as well are wrong IMO.

...but the A350 is miraculous in a way to replace both 767s and 777s? Nobody is saying that the 787 can take over for the 777. You will never see a 787 flying DXB-LAX.

No, the A350 will hardly be considered if an airline looks for 767-successors...

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-08-13 01:22:27 and read 8407 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
I still don't get how the 788 (smaller) can have range issues but the 789 (larger) not.

Because the first ones rolling off the line will be heavy. And, for what it's worth, the 787-9 was always going to be longer ranged and the 787-9 is more than just a stretch of the -8. There will be other improvements as well.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
Show me evidence that 787's are deployed on long ranges in significant numbers.

How about the 787 routes Continental (United) has announced: IAH-LOS and IAH-AKL. Those routes are a pipe dream for a 767, and possibly the A330 as well.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
A single aircraft family that serves in a 767 role and in a 772ER role equally well seems not plausible to me if I actually look at a 763ER and a 772ER!

How about looking at a 772 and 789. Both are currently nine abreast in coach and the 772 is longer by three feet. The biggest difference in seating capacity is that airlines with 2-3-2 in business would probably lose their middle seat.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
No, the A350 will hardly be considered if an airline looks for 767-successors...

It would definitely be worth a look if they are already nearly set on other members of the A350 family. Plus, if you subscribe to the logic of trip costs, it makes even more sense.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 06:33:58 and read 8113 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
I don't believe the delta in real world configurations will be 50 seats between a 10-across 773ER and a 9-across A350-1000. I suspect it would be nearer 30, and they would all be Y seats
The cabin size delta is a whole 4%......

Probably 30-40 depending on the configuration. EK, for example, have said it would be 37 seats.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
I still don't get how the 788 (smaller) can have range issues but the 789 (larger) not.

Because the 787-8 reaches MTOW before it can fill it's tanks. The 787-9's higher MTOW allows it to fill it's tanks so it can fly farther.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-08-13 07:12:30 and read 8018 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 103):
I still don't get how the 788 (smaller) can have range issues but the 789 (larger) not.

Because the 787-8 reaches MTOW before it can fill it's tanks. The 787-9's higher MTOW allows it to fill it's tanks so it can fly farther.

But IMO the 788 should be able to reach the higher MTOW without one technical change as well, or not?

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 07:18:34 and read 8012 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
But IMO the 788 should be able to reach the higher MTOW without one technical change as well, or not?

Yes, Boeing could raise the 787-8's MTOW to that of the 787-9 (the 787-8ER or 787-8LR) at which point it would fly at least as far as the 787-9.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-13 09:23:48 and read 7852 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
I don't believe the delta in real world configurations will be 50 seats between a 10-across 773ER and a 9-across A350-1000. I suspect it would be nearer 30, and they would all be Y seats

The real world delta should be around 85-90% of marketing delta, depending on the configuration.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105):
Probably 30-40 depending on the configuration. EK, for example, have said it would be 37 seats.

Looking at Boeing's marketing seat layout for 77W at 9 abreast, it would be difficult to get more than 30 additional Y seats at 10 abreast for a total of 395 3 class seats.

EK has 77W at 354 3 class seats with 10 abreast Y, and that is about 90% of 395 3 class marketing number for 77W NG at 10 abreast. Applying the same 90% to 350 seat 3 class marketing number of A350-1000, EK configured A350-1000 should have around 315 seats--a difference of about 39 seats, which is very close to 37 seats that Stitch has pointed out as EK estimate.

Perhaps I should start using 395 seats as the 3 class marketing number for 77W NG.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: ElbowRoom
Posted 2010-08-13 09:57:21 and read 7776 times.

Based on a quick look at Seat Guru, it seems that adding an extra row of seats in Economy only (77W versus A351) could make the following differences to seating capacity:

---- 77WNG --- A351
SQ -- 304 ------ 278 (3-class layout) ...difference of 26
CX -- 328 ------ 301 (3-class layout) ...difference of 27
EK -- 356 ------ 325 (3-class layout) ...difference of 31
EK -- 427 ------ 388 (2-class layout) ...difference of 39

...of course for EK, the current 77Ws have the 77WNG figure above (10 abreast), whereas for SQ and CX they have the A351 figure (9 abreast).

[Edited 2010-08-13 10:02:28]

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-08-13 10:42:45 and read 7720 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105):
Probably 30-40 depending on the configuration. EK, for example, have said it would be 37 seats.

I suspect that depends on whether the configuration being discussed is 3-class or 2-class..

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 109):
EK -- 356 ------ 325 (3-class layout) ...difference of 31
EK -- 427 ------ 388 (2-class layout) ...difference of 39

A difference of about 10% overall (in 4% more space), but of course all Y seats.
The revenue delta will likely be a lot lower

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 10:57:03 and read 7688 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 110):
I suspect that depends on whether the configuration being discussed is 3-class or 2-class..

This was three classes.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: ElbowRoom
Posted 2010-08-13 11:35:29 and read 7621 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 111):
This was three classes.

Any chance you could remind us where this info came from?

I thought it may have been in Tim Clark's recent interview comparing the 77W and A351, but it isn't mentioned:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...technology/2012485025_clark01.html

Thanks.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-08-13 11:43:27 and read 7621 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
Boeing could raise the 787-8's MTOW to that of the 787-9 (the 787-8ER or 787-8LR) at which point it would fly at least as far as the 787-9.

787-8 with higher MTOW means more thrust required to meet the required OEI performance, more thrust with a smaller rudder arm than the 787-9 to me means things will not work, Vmca would be an issue.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 109):
...of course for EK, the current 77Ws have the 77WNG figure above (10 abreast), whereas for SQ and CX they have the A351 figure (9 abreast).

I have heard nothing to suggest that CX will be reducing the space available to passenger on the 77W, much of this discussion is a moot point, it is irrelevant to the thread (CX). As far as I am aware, CX will run the 777 and A350 with the 9 across in Y.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-13 12:17:46 and read 7556 times.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 112):
I thought it may have been in Tim Clark's recent interview comparing the 77W and A351, but it isn't mentioned:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm....html

In the above link, A351 and B77W are discussed as 320 and 354 seat aircraft. Since the B77W is 3 class, it is reasonable to assume that the 320 seat number foe A351 is also for 3 class.

So EK sees an overall 24 seat advantage for B77W in three class configuration, and perhaps it translates to 37 Y seats if both aircraft have equivalent number of F and J seats.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-13 12:24:13 and read 7555 times.

If both the 777 and A350 are 9 abreast in Economy, 6 abreast in Business and 4 abreast in First and they are about similar lenght the seatcount probably will be similar. Unless the aircraft are used for different markets with different optimal class mixes..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-08-13 12:29:51 and read 7549 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 115):
If both the 777 and A350 are 9 abreast in Economy, 6 abreast in Business and 4 abreast in First and they are about similar lenght the seatcount probably will be similar. Unless the aircraft are used for different markets with different optimal class mixes..

Well since CX ordered both more 77Ws when they ordered A350s, then one assumes that when/if CX takes A3510, they will be for different missions. They'll have dozens of 77Ws so even with the entry of A350s, the 77Ws will probably handle the longer/dense markets.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: ElbowRoom
Posted 2010-08-13 13:23:46 and read 7458 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 114):
In the above link, A351 and B77W are discussed as 320 and 354 seat aircraft. Since the B77W is 3 class, it is reasonable to assume that the 320 seat number foe A351 is also for 3 class.

So EK sees an overall 24 seat advantage for B77W in three class configuration, and perhaps it translates to 37 Y seats if both aircraft have equivalent number of F and J seats.

Thanks - I skim read it too quickly    . This also answers my query to Stitch.

So EK says 34 seats difference with a 3 class layout. We don't know whether that involves leaving the number of Economy rows the same, or does something more subtle that possibly changes the number of seats in each class. If you simply add/subtract a row of economy seats, the difference looks like 31, which suggests they are tweaking things slightly.

PS: Since the 320 figure was given in an interview where Tim Clark was emphasising the difference between the 777 and the A351, maybe it was a rounded number (downwards) anyway.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 13:24:12 and read 7461 times.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 112):
Any chance you could remind us where this info came from?

The March 2008 issue of Air Transport News.

Quote:
Emirates has 10 across in economy, and in its Ultra Long Range tri-class configuration the 777-300ER accommodates 354 while the A350-1000, which is approximately the same length, in a similar ULR configuration will seat 317, according to VP-Route and Fleet Planning Richard Jewsbury.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: ElbowRoom
Posted 2010-08-13 13:27:20 and read 7453 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
The March 2008 issue of Air Transport News.

Thanks for going out of your way.

Looks like the 320 number was possibly rounded upwards  

ER

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-13 13:27:44 and read 7468 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 116):
Well since CX ordered both more 77Ws when they ordered A350s, then one assumes that when/if CX takes A3510, they will be for different missions. They'll have dozens of 77Ws so even with the entry of A350s, the 77Ws will probably handle the longer/dense markets.

Probably consequential. All 777W's on order will enter service before 2014. The first A351 will enter service 2015/16. Maybe the same mission, maybe not.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: EPA001
Posted 2010-08-13 13:28:36 and read 7461 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 116):
the 77Ws will probably handle the longer/dense markets.

Maybe not. In my opinion in the case of CX the destinations to which they transport a lot of passengers and a lot of cargo will decide on whether or not they will deploy an A350-1000 or a B773-ER on those particular routes. Just my   

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 14:59:27 and read 7357 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 120):
Probably consequential. All 777W's on order will enter service before 2014. The first A351 will enter service 2015/16. Maybe the same mission, maybe not.

I can't see EK and CX and others ordering 777-300ERs when they could wait a year or two and get an A350-1000 and see a claimed 20% reduction in trip fuel burn unless that is not the most important factor in their fleet planning decision and/or the 777-300ER ends up with more positives to the A350-1000 than negatives and pencils out as the better choice, overall.

They're not buying those planes to only fly them for a few years, after all.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-08-13 15:39:52 and read 7301 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 122):
can't see EK and CX and ot.......em for a few years, after all.

The total backlog for the 777 will be ready by Q3 2013, so you can have slots fairly early, maybe starting 2011 or -12. The A350 backlog is going 600 starting in 2013, the A350-1000 75 starting 2015. I can very well imagine there's a 5 yr gab between a substantial number of available slots on the 777W and A351. Maybe that's just too long to wait..

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2010-08-13 15:49:41 and read 7283 times.

In the case of EK with 10 abreast Y, 37 additional seats on 77W , and the higher cargo capability negates the lower fuel burn advantage of A351 completely at current jet fuel prices(about $2.5/gallon). However, A351 is better with fuel prices at $4 gallon. The numbers for both aircraft are about the same at $3.5 per gallon. The above numbers are based on a 6,300 nm mission. A351 has an in built hedge against higher fuel prices.

Based on my model, the advantage to A351 over a 9 abreast configured 77W at current fuel prices is about $2 million/year for a 6,300 nm mission. The advantage to A351 goes up to $5.5 million/year at $4 per gallon.

At least for EK, the current 10 abreast 77W is a better choice than A351 on dense/high cargo routes at current fuel prices.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-13 15:54:35 and read 7286 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 123):
I can very well imagine there's a 5 yr gab between a substantial number of available slots on the 777W and A351. Maybe that's just too long to wait...

Maybe it's also a sign of just how good the 77W is that it's worth taking the fuel burn hit to fly it five years now and ten years later than just wait and fly the A350-1000 for ten years later...

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2010-08-14 16:45:41 and read 6907 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
Maybe it's also a sign of just how good the 77W is that it's worth taking the fuel burn hit to fly it five years now and ten years later than just wait and fly the A350-1000 for ten years later...

If that's the theoretical case, I wonder why so many airlines don't seem to be flying this 'miraculous' aircraft. I'd thus venture it's not a sign of any such thing.....only my personal opinion of course.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: trex8
Posted 2010-08-14 17:47:33 and read 6876 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
Maybe it's also a sign of just how good the 77W is that it's worth taking the fuel burn hit to fly it five years now and ten years later than just wait and fly the A350-1000 for ten years later...

how about the good old fashioned they just need the capacity now, like some people need an A332 now, not a 787 or A350 in a few years

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-14 22:04:04 and read 6744 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 127):
how about the good old fashioned they just need the capacity now, like some people need an A332 now, not a 787 or A350 in a few years

Sure, but to listen to some Airbus Aficionados and Boeing Boosters speak of the wondrous economics of the A35J and 788 vis-a-vis the 77W and A332, you'd think that it better to leave customers behind (improves yields, if nothing else, since those who can fly pay more) and wait for the "wonder plane" than operate a "sub-optimal" type for years.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Lutfi
Posted 2010-08-15 22:45:12 and read 6354 times.

Plus, the A359 and B789 may be amazing for a long haul. But on a 3 hour HKG-PEK, who is going to spend 150m+ on a new aircraft to replace a late 90's B773 or A330 until they absolutely have to? I can see CX flying B773A and A330 on the regional flights well past the end of this decade, with a life of 20 years+ This was an airline that operated (many second hand) L1011's until 1998, and their replacement (A330/B777) was due to a step change in technology (2 vs 3 engines) But note CX didn't replace them in the early 90's with A300-600 - too small

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: kaitak
Posted 2010-08-16 09:47:52 and read 6109 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
A35J

Has this been designated officially for the A350-1000?

Quoting Lutfi (Reply 129):
But on a 3 hour HKG-PEK, who is going to spend 150m+ on a new aircraft to replace a late 90's B773 or A330 until they absolutely have to? I can see CX flying B773A and A330 on the regional flights well past the end of this decade, with a life of 20 years+ This was an airline that operated (many second hand) L1011's until 1998, and their replacement (A330/B777) was due to a step change in technology (2 vs 3 engines) But note CX didn't replace them in the early 90's with A300-600 - too small

CX has always had a policy of "intelligent misuse" of aircraft, so you can find 744s and (ultimately) 77Ws on virtually all routes at some stage. 744s regularly operate to BKK, SIN, ICN, Japan, CGK, DXB, MNL and of course, TPE. Better to have them flying a short route and squeeze some utilisation out of them, than just sitting sitting at HKG - and of course, the demand on many of its routes certainly demands it. Even if the A359 and 35J serves long haul routes, you will still see the type flying regional services.

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-08-16 12:03:29 and read 6008 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 130):
Has this been designated officially for the A350-1000?

No, but I would not be surprised if it was adopted by the ICAO since J is the 10th letter of the alphabet. Plus A3510 just looks weird.  

Topic: RE: CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II
Username: mdavies06
Posted 2010-08-16 13:09:03 and read 5924 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 130):
CX has always had a policy of "intelligent misuse" of aircraft, so you can find 744s and (ultimately) 77Ws on virtually all routes at some stage. 744s regularly operate to BKK, SIN, ICN, Japan, CGK, DXB, MNL and of course, TPE. Better to have them flying a short route and squeeze some utilisation out of them, than just sitting sitting at HKG - and of course, the demand on many of its routes certainly demands it. Even if the A359 and 35J serves long haul routes, you will still see the type flying regional services.

Yes, their emphasis on morning arrival and evening departure waves for their flights to NA and Europe sort of created the need for this kind of short haul utilisation as well.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/