Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5728083/

Topic: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Carls
Posted 2013-04-01 12:03:36 and read 50329 times.

An order from IAG for the A350-1000 is almost done. The order will be for 25 units for British Airways.
Will share more information as soon as I get it.

This is how thw order should be:
A350-1000 for both British Airways and Iberia as a 744 and A346 replacement.
A350-900 as a 772ER and A343 replacement.
The deal is for both types and I have been told that the order will be for as much as 75 units total. No information yet as how many are firm and how many options.
Airbus was looking to close the deal at Le Bourget.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:41:57]

Topic: RE: IAG Close To Order A350 1000
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 12:06:15 and read 50445 times.

Jon Ostrower ‏(from the WSJ) is confirming the news, this announcement sounds not like a joke.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:18:44]

Topic: RE: IAG Close To Order A350 1000
Username: timboflier215
Posted 2013-04-01 12:31:45 and read 50013 times.

Interesting. Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order? Would this mean the -900 is a shoe in to replace their 772s?

Topic: RE: IAG Close To Order A350 1000
Username: boeing773ER
Posted 2013-04-01 12:32:57 and read 50013 times.

link to WSJ
It is just brief, and you have to log in to see more but atleast it is proof that it is actual.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:33:57]

Topic: RE: IAG Close To Order A350 1000
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 12:33:33 and read 49988 times.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 2):
Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order?

Jon Ostrower also tweets IAG wants both A350-1000 and 777-9X aircraft in their fleet.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-04-01 12:53:25 and read 49591 times.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 2):
Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order?

Still another 20 odd 744 to replace at some point, and thats if all A35X went to BA.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: timboflier215
Posted 2013-04-01 13:01:17 and read 49424 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 5):

True, but unlikely to be split, surely? They are already replacing 744 with a mix of A380 and (if this order materialises) A35J - why add 777X as well?

I actually forgot about the 787 - 10 (d'oh!), so I think the 772 replacement is a straight fight between this and the A350 - 900

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 13:07:27 and read 49313 times.

The first post has been updated, the order would also replace the A346 aircraft.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-04-01 13:13:50 and read 49186 times.

What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's. Any A350 order is going to overlap that.

So now their 744 fleet will be replaced by A35J, 77W, and A388. That's a bit discombobulated. Meanwhile, they also have the 787 on order. If they are ordering A359's, we can be pretty certain they won't be ordering 78J's.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-01 13:28:27 and read 48896 times.

The 77Ws are, and were only ever, stop gaps.

Absolutely delighted this pending order has broken surface.      

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: timboflier215
Posted 2013-04-01 13:29:17 and read 48882 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):

Don't forget that the 77Ws were originally brought on as part of the 787 compensation, so will be interesting to see whether BA keep them around for as long as they normally do.

Even if they don't run them till the end of their useful lives, they will be around for a while as replacing all 54-odd 744s is going to take a long time. Once the 77W goes, this could leave the 787 as the only Boeing aircraft in the BA fleet. Quite a turnaround from the current situation!

I am very happy that IAG have plumped for the A350 as their workhorse long haul aircraft, not least because it means many more Rolls-Royce sales!!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 13:29:19 and read 48892 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's. Any A350 order is going to overlap that.

Yes, but:

- The A35J won't be available until 2017 and they need some large twins right now, so the 77W is the only outcome to fill the temporary gap
- IAG has to replace 17x A346, 15x A343, 52x 747 and 46x 772 (!) and they only have 12x A380, 8x A330 and 6x 77W on order.

[Edited 2013-04-01 13:32:23]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: shuttle9juliet
Posted 2013-04-01 13:33:17 and read 48812 times.

Why does it have to be so confusing?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Carls
Posted 2013-04-01 13:36:48 and read 48725 times.

Please acept my apologies, I got the information and I was fast trying to share it with the forum.
The last thing I got was that IAG closed a deal with Airbus for the A350. some 1000 and some 900, the order will cover replacement and grow for both airlines BA and IB. No numbers were discussed and I do not know how many are firms and how many are options. I am clarifiying this because when I made the first post I mentioned about 25 firms and 25 options and this information is not accurate.
This is my guess:
A351 to replace the 747 BA has and A346 from IB
A359 to replace the 772ER BA has and A343 from IB

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: timboflier215
Posted 2013-04-01 13:51:23 and read 48463 times.

Quoting Carls (Reply 13):
A351 to replace the 747 BA has and A346 from IB
A359 to replace the 772ER BA has and A343 from IB

Which is approx 130 frames, if they do as you are suggesting and replace all with A350s in one fell swoop. This could be an absolutely MASSIVE order for Airbus, and a bit of a kick for Boeing's yet to be defined offerings (777X and 787 - 10), as BA at least were surely an airline Boeing had in mind for this planes?

Having said this, it would actually not surprise me to see BA going for the 787 - 10 as well for their East Coast USA flights....

[Edited 2013-04-01 13:52:02]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Acheron
Posted 2013-04-01 14:35:32 and read 47762 times.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 14):
hich is approx 130 frames, if they do as you are suggesting and replace all with A350s in one fell swoop. This could be an absolutely MASSIVE order for Airbus

It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-04-01 14:42:33 and read 47645 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: timboflier215
Posted 2013-04-01 14:48:05 and read 47545 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 16):
I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware

Up until fairly recently, it was in fact the A351 getting most of the stick on here, ironically. Then a flurry of orders came in, and lots of operators switched from the -800 to the -900, and now it's the smallest model which looks imperilled.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: william
Posted 2013-04-01 14:50:25 and read 47525 times.

British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-04-01 14:56:14 and read 47446 times.

Quoting william (Reply 18):
British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

And it appears JAL is favoring the A350 too. So two customers Boeing can no longer take for granted. Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

[Edited 2013-04-01 14:57:38]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: baldwin471
Posted 2013-04-01 15:19:32 and read 47090 times.

Quoting william (Reply 18):
British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

Crazy how fast things change in Aviation huh?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-04-01 15:21:53 and read 47061 times.

I see this announcement that both airlines will get both types as a way of not tipping their hat to competitors. I wouldn't guess that BA would actually take the A351/9 + 77X, nor would IAG. I can see the entire IB fleet being replaced with A350s, and about 1/2 of the BA 772s replaced with A359, leaving the remaining 772s, 77Ws and any 744s left to be replaced by the 77X. Even then, it's kind of confusing with the 789 in the fleet.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-01 15:23:42 and read 47018 times.

John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program. Then may be Air France will order the 777-9X since it has GE engines. How ironic that the French Airline would order the non-European plane but BA would get the Toulouse plane.

[Edited 2013-04-01 15:56:03]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-01 15:48:10 and read 46428 times.

Most of the 77w's in the BA fleet are leased as a stopgap, if this rumour is true it appears that the 77W won't have a long life at BA. Caution however, I remember sources being adamant that BA had chosen the 748 over the 380.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-04-01 16:03:19 and read 46156 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
they won't be ordering 78J's.

What is a 78J?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-04-01 16:08:16 and read 47821 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose

Yeah, turn out the lights, Boeing obviously can't sell any airplanes. Why do they even try to compete  

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-01 16:29:04 and read 47356 times.

There's a full article up on the WSJ site now (search "IAG A350" to bring it up in Google results).

It opens with remarks that the order for A350s could come as soon as this week, then goes on to say:

Quote:
Even if IAG orders the A350 for British Airways, Boeing is "not out of the running" for a later order for the 777Xs, said one of the people familiar with the carrier's plans. But another person said that if IAG orders A350s, it wouldn't receive preferential terms on Boeing orders.

Early buyers of a new jetliner model, known as launch customers, generally receive preferential terms and big discounts, potentially exceeding 50% off catalog prices.

Boeing's product development unit was scheduled to meet on Monday with top executives and the company's senior advisory group, which is made up of retired top engineers that designed the company's earlier jetliners. The meeting is an important step in the process of preparing the jet's business model ahead of seeking the board's approval, said two people familiar with the meeting.

Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 16:29:47 and read 48044 times.

It appears the details are still in discussion, so this may not be a "winner take all" RFP like the VLA one was.

As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.

I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

[Edited 2013-04-01 16:36:15]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-01 16:30:52 and read 48003 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

What A330 or A340 does BA have to be replaced ? NONE, BA only has 744 AND 777 to be replaced.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-01 16:39:31 and read 47813 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

What A330 or A340 does BA have to be replaced ? NONE, BA only has 744 AND 777 to be replaced.

IAG does the purchasing for IB and BA. This order is supposed to be for BA and is 25 frames (we'll assume 25 firm and a similar number of options). IB has the 340s and 330s. BA has the 772s and 744s which need replacing.

This order represents about 1/4 of the 744/777 fleet of BA. I suppose its possible BA could rotate to all Airbus but I doubt it. There would be a much larger order or huge number of options if that was the situation.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-04-01 16:44:05 and read 47599 times.

Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Carls
Posted 2013-04-01 16:46:52 and read 47743 times.

One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

I am expecting a great year for Airbus at Le Bourget!!!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):

IAG comprises Iberia and British Airways, so they have several A340-300 and 600 that are going to be replaced.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 16:59:21 and read 47461 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 30):
Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.

As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

And the A350-900 will complement the 787-9 at BA as a 777-200ER replacement, though the 787-10 would offer more capacity for TATL missions.

As for 747-400 replacements, the A350-1000 isn't big enough to be a direct replacement as it lacks the cabin floor area to replace either the High-J or Low-J birds. The 777-9, on the other hand, can handle the same 10-abreast Economy hard product as the 747-400 and the extra 3m of cabin length would allow BA to fit an additional 16 Club World seats on the main deck, which almost handles the 20 seats the 744's upper deck offers.

[Edited 2013-04-01 17:00:10]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: troest
Posted 2013-04-01 17:09:01 and read 47211 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

How will the A359s perform in hot & hight altitude airports compared to the A340s?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-01 17:10:33 and read 47203 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program.

I find that hard to believe. Both manufacturers offer competitive products and neither can grow to the size that requires the other to 'turn off the lights', nor would the airlines want that to happen.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-04-01 17:14:52 and read 47141 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

Not so fast with the A333 replacement at IB: the first one joined the fleet two weeks ago!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-01 17:15:55 and read 47130 times.

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
I am expecting a great year for Airbus

Isn't every year a great year for Airbus?  

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 17:21:59 and read 47148 times.

Quoting troest (Reply 33):
How will the A359s perform in hot & hight altitude airports compared to the A340s?

Better than the 787-9, I expect, thanks to the greater wing area and higher thrust.



Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
Not so fast with the A333 replacement at IB: the first one joined the fleet two weeks ago!

Indeed.  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-04-01 17:42:22 and read 46760 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And the A350-900 will complement the 787-9 at BA as a 777-200ER replacement, though the 787-10 would offer more capacity for TATL missions.

As for 747-400 replacements, the A350-1000 isn't big enough to be a direct replacement as it lacks the cabin floor area to replace either the High-J or Low-J birds.


There is no need to have an direct 744 replacement in terms of size as the 744 isn't the perfect fit for all routes it flies today. Your example regarding the 772 replacement shows just that.
A350-1000 and A380 will take care of the upper and lower end of the current 744 routes. 777-9X in between? Why not?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-01 17:44:07 and read 46799 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
Jon Ostrower also tweets IAG wants both A350-1000 and 777-9X aircraft in their fleet.

I can see this happening quite a bit in future. It doesn't always have to be "either-or"

Quoting bthebest (Reply 16):
I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware

You better believe the A350-1000 was DOA'd on A-net a very long time ago, and particularly when the weight increase added 2 years to its EIS, resulting in a 200 order year for the 777.
It was a goner. As well as the A358  
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose

Doesn't have to rule out a later 777-9x order   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

Which sounds pretty sensible to me

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-01 18:02:53 and read 46547 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
Which sounds pretty sensible to me

That's not what the news article says. It says it's an either/or:

Quote:
But another person said that if IAG orders A350s, it wouldn't receive preferential terms on Boeing orders.

That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 18:06:51 and read 46668 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.

Maybe it's an April Fool's joke.  

But in all seriousness, I don't expect Randy Tinseth to demand IAG pay close to list if IAG is willing to order a couple score of 777-9s.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-04-01 19:55:54 and read 45488 times.

Although plausible, this could just be a bunch of malarkey like the "Austrian buying 787" thread. Jon likes to pull April Fools jokes, so I'll take the beer and popcorn approach on this one....

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Acheron
Posted 2013-04-01 21:16:46 and read 44781 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.

Isn't that kind of attitude what caused F9 to switch to Airbus?.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: columba
Posted 2013-04-01 21:46:59 and read 44519 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.

Which would be nearly every model available except for the A350-800 and 777-8X   But honestly if you are right with this
I could see the order for the -8 being dropped and changed into one for the larger models.

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

So soon ? The order was supposed to be announced this fall

[Edited 2013-04-01 21:50:18]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-01 22:54:47 and read 43871 times.

If this happens I see this as a result of Boeing being to conservative under McNerney.

Albaugh and team clearly saw the compelling economics of the A350 and espcially -1000 in 777 land and wanted to launch the 787-10 and 777-8 and -9 to combat that. They realized they needed to get this done last year to avoid things like this. Clearly it come to a head between Albaugh and McNerney trying to keep the board and stock-market happy, Albaugh left rather then administer another 737MAX situation, i.e. running after a market which is saying "I don't wait for you anymore".

Clearly the swing from McNerny saying "we might launch the 777X for after 2020" to "it will be there 2019 which we have always said" has come over the last 3 months and we know why now. It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department. Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative, the rest is in dire straights until Boeing get's firmly going with their programs.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-02 00:49:03 and read 42275 times.

From what we know at this point the 777-9X will be
- using the same fuselage diameter as 777, but different materials
- stretch beyond the quasi double stretch of the current 777-300ER
- have a new huge wing with some regulatory challenge (span-wise)
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)
- might have a new MLG ? how about rotation angle ?

Sounds more like a step from A310 to A330 than a step from 737NG to MAX !
So a lot of unknown, uncertainties on schedule

In the other hand the A350 is almost there, and in 2-4 months, every-one will have a clear picture of what the airframe if made of (and what is lacking)

Anyway 777-9X is a really huge airplane as projected, and going to a bigger 777-9X is some sort of acknowledging that not everyone can do point to point


And 747-400 replacement is at most a 400 units market (that's the number of PAX 747-400 produced !), of which more than a hundred istaken by A380 / 747-8I
It's a 777-300ER replacement (more than 700 units, it's a big one for sure)

In the end, it makes sense to order A350's for a 2015-2018 time frame ... and order later 777-9X for 2020

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: abba
Posted 2013-04-02 00:51:05 and read 42253 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
. It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department. Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative, the rest is in dire straights until Boeing get's firmly going with their programs.



One thing seems pretty obvious: The Y project according to which Boeing over a short period of time should have a new product lineup seems now a rather dead duck.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-02 00:52:28 and read 42271 times.

This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 6):
Quoting bthebest (Reply 5):
True, but unlikely to be split, surely? They are already replacing 744 with a mix of A380 and (if this order materialises) A35J - why add 777X as well?

Agreed.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 10):
Once the 77W goes, this could leave the 787 as the only Boeing aircraft in the BA fleet. Quite a turnaround from the current situation!

Absolutely.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
And it appears JAL is favoring the A350 too

This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

I'm convinced this is the case. IMO it has undermined the airlines trust in Boeing to deliver their promises. Mishaps do happen (even the A350 is more than a year late), but the 787 debacle has damaged Boeing's reputation far more than they think.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s and take up their options for A380s to replace the last 744s. Having both 787, A350, 777 and A380 in their fleet doesn't sound very efficient.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):

Very well said, IMO it summarises perfectly the hole Boeing dug out for themselves. Except for the 787-9, Boeing will have no products superior to its main rival Airbus.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-02 01:18:34 and read 41782 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's.

Which were originally intended as interim lift. Don't forget that four of the original six (I think) were leased frames.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Mainly by those Boeing fanboyz that couldn't accept that Airbus could produce a viable challenger to the 777.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.

It's very likely in the long-term that IB becomes an all-A350 operator. Given that, I really don't see BA operating as many variants and types as you're suggesting.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 30):
Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.

Isn't it always?   

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-04-02 01:43:19 and read 41340 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 24):
What is a 78J?

It refers to 787-10, J being the 10th letter of the alphabet. Everyone notates them differently, so until ICAO gives it a designation, pick your favourite.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-02 02:01:43 and read 40921 times.

There is still a possibility of ordering the 777-9 as well, as it's a decent amount bigger than the A351. It would make BA's long haul fleet more complicated than it used to be, but then most airlines seem to be going that way, mixing and matching Boeing and Airbus planes, as unlike the 737 and A320 families which are direct rivals, the longhaul planes don't exactly overlap.

BA don't sound overconfident about the 777X, but then they're not exactly loading up on A380s either.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-02 02:05:39 and read 40806 times.

The boost of the -1000 orders can be explained by a few things:

1) Last February Leahy was hinting at a deticated assembly line for the A350-1000
2) Design freeze this year
3) EIS 2016

1) The extra A350 assembly line should be a key selling element. According to Leahy, the lack of delivery slots were the main problem of the poor -1000 orders. Now, with a deticated -1000 assembly line Airbus should be able to output 60 to 80 units per year, 2 - 3 years before the 777X enters the market. Do the math.

2) The -900 will fly soon and Airbus will freeze the -1000 design afterwards. Customers are getting a better picture of the final product.

3) I'm just guessing but all those orders should force Airbus to swap the EIS of the -1000 with the -800. This should be an extra plus argument for the sales team (-1000 entering the market 3 - 4 years before the 777X).

[Edited 2013-04-02 02:08:15]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-02 02:10:19 and read 40636 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
But in all seriousness, I don't expect Randy Tinseth to demand IAG pay close to list if IAG is willing to order a couple score of 777-9s.
Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):
Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

This is the time for IAG to drive a deal, Airbus would like the ink to be dry before Boeing launch the 777X and to deny them a prestigious launch customer. Also you would expect Airbus to target a series of orders to go along with the first flight to give the impression of program momentum.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s

And wait for the A350 double stretch.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

Yes, if only because the delays 787 have pushed the 787-10 and 777X project way down the road.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-02 02:28:36 and read 40291 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-02 02:34:53 and read 40167 times.

By the way,
What can be the 787-10 EIS ? > 2020 ?
T1000-TEN is for 2016, so 787-10X can't be here (with RR) before 2017 I think

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-02 02:43:01 and read 40025 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-04-02 02:50:43 and read 39940 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Oh yes. The plane was already buried before she left the designing and development department. Now the tide is turning, mainly because the product becomes clearer and clearer for the customers and the waiting time between ordering and delivery is coming down. Especially if Airbus adds another production line soon.   I, and others, have always maintained that the long time between ordering and the delivery of an A350-1000, and that the airplane will sell on merits. And she is conquering more and more important customers. If confirmed it would be a great result for Airbus.  .

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):

John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose.

Well, this order is not covering all widebodies which need replacement at IAG. So there is still plenty of room for Boeing to win an order from IAG.

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

I have not seen any confirmation of what you are stating here. That would be another very good order for Airbus if that one would materialize as well. But until confirmed, I am not holding my breath.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
You better believe the A350-1000 was DOA'd on A-net a very long time ago, and particularly when the weight increase added 2 years to its EIS, resulting in a 200 order year for the 777.
It was a goner. As well as the A358

Oh yes, they were goners. I wonder what these posters will have to say now since the A350-1000 clearly is picking up a lot of momentum.   

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

I am quite sure Airbus really wanted this one. But also the B777-X will sell on merits if it is launched.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

I do not agree. Also the B777-X will sell on merits. But it has to be offered first, and also it will suffer from long lead-times as the A350-1000 has. But once they become overseeable I am sure also the B777-X will sell quite wll. Maybe it will also be ordered by IAG.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 49):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Mainly by those Boeing fanboyz that couldn't accept that Airbus could produce a viable challenger to the 777.

  .

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

Me too. And imho EK will by far not the only one who will order the B777-X. Even if they might order some more A350-1000's down the line as well.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-02 02:54:01 and read 39851 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

It needs more than an order from EK to be a success, or it will be the next A340-500/600, or worse, the 747-8i.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-02 02:56:42 and read 39774 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)

When did we last see an "all new engine" ?

For decades now widebody engines have been a succession of improvements to a basic design. Yes their thrust ratings have gone through the roof, and fuel consumption has slumped, but they are still the result of evolution rather than revolution. It would be a major surprise for any of the big three engine suppliers to come up with a completely clean sheet design.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-02 02:59:16 and read 39755 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):

This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

  

Whilst the report refers specifically to British Airways, I believe, with the reorganisation of Iberia now underway, negotiations include a complete overhaul of Iberia's A340 fleet also. This could be an initial combined firm order for 60 frames plus options of 900s and 1000s.


In the battle of the VLA for British Airways, IAG saw:

B748: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, end of design life, insufficient advances in economics.
A388: New design, settling in with launch operators, state of the art technology, scope for improvements, stretches and new variants in future.

They went for the A388

In the battle of the VLT for British Airways and Iberia, IAG sees:

B77X: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, possibly last variants and so end of design life
A350: New design, will take delivery as it settles in with launch operators, state of the art technology, scope for improvements, stretches and new variants in future.

They're going for the A350

It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

Be in no doubt also, the Dreamliner's inauspicious start has also raised the element of risk with a Boeing order.

The rabbit Boeing now has to pull out of the hat is one which prevents the rest of the IAG long haul fleet renewal going all-Airbus too.

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-04-02 03:04:13 and read 39741 times.

"Dear B team,

As 744-A346-777-343 replacement next toys we went to the Airbus shop for a delightful visit, and a glass of unique local wine..
we thank you so much for your 777-9 sexy X lauch costumer offer , we met an alternative, it's called the A380-A350 sexy football (noo not called socker!) striker team.. looking forward to play again.. " self play quote. Have a good day.

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:08:36]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2013-04-02 03:06:42 and read 39653 times.

G´day

So will this order be formally announced in XFW during the roll-out of the first A 380 painted in full BA colours? I am sure all the BA and Airbus brass will attend that ceremony, so announcing the new order there will make the event even more colourful.   


Cheers

Peter

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Carls
Posted 2013-04-02 03:12:22 and read 39485 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 44):

I think we can hear something at the Paris Air Show.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Extra300
Posted 2013-04-02 03:29:28 and read 39178 times.

You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-02 03:34:05 and read 39126 times.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

The rumour is that it's a done deal.
  

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
And 747-400 replacement is at most a 400 units market (that's the number of PAX 747-400 produced !), of which more than a hundred istaken by A380 / 747-8I

Slightly off-topic, but - even ignoring that just replacing 747-400 does not account for growth - this isn't quite correct. Even if you consider just the base variant, Boeing produced 442 pax 747-400. Add to that 19 747-400D, 6 747-400ER and 61 747-400M, and you're at a total of 528 pax (and combi) 747-400s.

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:43:44]

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:44:15]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-02 04:04:13 and read 38601 times.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

You just have to remember to consult your aerospace dictionary, if you haven't got one to hand please find a few definitions below:

Rumour - Believed by vast majority of enthusiasts to be 100% true fact
Short term plan - Today
Medium term plan - Rest of the week
Long term plan - Next week
Commitment - We shared a table at Starbucks whilst waiting for a flight
Letter of Intent - Scribbled some notes on the back of the receipt at Starbucks
Option - Tentative agreement to pay for the coffees next time
Order (with deposit) - An agreement to take a specific number of planes at a specific time at a specific
cost, or to delay them, renegotiate the price, or even to exchange the order
for something else that the manufacturer has yet to design
Order (no deposit) - See option
Boeing - Large aircraft manufacturer prone to being over optimistic and then very late.
Airbus - Large aircraft manufacturer prone to being over optimistic and then very late.
GE - Mega supplier of whirly things that occasionally go bang
RR - Mega supplier of whirly things that occasionally go bang
Airlines - Organisations prone to making rash statements, not knowing what they are doing this
afternoon, let alone next week, ordering things they don't want, failing to order what
they need, and living in a state of either eternal optimism or pessimism.

  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: kmz
Posted 2013-04-02 04:28:33 and read 38138 times.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal.

...and my impression is that the Airbus supporters here sound a little bit too convinced that only Airbus can offer the right product, the tone is coming close to being arrogant    ... let the A350 fly first and be assured that the 777x is a good a/c and wait with the    until the BA contract is signed  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-04-02 04:41:52 and read 37978 times.

It was in August 1986 that BA first ordered the 744,buying 16 of the type with options on a further 12. To me this raises two questions:

1. What alternatives were there to the 744 in terms of meeting both the capacity and range requirements of BA back in 1986 and how does this impact the "replacement" of a large fleet of the type?

2. How have BA's and IB's markets changed over the intervening period of more than a quarter of a century in terms of required aircraft carrying capacity and flight frequency?

I then have another four questions, namely:

3. What impact does the formation of IAG make to the likely outcome of an order or orders to meet the future long-haul aircraft needs of BA and IB? Ignoring manufacturers' discounts, does this reduce the size of an economically operationally viable fleet of a single type if both airlines were to operate that type?

4. How will the growth of Middle East hubs like DXB and IST impact the long term strategy of the likes of IAG and will it impact their future aircraft needs by, for example, increasing the number of destinations served and the proportions of O&D passengers carried?

5. What is the impact of ATI operations with partner airlines on the size and number of aircraft in individual fleets and the operation of that fleet?

6. What will IAG look like in another quarter of a century and what strategic route will it have taken to get there?

Indeed it seems to me that so much is likely to change over more than a quarter of a century that any airline ordering a significant number of new aircraft must start with a sheet of blank paper, not with a listing of the current aircraft it operates, destinations it currently serves and a timetable of its flights. Concerns over likely future airport capacities in terms of both aircraft movements and passengers handled just complicate the decision process further.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-02 04:56:50 and read 37630 times.

I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st, but if true I wonder what it means for the 787 orders in BA's fleet.

I can see 4 class OEW-heavy 788s being a good match for a few LHR flights e.g. Bermuda, Barbados (the old Concorde link) and a few of the smaller African countries, but what of the 789s?

Will they end up being deployed on the leisure routes from LGW mainly to southern US / Carribean where 9-abreast Y in a 787 will be acceptable, replacing the GE 772s? That would leave LHR as mainly 359 / 3510 / 779 / 388 territory, but would mark a change from BA's more normal approach of rotating 5 - 10 year old frames from LHR to LGW.

Or perhaps they will end up at Vueling on a similar basis to the SQ 787s going to Scoot.

[Edited 2013-04-02 04:58:12]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-02 05:04:35 and read 37509 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 69):
I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st

If it's a joke, a lot of folks are in on it!   

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: chiad
Posted 2013-04-02 05:12:02 and read 37470 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 69):
I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st,

I am!
But it's nothing to make a joke of really.
I mean ... why wouldn't IAG make such an orders?
I would be like making an April joke of zero celsius temperatures in Norway in March.
  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-02 05:18:19 and read 37432 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative

  

This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater. Boeing are exploiting the inherent advantages of having a larger cross section than the 350. Airbus aren't going to develop a new cross section sized between the 350 and the 380 just to compete with the 777-9X.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
From what we know at this point the 777-9X will be
- using the same fuselage diameter as 777, but different materials
- stretch beyond the quasi double stretch of the current 777-300ER
- have a new huge wing with some regulatory challenge (span-wise)
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)
- might have a new MLG ? how about rotation angle ?

Sounds more like a step from A310 to A330 than a step from 737NG to MAX !
So a lot of unknown, uncertainties on schedule

Its more than the step from A310 to A330 as they were all (conventional) alloy aircraft (you forgot to mention the 777X wing will be CRFP rather than alloy). The 777X program will have unknown's and uncertainties approaching those of a new program.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
One thing seems pretty obvious: The Y project according to which Boeing over a short period of time should have a new product lineup seems now a rather dead duck.

It does seem to lack any relevance now. Boeing have (almost) 1 out of 3 at the moment (787).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
Now, with a deticated -1000 assembly line Airbus should be able to output 60 to 80 units per year, 2 - 3 years before the 777X enters the market. Do the math.

I think any projected 777X EIS will be a fairly slippery target - no guarantee it will happen in this decade. 787-10 and 737 Max will be underway at the same time.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-02 05:19:34 and read 37521 times.

If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement 

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-02 06:07:11 and read 36707 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 49):
It's very likely in the long-term that IB becomes an all-A350 operator. Given that, I really don't see BA operating as many variants and types as you're suggesting.

Well BA is going to operate the 787-8 and 787-9, so adding the 787-10 does not sound like a stretch. The 787-10 also is a strong fit for the "medium range missions" BA management has spoken about.

I agree IB will remain all-Airbus - their A330-300s are new enough to not need replacing for a decade or more and they will get the A350-900 to replace the A340-300 and the A350-1000 to replace the A340-600. If there are high-capacity missions that must have a four-holer, those passengers will fly from Spain to LHR and board a BA A380-800 for the trip.

As for the 777-9, it is possible that IAG is using it to secure better pricing and availability from Airbus for the A350-1000. But if their comments are truthful and they do believe it's an excellent fit for some of their current fleet, I would expect it to be a replacement for the 747-400s at BA (with the A380-800).

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: qf002
Posted 2013-04-02 06:19:41 and read 36474 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 66):

And most importantly of all:

Denial = Confirmation

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-02 07:23:16 and read 35618 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative,
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater. Boeing are exploiting the inherent advantages of having a larger cross section than the 350. Airbus aren't going to develop a new cross section sized between the 350 and the 380 just to compete with the 777-9X.

I'd agree that the fact that the 777-9X is larger than the A350-1000 is Boeing's saving grace (and probably their only way of competing with the economics of a newly developed plane while still grandfathering the 777).
However, I'd point out that if Boeing can do a double-strech of the 777 with the 777-9X, Airbus can probably do something similar with the A350, to get an A350-1100 or whatever you want to call it.
Mind you, I'm not saying they will, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
Its more than the step from A310 to A330 as they were all (conventional) alloy aircraft

Just as a reminder - there were advances in aircraft technology even before the introduction of all-carbon-fibre planes.
And the scope of new technologies introduced between A300/A310 and A330/A340 is certainly comparable with what Boeing plan to do to go from 777-300ER to 777-9X.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-02 07:53:50 and read 35282 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater.

...based on 10 across in Y. BA have tried 10 across in the B777 and their market rejected it out of hand. I remain unconvinced Boeing are going to be able to carve out enough extra width to satisfy IAG.

I doubt they would try again, preferring 9 across and seat commonality / comfort with the rest of their long haul fleet.

Rgds

[Edited 2013-04-02 08:01:17]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-04-02 09:59:57 and read 33361 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 73):
If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement

I think that is ridiculous, utterly nonsense, and totally uncalled for . . . . surely the French and German politicians will be part of the party, if not organising it!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-02 14:41:20 and read 30883 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 78):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 73):If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement
I think that is ridiculous, utterly nonsense, and totally uncalled for . . . . surely the French and German politicians will be part of the party, if not organising it!

The British government is desperate to realign the economy towards manufacturing, and as one of the more successful sectors, aerospace has had plenty of ministerial visits...The A350 ticks plenty of boxes, RR engines, Airbus UK wings, GKN composites, and the chance to bask in the reflected glory  

The French and German politicians can wait until AF and LH order the A350 

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-02 15:51:56 and read 30470 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...at this point EK ordering the 77X (in significant quantities) seems extremely likely.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s and take up their options for A380s to replace the last 744s. Having both 787, A350, 777 and A380 in their fleet doesn't sound very efficient.

But then you'd have a huge gap in capacity between the A35J (~350 seats) and the A380 (~500 seats). Putting too much emphasis on fleet commonality to the extent that you create huge capacity gaps like that can be just as inefficient from a cost perspective, as you may end up with many routes for which you don't have an ideal plane.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s

And wait for the A350 double stretch.

It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 57):
Oh yes, they were goners. I wonder what these posters will have to say now since the A350-1000 clearly is picking up a lot of momentum.

They were, and always will be, a vocal minority of fanboys. No different than the above poster and several others, who are ironically jumping to predict the 77X's demise in this very thread.


This is a significant win for Airbus, and also for BA, as the 35J will be a great asset for their company going forward. However, the 77-9X should still be seen as a viable option, and I think they'll add it in the future as well....especially if the 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, which will join its fleet in the near future.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: lebb757
Posted 2013-04-02 17:02:19 and read 30143 times.

British: They should get the whole 787 family. 787-8s -9s and -10s would do a pretty decent job replacing 772s and 763s. The 7810s performance isn't that bad, so they should do just fine with most of the routes. As for the 744 replacement, I see some 779Xs coming since neither the a3510 nor the a388 have the right size.


Iberia:Although it is very likely that IB will end up going for the a350 as their long haul airplane, the 787 would be better for IB. 787-9s would be suitable for routes where either not much capacity is required or range is needed. The 7810s would work perfect for higher capacity routes to north America, the Caribbean and some African destinations. BTW, I'm pretty optimistic about the 787's hot-n-high performance!!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-04-02 17:17:18 and read 30047 times.

I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia, allowing them to play the frequency or yield game on South American routes, and develop new markets in North America and Asia, alongside point to point services from Barcelona.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-02 18:45:34 and read 29881 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

The A350 should be physically capable of being stretched to pretty much the same length as the 777 ...

I think a bigger issue is that it would end up like the 787-10.
The A350 airframe doesn't have the sheer weight capability of the 777. Yet  

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-02 18:53:05 and read 29847 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

Really.. You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350? Your A346 reference is bogus, the basic problem with the A346 was that it had 4 engines; it was way more efficient than the 744 which it was built to compete with but unfortunately it arrived at the same time as the The 777 and ETOPS.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-02 20:07:25 and read 29653 times.

The narrower diameter of the A340's fuselage required significant strengthening, which raised the OEW by a significant amount. Reference OEW for the A340-600 was 176t compared to 125t for the A340-300. Reference OEW for the 777-300ER, on the other hand, was 168t compared to 138t for the 777-200ER.

The A350's fuselage is narrower than the 777s, however reinforcing CFRP should be a fair bit lighter than reinforcing aluminum. As such, reference OEW for an A350-1100 compared to an A350-900 should be lower than for the 777, to say nothing of the A340.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-02 21:29:42 and read 29426 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

Hmmm...When did the A330/A340 come out? The A320? So going A340-200 to A340-300 to A340-500 and A340-600, or A330-200 to A330-300 to A330-300HGW, or A320 to A320 with Sharklets to A320NEO - these are not "tweakng"?

So since, what, 1990-ish, Airbus has launched TWO all-new programs, the A350 and the A380. And in the same time, Boeing has launched two all-new programs, the 777 and the 787. They also did Extreme Makeover - 737 Edition. back in the 90's.

Am I missing something?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 84):
Really.. You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350?

I won't argue the technical merits or lack thereof of either but the quantity of stretches as a generic number seems irrelevent. I would think there would be a certain element of proportionality that would play into such a comparison.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-04-02 22:21:04 and read 29256 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 84):
You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350?

777 was stretched only once. 777-300 and -300ER share the same exact fuselage, as far as I know. The -9X would be second stretch.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-02 22:30:25 and read 29231 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
But then you'd have a huge gap in capacity between the A35J (~350 seats) and the A380 (~500 seats).

BA had no issue with the "huge gap in capacity" between the 772 and 744 for many years.   

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):

It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...

Why not? Boeing is perfectly able to double-stretch the narrower 787 and the wider 777, but Airbus can't do the same for a frame-width between? Maybe some wishful thinking?

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 82):
I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia

I don't see the A350 as being any less perfect for IB.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: columba
Posted 2013-04-02 22:49:49 and read 29148 times.

Quoting Carls (Reply 63):
I think we can hear something at the Paris Air Show.

Lets see I still have high hopes for LH ordering the 787-10X

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 82):

I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia, allowing them to play the frequency or yield game on South American routes, and develop new markets in North America and Asia, alongside point to point services from Barcelona.

A350-900 should do the job just as good as the 787.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 88):
BA had no issue with the "huge gap in capacity" between the 772 and 744 for many years.   

With that many 772 they had, they have rather send two 772 to NYC in an hour than one 777W  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-02 23:27:22 and read 29005 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
The A350's fuselage is narrower than the 777s, however reinforcing CFRP should be a fair bit lighter than reinforcing aluminum. As such, reference OEW for an A350-1100 compared to an A350-900 should be lower than for the 777, to say nothing of the A340.

Don't forget that, like the 787, the A350XWB is an ovoid cross-section. So the actual fuselage height difference between the A350 and the 777 will be a lot less than the 10" difference between the widths.
The A350 is every bit as stretchable as the 777 in that respect.

But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-02 23:50:48 and read 28895 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

I can't see why an A350 couldn't bee double strecthed just like the 787, I put in another 8 frames to stretch with 5.1 meter to 77.3m and left everything else the same, ie the MTOW at 308t (which makes the engines OK as well at 97klbf). I raised the OEW with 7t to reflect the increased frame (to 160t which is ample and covers some of the rumored overweight), you now have a 400 pax frame that flies 7300nm spec range.

If 7100nm is the magic number for the 787-10 then 7300nm should be pretty usefull for a 400 pax A350-1100. Or you can start to up the MTOW (and engine thrust) to compensate. Up it to 320t and you have 8000nm range, should be pretty OK. The MLG is triple boogie and pretty tall (compared to the 787 which has tail clearance limiting the 787-10) so should be OK for a 77m bird weighing 320t (with a bit of beefing up for strenght). So the 777-9X could be given a run for it's money by Airbus if they wanted to, what says they don't design in this stretch already now, in fact all the changes to the engines for an additional 4klbf of thrust sound like RR is preparing bigger deeds going forward  Wow! .

Of curse Airbus don't start shouting about an -1100 right now, that is the best way to kill sales of a -1000 and making yourselves untrustworthy.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-02 23:56:30 and read 28844 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
The narrower diameter of the A340's fuselage required significant strengthening, which raised the OEW by a significant amount. Reference OEW for the A340-600 was 176t compared to 125t for the A340-300. Reference OEW for the 777-300ER, on the other hand, was 168t compared to 138t for the 777-200ER.

True but again misleading. Wing area increased on the A340-600 by 20% from 363-427 m2 over the A340-300 while wing area stayed the same on the 777-300ER over the 777-200ER. A significant amount of the A340-600 OEW increase was due to increased wing size.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-03 00:05:15 and read 28788 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.
Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

I'm not an Airbus fanboy   Boeing has lots of very capable and extremely hard working people working there. However, IMO Boeing also has some people in senior management I'm less impressed about. I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed... But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000. And I wonder how long EK's patience will be with the 777X. There is an article which says it will have a range of 8100nm, will that be enough for EK? I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO. And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2013-04-03 00:07:49 and read 28751 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.
Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

Even though it is MTOW limited, it would make an awsome people carrier for trans atlantic routes. Just as the 78J is going to be. Whilst I can see the appeal of the 8000nm+ ranges of the 35J/77X series of planes for some airlines and routes, a 78J & 35K with more capacity but 15-20% less range is a great solution to many routes. I feel the concept is sometimes looked upon with derision on this forum and I struggle to understand why. A fleet consisting of 789 & 78J brings massive comonality benefits whilst enablling the airline to right size/range an airframe to a route.

Anyone have an idea of range/payload of a 35K, seating capacity/cabin area?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-03 01:26:37 and read 28356 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is
I can't see why an A350 couldn't bee double strecthed just like the 787, I put in another 8 frames to stretch with 5.1 meter to 77.3m and left everything else the same, ie the MTOW at 308t (which makes the engines OK as well at 97klbf). I raised the OEW with 7t to reflect the increased frame (to 160t which is ample and covers some of the rumored overweight), you now have a 400 pax frame that flies 7300nm spec range.

Appreciate your effort here ferpe. Just one minor nitpick - Airbus show the length of the 35J to be 74.3 meters here and other sites give 73.9 meters. A 5 meter stretch would take the aircraft to 79 meters in length (assuming I have the correct numbers) - wouldn't this be pushing the boundaries somewhat ? Before ferpe's post I was going to ask where can you go from 74 meters ?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
Don't forget that, like the 787, the A350XWB is an ovoid cross-section. So the actual fuselage height difference between the A350 and the 777 will be a lot less than the 10" difference between the widths.
The A350 is every bit as stretchable as the 777 in that respect.

Thats an interesting point.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 94):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is
Even though it is MTOW limited, it would make an awsome people carrier for trans atlantic routes. Just as the 78J is going to be. Whilst I can see the appeal of the 8000nm+ ranges of the 35J/77X series of planes for some airlines and routes, a 78J & 35K with more capacity but 15-20% less range is a great solution to many routes. I feel the concept is sometimes looked upon with derision on this forum and I struggle to understand why. A fleet consisting of 789 & 78J brings massive comonality benefits whilst enablling the airline to right size/range an airframe to a route.

Another approach Airbus could take would be to just offer a lighter version of the 35J without any stretch (using 359 "bits") which would offer an aircraft of similar capabilies (could also do 400 pax in 2 classes) with far less development costs than a 350-1100. Its the same theme as the 787-10 which airlines appear to be very keen to acquire - why spend the development dollars if you don't need to ?


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-03 01:27:17 and read 28365 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Hmmm...When did the A330/A340 come out? The A320? So going A340-200 to A340-300 to A340-500 and A340-600, or A330-200 to A330-300 to A330-300HGW, or A320 to A320 with Sharklets to A320NEO - these are not "tweakng"?

So since, what, 1990-ish, Airbus has launched TWO all-new programs, the A350 and the A380. And in the same time, Boeing has launched two all-new programs, the 777 and the 787. They also did Extreme Makeover - 737 Edition. back in the 90's.

Am I missing something?

I'm talking about the here and now, the present, the day IAG sat down and compared the two OEMs' product line up. You are being disingenuous in trying to twist my comment into an historical statement, but if that's Boeing's line of defence, who am I to criticise. ::shrug::

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I'm not an Airbus fanboy   Boeing has lots of very capable and extremely hard working people working there. However, IMO Boeing also has some people in senior management I'm less impressed about. I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed... But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000. And I wonder how long EK's patience will be with the 777X. There is an article which says it will have a range of 8100nm, will that be enough for EK? I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO. And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I can only nod sadly in full agreement.

It's the bandaid on the A330 sketch coming full circle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_7k96DWjIY

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z192/PrimavistaGiantSchnauzers/Aircraft%20Archived%20Pics/381314_10151943669017925_1618829676_n1.jpg

Rgds



Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-03 01:31:36 and read 28318 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I'm not an Airbus fanboy

I don't mean to say that YOU are a fanboy. I am just asking how this comment is any different than the A351 DOA comments mentioned in this very thread as attributed to fanboys?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed...

True.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000.

I think you are once again looking through rose-colored glasses at the decision making process for Boeing. First, they have been very focused on the launch/issues with the 787. Second, they have been waying the 787-10X and the 777X programs to see if either/both should be launched. The former needed (ideally) to see the 787-8 get put into service so that they could get a better sense of the 10X's capabilities. They needed the 10X decision to be clearer so that they could properly position the 777X (if launched). And they needed to see where the A350-1000 was settling so that they had a better target or goal post.

Airbus stealing away some of these airlines is a foregone conclusion. Boeing did it with the 787 when it launched, stealing the likes of AC and NW at at time when the A330/A350 mk 1 were trying to slow the tide of orders and defections for the Dreamliner. There is a natural ebb and flow because it simply isn't possible or as easy of a decsion to launch a multi-billion dollar program. You want to be as certain as you can that you are making the best decision. The A350 went through that "finding itself" phase, ending up - ultimately - with the XWB. However, it wasn't exactly an easy process and at some points it was cringeworthy.

The end result - a clean sheet design - was uliimately the likely best option, but it isn't as if Airbus woke up the day after the Dreamliner was launched and said "Let there be XWB". To many of us at the time, it seemed like Airbus was having an internal war trying to figure out what to do - spend billions on a souped-up A330, or spend many billions (and many years) developing a clean sheet design. It was not an easy, quick, or clear-cut decision for Airbus, just as it isn't an easy, quick, or clear-cut decision for Boeing.

Ultimately, there are two truths IMHO: Boeing will lose sales campaigns prior to a launch, and there are many new(er) 777-300ER's flying the skies that won't be ready for replacement for many years. There will be order losses, but Boeing likely knows when the sweet spot for the replacement cycle will be happening and are fully planning ot have a product on the market to meet those needs.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO.

True, but can you honestly say that Boeing is being "arrogant" by not having launched the 777X yet?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I think Boeing has made many mistakes. However, the 787 saga has probably skewed to a degree our perception of the bigger picture. Had the 787 launched relatively smoothly and not gotten mired in all of the drama/problems to date, I think we would not be questioning the other program decisions as much. But it hasn't, and now every decision Boeing makes is cast in an uncertain or even negative light.

Personally, I am not thrilled with the 777X. I'd much rather see a clean sheet design, but it just isn't in the cards. The timeline would be pushing into the 20's and the cost would be huge. If they can spend 30% of the money and get 40% of the market at decent returns, that might just be enough to punt rather than go for the touchdown. This time.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Leo467
Posted 2013-04-03 01:33:54 and read 28293 times.

I fully agree!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO... They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And this after some arguably not too differing stories that helped Airbus to become such a strong competitor:

The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...

The reaction to the A380 with a hesitating offer of the 747X (!) around 2000, followed by a launch of the 747-8 almost 5 years later...

This is not ment to be Boeing bashing (and their "reaction" to the A340 proved to be extremely successful!), but I get the impression that a world leading company with great products repeadely puts itself in a difficult position by reacting late to moves of its key competitor. And they seem to make this mistake once more. The 350-1000 in its current form is out there: it's a clear threat to Boeings stronghold. It should not take orders from some of the biggest 777 customers to clearly formulate a response  In that sense - if it materializes (!) - an order from IAG/BA would really be a huge blow for them...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-03 01:52:06 and read 28165 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 95):
Airbus show the length of the 35J to be 74.3 meters here and other sites give 73.9 meters. A 5 meter stretch would take the aircraft to 79 meters in length (assuming I have the correct numbers) - wouldn't this be pushing the boundaries somewhat ?

That is overall length and the longest points are the nose and tips of HTP. The relevant parameter for cabin length and tail ground clearance is fuselage length, this I have as 72.3m and then 8 frames in addition where each frame is 0.635m (25'') makes it 77.3m. As for the cabin length and areas:

..........................................35J.........35K.......77W.......779
Cabin length m:................58.8........63.9.......59.3.......61.9
Cabin floorplan area m2:..320.........350........340........360

The 777X has the advantage of 10 abrest in Y which is why EK will always go for the 777-9X for the largest twin. For mainline carriers that does not accept that as a seating standard (BA might be one as posted above) the Airbus models would have an advantage.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-03 01:57:55 and read 28126 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 96):
I'm talking about the here and now, the present, the day IAG sat down and compared the two OEMs' product line up. You are being disingenuous in trying to twist my comment into an historical statement, but if that's Boeing's line of defence, who am I to criticise. ::shrug::

Please don't accuse me of being disingenuous - there's really no need for that. I was simply replying to this:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

You said it was history repeating itself, which IMPLIES that we are referencing the past???

You implied that Airbus comes out with clean sheets while Boeing just tweaks, and I simply offered an illustration of how that isn't true. Sure, it might be true in the recent past, but these are 20-30 year programs. There are product cycles, market cycles, etc. It isn't as simple as throwing out clean sheets every few years. What's more, Boeing has been fantastically successful the past 10 years. Airbus? Absolutely, perhaps more so by most measures. At what cost would it be worth it for Boeing to "beat" Airbus and earn your respect? 50% more capital spending? 80%? Because frankly, there's apparently alot to be said for product lines full of "tweaked" products. Boeing is crying all the way to the bank.

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market.

Sigh. That was a quarter century ago. It was a novel idea at the time but ultimatey didn't pan out. So? Ironically, they looked at doing a clean-sheet, somewhat revolutionary design, which is apparently a bad thing to some, but instead chose to "tweak" the Classic into the NG, which is apparently a bad thing to others.

As my mom would say, "They can't win for losing".

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The reaction to the A380 with a hesitating offer of the 747X (!) around 2000, followed by a launch of the 747-8 almost 5 years later...

They were very clear that only one clean-sheet VLA was supported in the marketplace. When Airbus went solo, and there wasn't room for two clean sheets, the only two choices left were the 747X programs or doing nothing.

Does Airbus have a performance winner in the A380? Absolutely. Does Airbus have a financial winner in the A380? I guess that remains to be seen. Would either Boeing or Airbus have avoided losing billions if they had both launched clean sheet VLA's? Doubtful.

Boeing made the right choice to go slow in that segment. The 748i was clearly too little, too late. I doubt, though, that he wish they had gone clean sheet, as that would have hampered the 787 program.

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
(and their "reaction" to the A340 proved to be extremely successful!),

In other words, aside from their fantastic success with the 777 that prematurely killed the A340 (which apparently Airbus gets a PASS on in history), they are screw ups.

Got it.  

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-03 02:06:35 and read 28067 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 99):
The 777X has the advantage of 10 abrest in Y which is why EK will always go for the 777-9X for the largest twin. For mainline carriers that does not accept that as a seating standard (BA might be one as posted above) the Airbus models would have an advantage.

10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X, but what about the -8(L)X ? The A35J carries 350 pax in a 9 abreast cabin while the -8X carries 353 pax in a 10 abreast cabin. Which cabin should be 'better'?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-03 02:31:45 and read 27999 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):
10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X, but what about the -8(L)X ? The A35J carries 350 pax in a 9 abreast cabin while the -8X carries 353 pax in a 10 abreast cabin. Which cabin should be 'better'?

I see the 777-8X as a complement to the -9X, not as a competitive stand alone model re the A350-1000. There are to many compromises for this model, a bit like the A350-800. The wing and engine is sized for the -9X ie has a little to much drag and span for the -8X (it should be fine with a 65m wing and a 10% smaller engine) and the cabin is some 4-5 meters shorter then the -1000.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PC9
Posted 2013-04-03 02:37:02 and read 28000 times.

Quote from ferpe:

..........................................35J.........35K.......77W.......779
Cabin length m:................58.8........63.9.......59.3.......61.9
Cabin floorplan area m2:..320.........350........340........360


Interesting table. I wasn't aware that the cabin of the A350-1000 is shorter than that of the B77W. I thought because the A350-1000 and the B77W have the same overall length, the would also have the same cabin length.

Somehow Boeing seems to get 0,5 m more cabin length out of the same overall length. Does anyone know the reason for this?

[Edited 2013-04-03 02:44:15]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-03 02:40:27 and read 28022 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):
10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X

Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-03 03:48:47 and read 27706 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period.

No, Boeing's first reaction to the NEO was that they didn't need to re-engine, because the 737NG would be just as efficient as the NEO. Jaw-dropping.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I think you are once again looking through rose-colored glasses at the decision making process for Boeing. First, they have been very focused on the launch/issues with the 787. Second, they have been waying the 787-10X and the 777X programs to see if either/both should be launched. The former needed (ideally) to see the 787-8 get put into service so that they could get a better sense of the 10X's capabilities

The 787-8 is in service for 1,5 years now, and Boeing still doesn't know?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
They needed the 10X decision to be clearer so that they could properly position the 777X (if launched). And they needed to see where the A350-1000 was settling so that they had a better target or goal post.

Airlines have decided on multi billion orders for A350-1000s, so they must have a good idea what to expect. Specs for the A350-1000 have been clear for years: a 8000nm+ 350 seater 25% more efficient than the 77W. Airlines know these specs in far more detail, and so does Boeing. What are they waiting for? Design freeze? Flight testing? EIS? And there is always the possibility to adapt the final design after launch, like Airbus did with the A350-1000. Look at the 787-10X, recently Boeing found out it could boost the range to 7100nm. IMO, I don't think they had to postpone launch for that.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
You want to be as certain as you can that you are making the best decision.

True, but you can't wait too long. At some point you have to make a decision, and there will inherently be risks involved. But you can't bet on a horse after the race has finished.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Boeing likely knows when the sweet spot for the replacement cycle will be happening and are fully planning ot have a product on the market to meet those needs.

I hope so, because the market needs two strong manufacturers. But I'm not too confident.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.

That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-03 04:09:44 and read 27623 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.

It has been recognised that the company's main demographic base, i.e. Western European and North American, is increasing in both mass and size. The decision was therefore made not to go back and try 10 Y when the B77W came in.

If BA can make it pay, I can only see it becoming a marketing advantage in the future.

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-03 04:23:32 and read 27524 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.

Is it a case of their passengers find it acceptable, or that their customers have few other viable options, or that the pricing is so advantageous to make the discomfort acceptable ?

BA operate in a very competitive environment with few monopolistic routes, on many of the most lucrative they have VS as a viable UK based alternative carrier. The airlines you quote don't share their home hubs.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: APYu
Posted 2013-04-03 04:31:50 and read 27468 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped

This was quite a long time ago now, and as others have stated this is more common on other carriers. Just because it didnt work back then doesnt mean BA will never try it again. I see their dense Y config on the 787 (is it 3:3:3) evidence they are moving in this direction.

(Part of the reason it didnt work back then was because it was only exercised on the beach fleet and the product inconsistency made those pax feel they were less important. Having a higher config across the whole of a particular aircraft type will be more palatable as pax wont be complaining that they are being discriminated against).

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2013-04-03 04:51:43 and read 27323 times.

Everybody, please don't overreact.
1 I haven't seen a p.o. yet. Everything said is speculating.
2 Even if IAG and JAL are going to order it is not the end of the world for the 77X. Boeing might as wel win some typical Airbus customers.
And even if all customers for now choose the A350XWB this will create a similar situation as with the A320NEO. Lead time to long, let's take the second choice.
As someone already stated: Boeing and Airbus cannot do without one another. And by the way: it would make this forum boring....

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-03 06:11:23 and read 26861 times.

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...

The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans, but back when they did start development work, fuel was extremely cheap and therefore it saved no money.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.

As I understand it, the 777X should have the same seat-cushion width as the 747 (with narrower aisles) so BA should be able to pull their World Traveller seats out of their 747-400s and install them into their 777-9s. So customers would notice no difference connecting from a 747-400 to a 777-9.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-03 06:35:38 and read 26656 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans

Probably mounted at the rear of its fuselage.

Sorry, couldn't resist.  

Besides the business case vanishing with the price of fuel dropping, I thought that another problem with the 7J7 were those very fans, as the UDF concept had (and still has) its challenges in the area of cabin and outside noise. I also remember reading that, given the much higher revolution speeds of an UDF compared with a regular turboprop, containing blade-off events was a bit of a problem as well.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-03 06:45:17 and read 26622 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...
The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans, but back when they did start development work, fuel was extremely cheap and therefore it saved no money.

McDonnell Douglas cancelled the MD-94X (which was very similar in concept to the Boeing 7J7) around the same time that Boeing cancelled the 7J7 - for much the same reasons that Stitch has outlined. The lack of airline interest was not unique to the Boeing project. A mere 5 or 10 years later and it could have been a different story.
Had either project succeeded then the implications for aviation could have been profound - particularly given that the 7J7 cross section is seen as highly desirable in today's world for Boeing's NSA.



Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-03 06:48:04]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-03 07:14:41 and read 26382 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 111):
Besides the business case vanishing with the price of fuel dropping, I thought that another problem with the 7J7 were those very fans, as the UDF concept had (and still has) its challenges in the area of cabin and outside noise. I also remember reading that, given the much higher revolution speeds of an UDF compared with a regular turboprop, containing blade-off events was a bit of a problem as well.

That was indeed the case in the early stages of development, though GE was able to develop the GE36 to the point it could meet Stage III noise requirements and reduced the noise and vibration transmitted into the cabin by a significant amount.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-03 07:22:53 and read 26387 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.



Having travelled a few times on 77W (in Y) operated by some of the airlines you quote, I and friends, family & colleagues avoid them like the plague; ie not acceptable; but we do use other aircraft operated by these airlines. Sometimes there isn't a choice so you have to put up with it. The few times I have suffered a 77W (10 across) have overheard comments like its "very cramped" or "very claustaphobic" etc etc

Once flew a BA 77W (with some on the above misgivings) 9 across in Y, it was a totally different experience. More than happy to pay a few more dollars just to avoid 10 across on a 77W on whatever airline

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-04-03 07:38:08 and read 26261 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 114):
The few times I have suffered a 77W (10 across) have overheard comments like its "very cramped" or "very claustaphobic" etc etc

Well, just to illustrate that it's not unanimous, my wife and I flew NZ's 10-across 77W a month ago, and it was fine. If I had any complaints it was related to seat pitch; the seat was about a half-inch too short front-to-back for comfort. I felt that I had enough side to side space and it didn't feel any more cramped or claustrophobic than any other widebody center section. My center section 744 experience some years back was *far* worse IMO.

Whether that's because I'm not as wide as some, or because I don't feel the need of extra space around me that isn't seat space, or because NZ just does 10-across better, I can't say.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-03 07:54:44 and read 26111 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 115):

Each to there own

Do understand your point about 747s, had a nighthmare flight on a DC10 decades ago which was 5 across in the centre section & guess who got the middle seat

Maybe slightly off topic but what happened to 'Thompson seating' or whatever it was called which proposed very slightly 'staggered' layouts in Y, thought Delta had done a deal with them. Maybe that might be the solution to my dislike of a 77W 10 across

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: qf002
Posted 2013-04-03 08:47:46 and read 25800 times.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 114):
Once flew a BA 77W (with some on the above misgivings) 9 across in Y, it was a totally different experience. More than happy to pay a few more dollars just to avoid 10 across on a 77W on whatever airline

BA might have elected to stick with 9 abreast, but they've skimped on just about everything else to do with the new product. The armrests only go up halfway, the seats lack lumbar support, the headrests are completely useless and the IFE feels cheap and tacky compared with what the competition offers. I was very underwhelmed given that this is BA's first update in Y in almost 20 years.

Personally, I'd prefer to have the extra 2-3" of pitch that EK offers over the extra 1" of width that BA offers but, like you say, each to their own...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-04-03 09:11:38 and read 25640 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 89):
With that many 772 they had, they have rather send two 772 to NYC in an hour than one 777W

I think you will find that they send 7x daily 744 and 1x 772 to JFK . . . can't get much more seats out of available slots.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. . . . And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I think you are overanalysing here. I think what we see here is the fall out from the 787 disaster. The program is running four years late (not to mention the 747-8 delays), which tied up an enormous amount of engineering resources. Also, because of this mess, Boeing is pretty much re-engineering the 789 from square one, tying up even more engineering resources.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period

Again, engineering resources required for the NSA were pretty much tied up in 787 engineering. That delayed the EIS (and associated production ramp up) to such an extent that for some crucial customers it was no longer worth the wait to get their hand on decent number of slots, and they were more and more considering to accept NEO slots for 2018 and later.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
True, but can you honestly say that Boeing is being "arrogant" by not having launched the 777X yet?

No; they have no choice. If the 737MAX is scheduled for EIS 2017-ish, then there is not much margin left for 777X to EIS this decade, engineering resource wise. Don’t underestimate the vast amount of work (some call it extreme make over) on both the upcoming 737 and 777.

While I don't doubt the 787 will become a very successful program eventually (especially the -9 and -10X), the fall out of this program mess may hurt Boeing for many years to come.

PW100

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: abba
Posted 2013-04-03 09:23:10 and read 25526 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
Of curse Airbus don't start shouting about an -1100 right now, that is the best way to kill sales of a -1000 and making yourselves untrustworthy.



And probberbly the best reason: They don't have to untill Boeing is firm and locked on their eventual 779x offering. But two days later   

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2013-04-03 09:27:04 and read 25575 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 117):
BA might have elected to stick with 9 abreast, but they've skimped on just about everything else to do with the new product. The armrests only go up halfway, the seats lack lumbar support, the headrests are completely useless and the IFE feels cheap and tacky compared with what the competition offers. I was very underwhelmed given that this is BA's first update in Y in almost 20 years.

I flew on the BA 77W from HKG-LHR in Y and had a very different experience:

- First of all the headrests are not headrests, they are neckrests and in the new Y seats they are meant to be placed in the crook of the neck in order to support the head and back more effectively. If you use it properly, it is actually very comfortable and it made me laugh to see the number of people trying to use it like a traditional headrest. Besides, there are instructions in the High Life Magazine as to how to use it.

- The IFE was great compared to what was there before. The fact it has its own brochure (High Life just doesn't have enough information) is testament to this. I also found it easy to use and liked how you could operate it touch screen or with the controller.

- As I recall there was an element of lumbar support for for this to be effective you need to use the neckrests properly.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: sierra3tango
Posted 2013-04-03 09:42:21 and read 25349 times.

Haven't we got so far off topic (not totally blameless myself) that the thread title should be changed?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-03 09:48:43 and read 25303 times.

Please understand in my replies that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply see it different:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
No, Boeing's first reaction to the NEO was that they didn't need to re-engine, because the 737NG would be just as efficient as the NEO. Jaw-dropping.

Again - not to belabor the point - Boeing didn't have a "no-brainer" option like Airbus did in the A320NEO. I fully expect that they had a pretty good idea of what the NEO would be capable of and their "denial" was more out of necessity than true belief. In other words: They were stalling. We saw something similar when the 787 was launched with the A330. It went from it would be fully capable of competing, to A350 mk 1, to where we ended up with a clean sheet design. This evolution happened as carrier after carrier after carrier orderd scores upon scores of 787's. For reference (and for context in regards to your comments about Boeing):

Airbus initially rejected Boeing's claim that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner would make it a serious threat to the Airbus A330, stating that the 787 was just a reaction to the A330, and that no response was needed. When airlines pushed Airbus to provide a competitor, Airbus initially proposed the A330-200Lite, a simple derivative of the A330, which would feature improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[9] The company planned to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[9]

On 16 September 2004, then-Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project during a private meeting with prospective customers.[9] Forgeard did not give a project name, and he did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. The airlines were not satisfied, and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new airliner design.[9] The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabiliser were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[9] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer (ATO)", and formally named it the A350.[9][10]

On 13 June 2005 at the Paris Air Show, Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways announced that they have placed an order for 60 A350s. In September 2006 the airline signed an memorandum of understanding with General Electric to launch the GEnx-1A-72 for the aircraft.[11][12][13] Emirates decided against placing an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design,[14][15] but has since ordered A350 XWBs.[16]

On 6 October 2005, full industrial launch of the programme was announced with an estimated development cost of around €3.5 billion.[9] This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250- to 300-seat twin-engine wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines, while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. As a result of a controversial design, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry in two versions: the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nmi (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nmi (13,900 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.[9]

Airbus faced almost immediate criticism on the A350 project from the heads of two of their largest customers, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) and GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS). On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, ILFC President Steven F. Udvar-Hazy lambasted Airbus' strategy in bringing to market what they saw as "a Band-aid reaction to the 787", a sentiment that was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.[17][18] Several days later Chew Choon Seng, then CEO of Singapore Airlines (SIA), made a similar comment: "Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit" and adding advanced new materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage."[19] At the time, SIA was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350. Airbus responded by stating they were considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands.[20] At the same time, Airbus' then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes: "Our strategy isn't driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises."

[edit] Redesign and launch

On 14 July 2006, during the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus announced that the redesigned aircraft would be called A350 XWB (Xtra-Wide-Body).[22] There was some previous speculation that the revised aircraft would be called the Airbus A370 or A280, with Airbus going as far as accidentally publishing an advertisement referring to the model as the "A280" on the Financial Times's website. Within four days, Airbus achieved their first sale of the re-designed A350 when Singapore Airlines announced an order for 20 A350XWBs with options of a further 20. CEO Chew Choon Seng said that "it is heartening that Airbus has listened to customer airlines and has come up with a totally new design for the A350."[23]


So, two years of denial, then warm-over, then redesign, then clean-sheet. Were Airbus arrogant? Were they stupid? Or were they in a tough spot where it was not an easy decision? I tend to think the latter. Ditto for Boeing.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
The 787-8 is in service for 1,5 years now, and Boeing still doesn't know?

I guess I don't understand. Do you think it's THAT EASY to make these investment, engineering, and marketing decisions? Becausse to me, I would think that there are many moving parts and it takes time for the final vision to gel. Some of that will come about from understanding the technical aspects more, some will come about from understanding the product positioning more, and some will come about from suffering some decisive loses in the order competition.

Frankly, in a 20-30 year product cycle, 18 months is simply not that critical of a timeframe. For example, the 787 was launched in January, 2003, with the launch customer order coming in April, 2004. It was over two years before the XWB was launched. Looking back, does it even seem to have mattered? Doesn't it seem like the proverial blip on the radar screen? To me, the time between the two is irrelevent compared to the actual final product. That's where I have more concern for the 777X, not the 18 months thing.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
Airlines have decided on multi billion orders for A350-1000s, so they must have a good idea what to expect. Specs for the A350-1000 have been clear for years: a 8000nm+ 350 seater 25% more efficient than the 77W. Airlines know these specs in far more detail, and so does Boeing. What are they waiting for? Design freeze? Flight testing? EIS? And there is always the possibility to adapt the final design after launch, like Airbus did with the A350-1000. Look at the 787-10X, recently Boeing found out it could boost the range to 7100nm. IMO, I don't think they had to postpone launch for that.

I don't think that's a fair statement. The A350-1000 (the bird we're talking about here) has evolved over that time. We have NOT known the specs for years - at least not the true, final result specs. There was plenty of speculation and apprehension on the performance claims of the aircraft, and IIRC there have been plenty of "tweaks" to the product up untilthe past 19 months or so. I don't think Boeing could spend a whole heck of a lot of time and money on the 777X until they had a pretty solid idea of what it needed to beat. Now they know and now they are "tweaking" their 7810X and 777X to get them ready for launch. I doubt this happens overnight.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
True, but you can't wait too long. At some point you have to make a decision, and there will inherently be risks involved. But you can't bet on a horse after the race has finished.

The A350XWB was two years in the making post-787 launch customer order. How'd that work out for them?

And, again, 18 months or even 36 months in the grand scheme of things is simply not going to kill a program like this, particularly when Boeing are primarily focused on a market segment that is still in it's replacement cycle infancy. IMHO.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
I hope so, because the market needs two strong manufacturers. But I'm not too confident.

Boeing may screw the pooch, so to speak, but it won't be because they waited too long to launch the 787-10X or the 777X. It will be because those products simply aren't compelling. 18 months won't change that outcome, one way or the other.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-03 09:56:26 and read 25261 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
And probberbly the best reason: They don't have to untill Boeing is firm and locked on their eventual 779x offering. But two days later

True, and as a derivative of the A350, it would be a much easier product to engineer and launch than what the 777X is trying to do right now. It will also be less risky.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 121):
Haven't we got so far off topic (not totally blameless myself) that the thread title should be changed?

Guilty as charged. I applaud the potential order of the A350 by IAG - that we have to stomp on the products and decisions of Boeing for icing on the cake is just frustrating.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-04-03 11:05:18 and read 24891 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 77):
...based on 10 across in Y. BA have tried 10 across in the B777 and their market rejected it out of hand

The three high density 772s operated in BA livery had their origins back in April 1995 when BA sold Caledonian Airways to package tour operator Inspirations. BA converted one of the former BCal DC-10 30s (G-NIUK) to a two-class high-density configuration (J32 / M279) and contracted Caledonian Airways to operate it in Caledonian Airways livery between LGW and NAS/GCM, SJU and TPA. This arrangement was terminated by BA after two years on 30 March 1997. From that date a not dissimilar arrangement with Airline Management Ltd (AML) came into force.

AML was a joint venture between BA and Flying Colours. The single DC-10, now back in BA livery, was flown by a BA flight crew. The cabin crew were from Flying Colours Airlines but they wore BA uniforms.

After one year the AML operation was expanded in March 1998 with the addition of two more former BCal DC-10 30s (G-BDHH and 'HI) to their fleet in the same high density configuration. New destinations, CUN, KIN, MBJ, POP and TOB, were added.

In February and March 1999 the three DC-10 30s operated by AML were replaced by three brand new 772s, (G-VIIO, 'IP and 'IR) whose cabins had been configured by Boeing before delivery for up to 383 passengers (J28 / M355) with the Economy Class seats arranged 3 - 4 - 3.

The arrangement with AML was terminated in April 2000 and the three aircraft were returned to BA. Over the next couple of months their cabins were reconfigured with 337 seats (J42 / M292 plus three crew rest seats). The Economy Cabin seats were now arranged 3 - 3 - 3. So they were in service with 10 abreast Economy Class seats for just over a year and actually operated by BA in this configuration for just a few weeks at the start of Summer Season 2000.

By the start of the Summer 2005 Timetable and following the launch of their World Traveller Plus cabin, BA again reconfigured the three holiday-route 772s . Now they were fitted with seats for up to 280 passengers (J40 / W24 / M219) with three crew rest seats. This configuration is very close to that of three-class BA Main Line 772s that are configured J48 / W24 / M203. It seems to reflect the Future Size and Shape programme announced by BA in early 2002.

I am guessing that the formation of AML was because BA were not happy to loose a profitable Caribbean tourist business when they sold Caledonian Airways. The later upgrading of these three aircraft plus the addition of a fourth (G-VIIT) that was transferred from BA's Main Line Fleet in November 2005, suggests that their change from a 10 abreast to a 9 abreast Economy Cabin was, as suggested above and in other Replies in this thread, a wise move.

I conclude that it is probably unlikely that ten-abreast seating will be reintroduced by BA at anytime in the near or medium term future.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-03 11:58:40 and read 24654 times.

IAG just excercised optios of 18 787 for its BA unit. What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: flashmeister
Posted 2013-04-03 12:18:47 and read 24530 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department.

It is indeed a shame, but it was entirely predictable: some have said that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money, and much of the McD executive culture prevailed. McD was entirely controlled by bean counters where Boeing was more a company of engineers prior to the merger.

Since then? We've had:
- 787, where the bean counting resulted in laughable delays and program mismanagement
- 748, where the economics simply weren't there for a new derivative (hello, MD11?)
- and now, 777X, where we once again see the bean counters opting for the low-risk approach and reusing existing platforms, while the market is gravitating toward the innovator. Innovation means risk. They go hand in hand.

Yes, reusing the platform over and over and over and over has worked well for the DC-9 and the 737. Both of those are quite different beasts than 747 and 777. Boeing is now in a situation where they have only one leading widebody aircraft (787) and that lead is fraught with the knock on effects of delay after delay and design questions to boot.

This is what happens when you lead with bean counting. It leads to becoming irrelevant.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-03 12:45:34 and read 24447 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
IAG just excercised optios of 18 787 for its BA unit.

It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

Well, it must do something because an increasing number of airlines have ordered both.   

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-03 13:07:31 and read 24214 times.

Looks like it's shopping week at IAG's office. Let the fuel efficient 787 and A350 aircraft come in  
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

Carry more pax over the same range.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 127):
It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

Likely yes.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-03 13:13:41 and read 24122 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

The same thing a 787-9 can do that a 787-8 can't?

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-04-03 13:16:56 and read 24123 times.

What is this?

British Airways parent IAG, Boeing reach deal on 18 Dreamliners

Quote:

IAG said it is also talking with Boeing on the commercial conditions for an order of 747s for Iberia, adding the carrier had first to complete its restructuring to rein in costs.


(My bolding.)

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-03 14:04:50 and read 23700 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 122):
Please understand in my replies that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply see it different:

It was a post well formulated and with good viewpoints, appreciate it.   

My meaning re Boeing's handling of the situation has less to do with their present situation re possible ways forward and their resource constrains, I take issue with their inconsistent communication. It can not be easy for their customers to know where to place Bs programs when their then Commercial Airplanes CEO (Albugh Q2 last year) says "we will take our 787-10 and 777X decisions this year with a planned availability for...and 777X end of decade". Then he leaves and a few months later the CEO backpedals in Q3 telco saying "we wont decide anything during 2012 and when we decide in 2013 we will see and by the way the 777X we might bring to market 2019 but could also be past 2020", then this gets reversed by BA marketing and CEO a couple of month later again saying "we have always said end of decade".

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 130):
British Airways parent IAG, Boeing reach deal on 18 Dreamliners

What they order of -8 or -9 today can be made up to be -10 by the day it is officially launched.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-03 18:17:55 and read 22996 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 127):
It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

I am quite confident that BA has the option to option the 787-10 with those options.

(Say that one three times fast!)

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-03 19:55:42 and read 22777 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
I am quite confident that BA has the option to option the 787-10 with those options.

Wouldn't it make for sense for them to stay 787-8? Airbus have nothing to match it.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-03 20:18:53 and read 22741 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 133):
Wouldn't it make for sense for them to stay 787-8? Airbus have nothing to match it.

I suppose it depends on how BA wants to handle their 767-300ER replacements. They have 8 787-8 on order and those seat 25 more (11 CW | 1 WT+ | 13 WT) than their three-class 767-300ER. How many of their 767-300ERs are in the "single class" (252 or 259 seat) configuration and has BA made mention of what, if any, plans they have to replace them?

At a single-class 9-abreast config, the 787-8 seats 375 - a 116-seat jump from the UK Domestic configuration. And if they block the center seat of each row for Club Euro and have that cabin extend from Door1 to Door 2, that would be 348 seats - 86 more than the 767-300ER in Club Euro and Euro Traveller.

The articles also mention the 787s would be used for 747-400 replacement - a 787-10 should be able to fit 14 F | 48 CW | 40 WT+ | 158 WT for a total of 260 seats so it would work as a "Low-J" replacement in terms of premium cabin seating, but not in Economy. It does offer a nice bump (almost 25%) in World Traveller seating compared to the 224 seat 777-200ER, however.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-03 21:51:15 and read 22595 times.

Here is a link to a more sensible description of the conversion of options:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...787-order-with-iberia-set-for-more

It makes it clear that it is a conversion of options to an upspecified 787 variant and is for 747 replacement in the BA arm and that the fuel efficient 787 might also go in a replace appropriate frames on the Iberia side once they get themselves sorted. There is not mention of a 748, this is a hoax.

As it is for replacing 747 one might suspect this is for the -10 once launched, nice for B with the first orders for the -10, their organization can need some good news.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-03 22:10:05 and read 22536 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 131):
What they order of -8 or -9 today can be made up to be -10 by the day it is officially launched.

Plenty of flexibilty, and totally compatible with a 359-3510 order.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueLight
Posted 2013-04-03 22:24:15 and read 22502 times.

I refuse to fly any carrier in Y class that puts 10 abreast. I fly 15 to 18 times per annum from SIN to DPS, and I pay the extra $120 to $170 R/T it costs to fly a 9 abreast 777 on QR vs. KLM.

The problem for Boeing at this point is that across every category, the "standard" layout for all Airbus aircraft will now have wider seats than Boeing. And yes, please, before then bleating like stuck pigs whining about how seats are dictated by airlines, Airbus is actively marketing their position as being the "comfort" manufacturer.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: columba
Posted 2013-04-03 22:31:45 and read 22487 times.

A 787-10 and A350-1000 combination seems to be a good choice for BA and IB

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-03 23:13:42 and read 22400 times.

Tweets from Jon Ostrower:

"British Airways has 2 yrs to select a model for the 18 787s, could point to 787-10X launch. IAG says these 787 will replace "some" 747-400s."

"British Airways flies its 747-400s with ~290-350 seats, 787-10 would notionally seat ~320. A350-1000 also seen as 747-400 replacement."

"Q: in addition to a350s recently reported? // Yep, the A350 order is seen as "done deal."

So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-04-04 00:01:42 and read 22172 times.

If true, the future BA long haul fleet could look like this:

A380-800
777-9X
A350-1000
787-10
787-9
787-8

777-9X fits quite nicely between A350-1000 and A380 capacity-wise. Note that in BA's configuration it would most likely carry around 300 - 350 passengers.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-04 00:04:05 and read 22168 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
"British Airways has 2 yrs to select a model for the 18 787s, could point to 787-10X launch. IAG says these 787 will replace "some" 747-400s."
Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.

Hmm, to be honest, these additional 787s make it even less likely BA will ever order the 777X IMO. But who knows, stranger things have happened  

There is a separate thread about IAG's decision to order more 787s: IAG Order 18 More 787 For BA (by seansasLCY Apr 3 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 00:45:01 and read 21986 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
It makes it clear that it is a conversion of options to an upspecified 787 variant and is for 747 replacement in the BA arm and that the fuel efficient 787 might also go in a replace appropriate frames on the Iberia side once they get themselves sorted. There is not mention of a 748, this is a hoax.

As it is for replacing 747 one might suspect this is for the -10 once launched, nice for B with the first orders for the -10, their organization can need some good news.

Thanks for the additional information. I retake my words, this seems like a strong hint towards the 787-10X.

This is also interesting:

"Source says a 787-10X could be 30% more fuel efficient per seat than the 747-400s they would replace." - Jon Ostrower

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 00:50:18 and read 21966 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.

But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2013-04-04 01:11:05 and read 21881 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):
But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.

People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 01:19:40 and read 21787 times.

787-10 is ideal for US east coast where BA requires frequency over capacity.

350s can be used on longer routes where capacity and range and maybe freight are more important

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-04 01:30:03 and read 21707 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):
But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.

Are we sure the initial order for A350 will only be 25? I've missed that somewhere in this thread, thought the number would be higher.

Furthermore, the news that IAG has reserved 787 slots for IB,to be ordered "once restructuring measures for the Spanish unit take hold", makes me wonder if IAG will already place an A350 order for IB now. Replacement of A343s (with 787s) seem more urgent than replacement of A346s (with A350s), or are the A330s just a short term solution, and will those be replaced by 787s eventually?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Leo467
Posted 2013-04-04 01:36:27 and read 21655 times.

What I really like is their "2 years to select the type". If they manage to negotiate a similar paragraph for part of their A350 order (/options). This would give IAG quite some flexibility to finalize their choice between the 78J/359 once they have a better picture on both planes (ATO/timing/specs on 78J; operational data on 359). Any "unused" orders could still be "used" for both carriers on additional 789 and 3510....

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-04 01:54:57 and read 21535 times.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 144):
People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!

They said last week that they were not interested in further A380s

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2013-04-04 01:55:11 and read 21601 times.

I posted over a year ago stating that BA would order the A35J to replace the vast majority of the 747 fleet only to be flamed to death by the Boeing brigade. And they still may have a point, as one of the justifications I made for BA going with the A350 was engine commonality with a possible future A380-900.

This isn’t unprecedented, BA has shown in the past its preference to have similar engines on multiple frames; such as the 767’s and 747’s. I can see the A389 fitting nicely on some of BA’s more congested routes…

So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

The 787's will be used to replace the 767's - I don't see any advantage in using the stretched frames to replace traditional 747 routes - These imho will be the sole domain of Airbvus with the A350 and A380.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-04 02:25:17 and read 21437 times.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 148):
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 144):People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!
They said last week that they were not interested in further A380s

They also said they were very interested in the 777X   
IIRC, BA said they were not likely to order further A380s, but it wasn't ruled out (and BA still has 7 options).

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
one of the justifications I made for BA going with the A350 was engine commonality with a possible future A380-900

There is no hint of an imminent launch of an A380-900, let alone of its available engines. Might be T-XWB's, but also modernized T-900s, and why not derated GE-9x's? Would surely improve the GE9x ROI, and certainly EK would like such an option...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-04-04 02:41:48 and read 21353 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-04 03:30:15 and read 21255 times.

:
So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

That statement suggests that it would not be worthwhile for Airbus to launch such an aircraft if so few airlines could use it...

[Edited 2013-04-04 03:50:24]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-04 03:33:58 and read 21244 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):
They also said they were very interested in the 777X

Well, that they may still be, as A350-1000 and 779X wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):
IIRC, BA said they were not likely to order further A380s, but it wasn't ruled out (and BA still has 7 options).

  
They didn't rule it out, they just didn't see any additional orders in the short-to-medium term. Which is fair enough given they have yet to take delivery of their first A380.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-04 03:44:22 and read 21126 times.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 152):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

That statement suggests that it would not be worthwhile for Airbus to launch such an aircraft if so few airlines could use it...

Wasn't my quote...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-04 04:04:15 and read 21021 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 151):
But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

British Airways have 7 options which they will certainly exercise, in addition to the 12 on order.

You contradict yourself with your own statement. On the one hand, you suggest that BA "were not interested in any more A380s," though then go on to say that BA "were primarily looking at long haul twins."

Primarily: Definition - For the most part.

Accepting that the B748-i has been eliminated from all future considerations, the only alternative to long haul twins for the remainder of the fleet overhaul, however small, is therefore going to be the A380, be it the A388 or the almost inevitable A389.

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: B777LRF
Posted 2013-04-04 04:25:44 and read 20924 times.

It is a fallacy to believe these two orders (787 and A350) represents to sum total of replacements for the present BA long-haul fleet, or that it shuts the door on any present and near-future long-haul options (apart from the B748). BA, like e.g. LH, has a tradition of placing orders in batches. This order will be followed by another one a few years down the line, probably for a similar number of frames.

What we can say, with a plausible degree of certainty, is that at present the future fleet of BA will look like this:

A380
A351
A359
B789
B788

There may well be a place in the mix for a 777X and a -10, then again there might also be more of the same or even something newer. We will known when BA publishes its next order for long-haul aircraft.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-04-04 04:37:50 and read 20902 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 151):

But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

They were not interested at the moment.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PM
Posted 2013-04-04 05:00:19 and read 20804 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):
and why not derated GE-9x's?

I'm pretty certain that GE's deal with PW on the GP7000 would preclude that.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-04 05:23:31 and read 20646 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 158):
I'm pretty certain that GE's deal with PW on the GP7000 would preclude that.

WHY ? Pratt doesn't have an engine to put on an A350 ?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2013-04-04 05:43:19 and read 20563 times.

The A350XWB-900 order book is going to be huge, since not only are they replacing A340's, but also earlier-build 777-200ER's. Don't be surprised that United Airlines--which already has 25 A359's on order--increases the order to 50+ planes eventually to replace UA's older 777 fleet.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PM
Posted 2013-04-04 05:47:29 and read 20488 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 159):

WHY ? Pratt doesn't have an engine to put on an A350 ?

No, but my point was that PW won't let GE replace the EA GP7000 on the A380.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-04 05:48:47 and read 20494 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 158):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):and why not derated GE-9x's?
I'm pretty certain that GE's deal with PW on the GP7000 would preclude that.

That could indeed be a major showstopper    But doesn't RR have a similar situation with their Trent-900 suppliers which aren't partner on the T-XWB?


Quoting jfk777 (Reply 159):
Quoting PM (Reply 158):I'm pretty certain that GE's deal with PW on the GP7000 would preclude that.
WHY ? Pratt doesn't have an engine to put on an A350 ?

Well, they are developing a GTF with enough thrust to power the A350. Not that I think it will come to fruitition with RR's exclusivity on the A350-1000...

But I was actually talking about a potential engine for the A380-900, sorry to drift off topic   

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-04-04 05:56:12 and read 20434 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):
It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X?

It's already pretty much like that. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the 777X won't be another 748I.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2013-04-04 06:22:52 and read 20323 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 163):
Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):
It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X?

It's already pretty much like that. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the 777X won't be another 748I.

I personally have no idea why anyone WOULD think it's going to be like the 747-8i. . .


Hamlet69

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2013-04-04 08:49:44 and read 19908 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 164):
I personally have no idea why anyone WOULD think it's going to be like the 747-8i. . .

The question is if it makes sense to fight against an all new design with a warmed up old one, but I personally also expect the 777X to be a success, at least the longer version which just is bigger than the A35J, so can compete on CASM basis.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-04 11:26:46 and read 19482 times.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 165):
The question is if it makes sense to fight against an all new design with a warmed up old one,

Exactly. Remember the scorn heaped over the A350 Mk I, which in scope was quite similar to what the 777X is going to be. Having said that, it looks like with the 777X, at least Boeing isn't repeating one of the mistakes of the 747-8i, which was to go for a very minimal modification. The changes proposed for the 777X are way more far-reaching and thus I expect the 777X to do much better than the 747-8i, not just in absolute numbers, but also relative to the size of the market niche it's supposed to sit in.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 165):
but I personally also expect the 777X to be a success, at least the longer version which just is bigger than the A35J, so can compete on CASM basis.

  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-04 12:11:49 and read 19214 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
I posted over a year ago stating that BA would order the A35J to replace the vast majority of the 747 fleet only to be flamed to death by the Boeing brigade.

and:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
So flame away….

Why the drama?

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
The 787's will be used to replace the 767's - I don't see any advantage in using the stretched frames to replace traditional 747 routes - These imho will be the sole domain of Airbvus with the A350 and A380.

So you don't see any possible reason that a 747 route today would be better served by a much-more-cost-effective 787-10X which could provide a better revenue mix on select routes? Really?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 163):
It's already pretty much like that. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the 777X won't be another 748I.

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think it will be?

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 165):
The question is if it makes sense to fight against an all new design with a warmed up old one,

Define "warmed up"? I'm no fan of the 777X (other than some of the pretty pictures that Keesje would post) but it certainly will be an efficient airframe in its own right. New wings. New powerplants. Updated systems. Improved cabin. I don't know - I'm not all warm and fuzzy over it like I would be a new-build but it certainly doesn't seem "warmed up" as much as it seems "completely revamped". But that might just be my take on it.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 166):
Exactly. Remember the scorn heaped over the A350 Mk I, which in scope was quite similar to what the 777X is going to be.

And you will find plenty of people even today who felt that the Mk 1 would have been a perfectly suitable airframe. The "scorn" tended to be a combination of fanboyism and mass hysteria.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-04-04 13:48:30 and read 18887 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 167):
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think it will be?

You took the words out of my mouth.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 167):
Define "warmed up"? I'm no fan of the 777X (other than some of the pretty pictures that Keesje would post) but it certainly will be an efficient airframe in its own right. New wings. New powerplants. Updated systems. Improved cabin.

You just about described the 748I, and that is why I think the 777X will suffer the same fate. But it's just my opinion of course.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-04 14:41:44 and read 18711 times.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 160):
The A350XWB-900 order book is going to be huge, since not only are they replacing A340's, but also earlier-build 777-200ER's. Don't be surprised that United Airlines--which already has 25 A359's on order--increases the order to 50+ planes eventually to replace UA's older 777 fleet.

With the Continental Management ? They love 777 and 787 why would Gordon Bethune's boys order more A350-900 then they inherited ? That would be Seattle heresy.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-04 15:32:36 and read 18516 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 168):

You just about described the 748I, and that is why I think the 777X will suffer the same fate. But it's just my opinion of course.

I respect your opinion. I'm just wondering, aside from both being revisions to a model, if you have a deeper analysis than that. To me, the two (748i and 777X) and entirely different situations. For one example, one is a twin the other a quad. For another, the 748i would appear to be more competitive with an A380 than an A350 - that's a killer right there. I just don't get the sense from the market that the 777X will sell a few dozen frames. A few hundred? Hopefully more for the investment, but even then we're talking a 10 fold increase over the queen. Hardly a comparable scenario, IMHO.

Again, I'm not a proponent of the 777X, though I don't see Boeing ready to go clean sheet. I just don't see it as dire as you appear to.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 15:37:46 and read 18509 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 168):
You just about described the 748I, and that is why I think the 777X will suffer the same fate. But it's just my opinion of course.

Apples and oranges. The new wide body a/c market is driven by CASM, range and capability to move people and cargo. The 748i is beautiful but burns too much fuel. Its a good competitor to the 388 but isn't in the same class as the 77W or 77X (four engines versus two).

The 777-9X will carry over 400 folks plus more cargo than the 748i or 351 and at a lower CASM than both a/c. If Boeing gets off their *** and starts taking orders, they should sell several hundred of them.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-04 15:39:43 and read 18510 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 167):


Quoting anfromme (Reply 166):
"Exactly. Remember the scorn heaped over the A350 Mk I, which in scope was quite similar to what the 777X is going to be."

And you will find plenty of people even today who felt that the Mk 1 would have been a perfectly suitable airframe. The "scorn" tended to be a combination of fanboyism and mass hysteria.

It maybe wasn't clear from how I wrote what I wrote, but I actually agree with that.  
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 169):
With the Continental Management ? They love 777 and 787 why would Gordon Bethune's boys order more A350-900 then they inherited ?

For fear of stating the obvious: Because it's going to be a fine airplane?
United ordered it together with 787s, so the two types seem to complement each other quite well, considering that UA aren't the only ones who ordered both types. Look at this thread, which is all about another airline allegedly ordering A350s despite the fact that they already ordered the 787, even topped up their order this week. An airline that so far hasn't been known for being big Airbus fans on long-haul on top of that.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-04 20:38:49 and read 18189 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 166):
Remember the scorn heaped over the A350 Mk I, which in scope was quite similar to what the 777X is going to be.

I think what really hurt the original A350 was it was a hard 8-abreast, whereas the 787 could do 9-abreast.

The A350 is (effectively for non-LCCs) a hard 9-abreast, whereas the 777X can do 10-abreast.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-04-04 21:27:43 and read 18116 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 155):
You contradict yourself with your own statement. On the one hand, you suggest that BA "were not interested in any more A380s," though then go on to say that BA "were primarily looking at long haul twins."

This is a contradiction how? Talk about knitpicking and I'm fully literate with regards to the English language, no need to define any words for me. I was simply relaying what IAG said in March. Mr Walsh said the 12 A380's on order were a good size for BA period. Their focus on fleet replacement was long haul twins and again with regards to contradiction, there are more aircraft types than long haul twins and VLA quads so your point is moot.

The article is in aviationweek.com

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SKAirbus
Posted 2013-04-05 02:26:03 and read 17714 times.

Anyone know if BA/IAG have made a decision yet about the A350?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-05 02:42:48 and read 17616 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
I think what really hurt the original A350 was it was a hard 8-abreast, whereas the 787 could do 9-abreast.

Although a big deal was made out of that at the time (as evident by the XWB moniker the A350 Mk II still carries), I'm not sure if that wasn't blown out of proportion a bit. After all, it chiefly means you can carry more passengers per metre of fuselage length. Or give more comfort to the same number of people per metre of fuselage length.
The 767 had 7-abreast and still did reasonably well against the 8-abreast A300/A310. Compared to the 777, the 787 is narrower, too, and yet, it will replace at least the smaller 777 variants.
I know, I know - there are other factors that give the 767 an advantage over the A300/A310, and the 787 over the 777-200(ER), but that's exactly my point.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-05 03:35:10 and read 17626 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 176):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):I think what really hurt the original A350 was it was a hard 8-abreast, whereas the 787 could do 9-abreast.
Although a big deal was made out of that at the time (as evident by the XWB moniker the A350 Mk II still carries), I'm not sure if that wasn't blown out of proportion a bit.

The 350Mk1 was hit by the perfect storm.
1. It could only do 8 abreast - not 9.
2. It was losing some large sales campaigns to the 787.
3. The 346 was annhialated by the 77W and needed to be replaced by a modern twin.
4. Boeing mounted one of the most effective sales campaigns ever - that a derivative (350) could never compete against the all composite 787 (drug like rush etc) - this was definately blown out of proportion.

In different circumstances the 350Mk1 would probably have survived (and prospered) as evidenced by the stark similarities of the 777X program to the 350Mk1.

Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-04-05 03:59:30 and read 17475 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 177):
The 350Mk1 was hit by the perfect storm.
1. It could only do 8 abreast - not 9.
2. It was losing some large sales campaigns to the 787.
3. The 346 was annhialated by the 77W and needed to be replaced by a modern twin.
4. Boeing mounted one of the most effective sales campaigns ever - that a derivative (350) could never compete against the all composite 787 (drug like rush etc) - this was definately blown out of proportion.

In different circumstances the 350Mk1 would probably have survived (and prospered) as evidenced by the stark similarities of the 777X program to the 350Mk1.

  
I would maybe add to your 4th point that Boeing's campaign was so effective that many customer executives echoed their sales pitch and thus put pressure on Airbus. Steven Udvar-Hazy comes to mind.
Having said all that, I of course prefer seeing a completely new airplane take to the skies rather than a re-hashed A330  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-05 04:08:09 and read 17414 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 177):
4. Boeing mounted one of the most effective sales campaigns ever - that a derivative (350) could never compete against the all composite 787 (drug like rush etc) - this was definately blown out of proportion.

5 years ago, anything not completely composite (like the A380) was considered (here for example) as old fashioned and yesterday's technology, as Boeing would transform the industry with Y1, Y2 and Y3. Airbus were forced to produce their own composite plane to compete...

In retrospect, I wonder if they feel bounced into producing a composite plane.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-04-05 05:03:33 and read 17163 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 170):
A few hundred? Hopefully more for the investment, but even then we're talking a 10 fold increase over the queen.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 171):
The 777-9X will carry over 400 folks plus more cargo than the 748i or 351 and at a lower CASM than both a/c. If Boeing gets off their *** and starts taking orders, they should sell several hundred of them.

You're both agreeing with me. The large twin market segment is a lot bigger than the VLA market so "several hundred" orders for a 777X is equivalent to several dozen orders for the 748i/A380. Depending on what the value of "several" is, of course  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Carls
Posted 2013-04-05 05:17:42 and read 17113 times.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 175):


The last thing I got was that they were finalizing it. However I have the impression that Airbus wants to make the announcemnt at Le Bourget along with several other orders for the A351.
For sure:
IAG Order

Lufthansa is said to be in negotiations with Airbus for 50 A350 between 900 and 1000. This is a rumor comming form Airbus, and I believe it since the person who told me this is the same who toldme about IAG.

At this point we have no option other than wait and see.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-05 05:41:18 and read 16989 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 176):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
I think what really hurt the original A350 was it was a hard 8-abreast, whereas the 787 could do 9-abreast.

And from Airbus strategic interest perspective it could not realistically be scaled up to replace the A346

Quoting Carls (Reply 181):
Airbus wants to make the announcemnt at Le Bourget along with several other orders for the A351.
For sure:
IAG Order

Another 25 for United?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-05 05:47:32 and read 16982 times.

Quoting Carls (Reply 181):
The last thing I got was that they were finalizing it. However I have the impression that Airbus wants to make the announcemnt at Le Bourget along with several other orders

It seems they do that every Le Bourget year. From April it gets very quiet with Airbus orders and then in June, at the airshow, bang, nearly every day a major order. Brings Airbus fans here at A-net in a state of frenzy, very amusing  
Quoting Carls (Reply 181):
Lufthansa is said to be in negotiations with Airbus for 50 A350 between 900 and 1000.

Launch customer for the A350-950?   Sorry, couldn't resist. It's consistent with the news that started this thread: Lufthansa Will Order 787 Or A350 In September (by columba Mar 30 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-05 06:38:36 and read 16848 times.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 2):
Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order?

I don't believe that IAG has made a statement to that effect, so no, nothing can be assumed.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 6):
and (if this order materialises) A35J - why add 777X as well?

They're different aircraft for different missions. The 777-9X in particular is a fair bit larger than the A350-1000 and will slot in very well between the A350-1000 and the A380. It's sized almost perfectly at 747-400 size, of which BA have many that need replacing - more than they have A380s on order.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
And it appears JAL is favoring the A350 too.

The Yahoo article which reported this uses the word "considering" instead of "favouring", no doubt for a reason. They don't mean the same thing.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program.

Why? Just because IAG may have ordered the A350 doesn't necessarily mean that they won't order the 777X in the future. Furthermore, even if IAG do not order the 777X in the future, that doesn't mean other airlines won't. The fact that more and more airlines are putting a higher density configuration in the 777-300ER point towards the possibility that a larger aircraft is required. The A350-1000 is not larger than the 777-300ER, but the 777-9X is. It's not the end of the world for Boeing, or the 777 program, for that matter.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
From what we know at this point the 777-9X will be
- using the same fuselage diameter as 777, but different materials
- stretch beyond the quasi double stretch of the current 777-300ER
- have a new huge wing with some regulatory challenge (span-wise)
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)
- might have a new MLG ? how about rotation angle ?

Sounds more like a step from A310 to A330 than a step from 737NG to MAX !
So a lot of unknown, uncertainties on schedule

1. Use of different materials have not been confirmed.
2. The 777-300 (and -300ER) has only been stretched once. It's not a double stretch.
3. Folding wingtips will take care of that.
4. GE9X is a derivative of the GEnx / GE90.
5. Possibly. But given that the 777-9X has a lower MTOW than the 777-300ER, I believe a new MLG is not necessary. It is only a 2.7m stretch, and any issues with the rotation angle may possibly be rectified with a slight reconfiguration of the articulated gear that the 777-300ER already have.

I look at the 777X as more of a 737 Classic to 737NG update. NG to MAX is not a massive update, certainly not on the same scale as Classic to NG.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

No, it really wouldn't be that pivotal. There's no reason to suggest that the A350 order precludes a future order for the 777X, nor is there any reason to believe that a BA order for the 777X would be "pivotal" even if they rule out the 777X as a consequence of ordering the A350. Losing BA is not the end of the world.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Except for the 787-9, Boeing will have no products superior to its main rival Airbus.

How so? The 787-9 has not flown yet. The 787-8 is doing remarkably well (sales wise). Neither the A350 nor the 777X has flown yet, and in the 777X's case, hasn't even reached design freeze. It is too early to conclude one way or another.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Having both 787, A350, 777 and A380 in their fleet doesn't sound very efficient.

The 787 and 777X is likely to have a degree of commonality, just like the A350 and A380 will. I fail to see why this is not an "efficient" solution. The 787 can be the 767 replacement, the A350 can be a 777-200 / 777-200ER replacement, and the 777-9X and the A380 be the 747-400 replacement. Makes perfect sense to me.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53):
And wait for the A350 double stretch.

What double stretch?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

EK already have both A350-1000s and 777-300ERs on order, yet have expressed a very strong interest in the 777X progam and wants Boeing to launch it yesterday. The 777X is far from "dead"  
Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
B748: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, end of design life, insufficient advances in economics.

The 747-8 is not a double stretch, nor have Boeing confirmed that it will be the last 747.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
B77X: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, possibly last variants and so end of design life

It is also not necessarily true that the 777X will be the final update to the 777. Even if it were, "end of design life" is a misnomer because like any other airframe, there will be running improvements along the way. The 777 is still a very efficient, modern design with plenty of scope for improvement. The 777X is evidence of that.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
They're going for the A350

Yes, they may very well do so. But that doesn't mean they aren't going to also order the 777X.

Quoting kmz (Reply 67):
...and my impression is that the Airbus supporters here sound a little bit too convinced that only Airbus can offer the right product, the tone is coming close to being arrogant

  

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 77):
...based on 10 across in Y. BA have tried 10 across in the B777 and their market rejected it out of hand. I remain unconvinced Boeing are going to be able to carve out enough extra width to satisfy IAG.

I doubt they would try again, preferring 9 across and seat commonality / comfort with the rest of their long haul fleet.

Perhaps you may be right. But ever increasing fuel costs might also change that. The fact that the 777-9X is larger than the A350-1000 also means that both aircraft could end up in the same fleet, with the 777-9X slotting in between the A350-1000 and the A380.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
They were, and always will be, a vocal minority of fanboys. No different than the above poster and several others, who are ironically jumping to predict the 77X's demise in this very thread.

  

To so easily dismiss an aircraft that has not even been finalised yet has the height of ignorance.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 84):
Really.. You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350?

In what way is the 777-9X a triple stretch?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000.

Again, ordering A350-1000s does not preclude a future order for the 777X. As you have pointed out, without an ATO for the 777X, no airline can purchase it as yet. The lack of any firm orders for the 777X is solely because of the lack of an ATO at present, rather than its competitiveness. It is a mistake to assume that airlines which have ordered the A350 will not also order the 777X.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable.

Correction: it is only an advantage if the airline finds it acceptable. Passengers do not make aircraft acquisition decisions, the airlines do.

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 126):
and now, 777X, where we once again see the bean counters opting for the low-risk approach and reusing existing platforms, while the market is gravitating toward the innovator.

Why go for a high risk project when a lower risk project will also yield a competitive product? It makes no sense.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 137):
I refuse to fly any carrier in Y class that puts 10 abreast.

I guess that means you won't be flying on any A380s then.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 137):
The problem for Boeing at this point is that across every category, the "standard" layout for all Airbus aircraft will now have wider seats than Boeing. And yes, please, before then bleating like stuck pigs whining about how seats are dictated by airlines, Airbus is actively marketing their position as being the "comfort" manufacturer.

Really?



"Dimensioned for the future". Clearly Airbus are expecting that airlines will increase the seating density on the A350-1000 in order to reduce its costs per seat.

And yes, seats are chosen and installed by the airlines. Seat width and pitch is not something that OEMs dictate.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 166):
Exactly. Remember the scorn heaped over the A350 Mk I, which in scope was quite similar to what the 777X is going to be.

The main difference between the original A350 and the 777X is that the A350 Mk 1 was narrower than the 787 and thus cannot fit as many seats per row as on the 787. The 777, on the other hand, is wider.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 177):
In different circumstances the 350Mk1 would probably have survived (and prospered) as evidenced by the stark similarities of the 777X program to the 350Mk1.

I agree that the original A350 Mk 1 would have been a competitive aircraft. In a way, I wish Airbus had launched the A350 Mk 1 instead. It is likely to have been in service already.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 179):
5 years ago, anything not completely composite (like the A380) was considered (here for example) as old fashioned and yesterday's technology, as Boeing would transform the industry with Y1, Y2 and Y3.

Well, that didn't quite go according to plan, did it? I think the fact that the 787 was so massively delayed, and the about-face from Boeing to do the 737MAX instead of the Y1, means that composite technology is more complicated than first thought, and that too much has been made of its advantages over alloy aircraft. Yes, there are advantages, undoubtedly, but whether the project is worth it, considering the cost and complexity of the technology, is a different question altogether.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-05 06:56:36 and read 16802 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 184):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program.
Why? Just because IAG may have ordered the A350 doesn't necessarily mean that they won't order the 777X in the future. Furthermore, even if IAG do not order the 777X in the future, that doesn't mean other airlines won't. The fact that more and more airlines are putting a higher density configuration in the 777-300ER point towards the possibility that a larger aircraft is required. The A350-1000 is not larger than the 777-300ER, but the 777-9X is. It's not the end of the world for Boeing, or the 777 program, for that matter.

JAL, Cathay and BA(IAG) probably represent 100 777-9X orders, so if the 3 order A350-1000 that means many 777-9x will NOT be ordered. Its not the end of the next 777 but those are three very VIP airline customers. I am comparing A350-1000 to the 777-9X not the A350-900. CX has the A359 on order but that plane has a very different mission then the A351.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-05 07:03:04 and read 16760 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 185):
JAL, Cathay and BA(IAG) probably represent 100 777-9X orders, so if the 3 order A350-1000 that means many 777-9x will NOT be ordered. Its not the end of the next 777 but those are three very VIP airline customers. I am comparing A350-1000 to the 777-9X not the A350-900. CX has the A359 on order but that plane has a very different mission then the A351.

I disagree with the premise that an order for the A350-1000 means that the 777-9X will not be ordered, for reasons I have already stated. The two aircraft are different enough that they can co-exist in the same fleet.

Incidentally, CX also has A350-1000s on order.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-05 07:17:10 and read 16649 times.

A 50+/- seat difference between the 351 and 779-X I think puts them in different categories. The bigger airlines certainly can order both 350 and 777 given they can serve different markets or be mixed to keep the seat counts at an optimum level for a given route. That being said, Boeing needs the ATO soon.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: columba
Posted 2013-04-05 07:52:27 and read 16528 times.

Quoting Carls (Reply 181):
Lufthansa is said to be in negotiations with Airbus for 50 A350 between 900 and 1000. This is a rumor comming form Airbus, and I believe it since the person who told me this is the same who toldme about IAG.

Well,let´s see how this turns out. LH is officially still negotiating with both Airbus and Boeing, we don´t know how far the negotiations are at the moment. Maybe you are right and Airbus has the edge right now.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-05 15:31:13 and read 15959 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 185):
JAL, Cathay and BA(IAG) probably represent 100 777-9X orders, so if the 3 order A350-1000 that means many 777-9x will NOT be ordered.

I believe the 777-9X is going to be too large for JL and NH. They're steering away from high-capcity long-haul planes. They'll be looking at the 777-8X and the A350-1000.

CX has already ordered the A350-1000. Per zeke in a four-class configuration the A350-1000 seats 273 to the 777-300ERs 275. The 777-9 would be a 747-400 replacement, but CX might need to/desire to stay with a four-engine plane for air route L888 between HKG and the EU.

[Edited 2013-04-05 15:57:12]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-04-05 15:46:49 and read 15889 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 50):
Quoting mham001 (Reply 24):
What is a 78J?

It refers to 787-10, J being the 10th letter of the alphabet. Everyone notates them differently, so until ICAO gives it a designation, pick your favourite.

78J sounds more like an IATA code which has 3 characters. ICAO aircraft codes have have 4 characters.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-05 23:23:34 and read 15557 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 184):
Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):B77X: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, possibly last variants and so end of design life
It is also not necessarily true that the 777X will be the final update to the 777. Even if it were, "end of design life" is a misnomer because like any other airframe, there will be running improvements along the way. The 777 is still a very efficient, modern design with plenty of scope for improvement. The 777X is evidence of that.

While the 777X program is not a clean sheet design it could safely be described as a new 777 platform. It is anything but a last gasp (such as the 748) but rather a new large twin platform that will require significant financial and engineering resources to become established. It will be around for quite a while and Boeing will exploit all opportunities available to get a return on that investment. It is inevitable that there will be further derivatives in the future - Boeing will be keen to push the platform into territory that is out of reach of the A350 family (as they have already done with the 9X). If there is any likelihood of a 350-1100 further down the track then Boeing would respond accordingly - plenty of room to grow with that massive 71m wing. The only limiting factor is going to be keeping fuselage length within the 80m x 80m size.
Boeing might also choose to explore the 787-10 regional theme with the 777X where appropriate.
We will all have a lot more grey hairs by the time the 777X ceases production - its going to be a while.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 184):
any issues with the rotation angle may possibly be rectified with a slight reconfiguration of the articulated gear that the 777-300ER already have.

Would that make an 80m 777X plausible ?


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-05 23:27:59]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-06 02:44:29 and read 15176 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 184):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable.
Correction: it is only an advantage if the airline finds it acceptable. Passengers do not make aircraft acquisition decisions, the airlines do.

The quickest way to bankruptcy is to assume that you know better than your clients. Yes airlines do make aircraft acquistion decisions not the passengers, however woe betide any airline that makes such a decision without basing it on their customers requirements.

Two extreme cases of an airline interpreting their customers requirements correctly are FR and EK. FR passengers want to fly point to point in Europe for the cheapest possible fare. FR listen to this and operate a fleet that only cnsists of the 738.
EK's passengers want to fly long haul at competitive prices and don't mind losing a few hours in a hub providing the price is right, result lots of 77ER's (10 abreast)and 380's.

If however EK's primary routes were across the Atlantic they might find that the UK and US obesity crisis makes 10 abreast unpopular.

The list of airlines that failed to adapt to customers needs is quite long, your ideas would add to it.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-04-06 03:07:42 and read 15058 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 190):
78J sounds more like an IATA code which has 3 characters. ICAO aircraft codes have have 4 characters.

True, IATA is effectively shorthand for the ICAO codes, just add A or B. Not sure who ultimately decides, I would say ICAO as they're more of a regulatory authority.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-06 06:16:02 and read 14596 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 191):
Would that make an 80m 777X plausible ?

I'm not sure. When the 777-300 was launched, I recall Boeing saying that the -300 was as far a stretch as the 777 could take, yet here we are, a decade and a half later, discussing a 777-9X which is a further 2.7m stretch of the 777-300. But I honestly do not know if 80m would be a stretch too far. I guess Boeing will cross that bridge once they get to it.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 192):
The quickest way to bankruptcy is to assume that you know better than your clients. Yes airlines do make aircraft acquistion decisions not the passengers, however woe betide any airline that makes such a decision without basing it on their customers requirements.

The airlines do know better than their passengers. They know the performance characteristics of each of their aircraft, and they know how much money can be made from each aircraft. They have the data available to make assessments as to which aircraft will make them more money overall, taking into account purchasing and all operating costs of the aircraft. They then purchase the aircraft which best suits them and their network.

The passengers aren't involved in this decision at all.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-06 07:21:01 and read 14365 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 174):
This is a contradiction how?

Because you wrote this:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 151):
But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

...which is clearly false and misleading.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 174):
Talk about knitpicking and I'm fully literate with regards to the English language, no need to define any words for me.

Clearly you are not, else you would not have added a subjective slant to what Mr Walsh said.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 174):
I was simply relaying what IAG said in March. Mr Walsh said the 12 A380's on order were a good size for BA period.

No, you were adding a little of your own editorial licence. What he said was very specific:

Quote:
BA has 12 A380s on order, the first of which will arrive later this year. Walsh says he can see a case for increasing that, but we think 12 is a good fleet size.

That does not in any way infer BA's purchase of A380s is over. He is simply saying the 12 on firm order is a "good size." You forget they have another 7 on option. Mr Walsh rarely minces his words. If there were to be no more A380s, he'd have said so categorically. Indeed, he clearly stated he sees a case for increasing that number.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 174):
Their focus on fleet replacement was long haul twins and again with regards to contradiction, there are more aircraft types than long haul twins and VLA quads so your point is moot.

Moot? In a discussion about "fleet replacement for about 30 747-400s and, eventually, the 46 777-200ERs in operation," what else do you think he's talking about ? MD-11s...?  
Quoting waly777 (Reply 174):
The article is in aviationweek.com


I'll give you the full link so you can go and read it again...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_03_19_2013_p0-560396.xml&p=1

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-06 07:52:25 and read 14283 times.

I'm not an expert on BA operations, to be sure, but from my perch, I admit to not seeing where BA needs the A350-900 as a 777-200ER replacement when they have the 787-9 and could get the 787-10.

The 787-9 would offer the same seating capacity as the 777-200ER and the 787-10 has room for growth. And if Boeing can get the 787-10's nominal range to 7100nm, that's not too far off the nominal range of the 777-200ER. So unless BA is pushing their 777-200ERs to the limits, the 787-10 should be able to handle the same missions.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: columba
Posted 2013-04-06 09:30:04 and read 13978 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 196):
I'm not an expert on BA operations, to be sure, but from my perch, I admit to not seeing where BA needs the A350-900 as a 777-200ER replacement when they have the 787-9 and could get the 787-10.

The 787-9 would offer the same seating capacity as the 777-200ER and the 787-10 has room for growth. And if Boeing can get the 787-10's nominal range to 7100nm, that's not too far off the nominal range of the 777-200ER. So unless BA is pushing their 777-200ERs to the limits, the 787-10 should be able to handle the same missions.

Me neither. I can see an IAG order for the A350-900 only for IB. BA will remain all Boeing except for the A380 and maybe the A350-1000

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueLight
Posted 2013-04-06 10:12:42 and read 13869 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 184):

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-04-06 10:22:30 and read 13822 times.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 198):

That chart is inaccurate. 747 seats are 17.5 max. 707 fuselage sets are 17.2. A380 can go 19 as can 777 in 9 abreast. As can 787 in 8 abreast.

Should read: Airbus sacrifices economics and flexibility for wider seats.  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-06 10:28:36 and read 13793 times.

Funny slide but it is missing a few things: 1) the A380 will do 11 abreast in the future, last month Leahy said customers are looking at it 2) the A350 can do 10 abreast with 16.4" seats and 3) the 777 can also do 9 abreast with 18" seats. The slide would look completely different if one takes this things into account.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueLight
Posted 2013-04-06 10:40:47 and read 13723 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 200):

Only LCCs will likely consider a 10 abreast A350. I haven't heard a mainline carrier yet planning on going with a 10 abreast. Are you aware of any specific mainline carriers planning on using it?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-06 10:43:08 and read 13949 times.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 201):

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 200):

Only LCCs will likely consider a 10 abreast A350. I haven't heard a mainline carrier yet planning on going with a 10 abreast. Are you aware of any specific mainline carriers planning on using it?

Wait till UA announce their seat plan.  

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueLight
Posted 2013-04-06 10:54:32 and read 13901 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 199):

I'm assuming Airbus used the average fleet width 747 as United and EVA are 17" whereas DL and KE are listed at 17.2" on seatguru.com. Regardless if max width is 17.5" the A380 is at least an inch wider, which is the point that Airbus slide is making.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-06 11:05:46 and read 13869 times.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 201):
Only LCCs will likely consider a 10 abreast A350. I haven't heard a mainline carrier yet planning on going with a 10 abreast. Are you aware of any specific mainline carriers planning on using it?

So far no customers have announced to use a 10 abreast cabin in the A350. But it is officialy on offer so Airbus should put it into that slide.

Quote:
The seating flexibility offered in the A350 XWB’s economy class begins with a baseline nine-abreast configuration. This baseline configuration offers economy class passengers 18” seat width, as on any other Airbus aircraft. Premium economy is created in an eight-abreast arrangement, while 10-abreast seating is available for high-density layouts.


The slide is a bit misleading now.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KPDX
Posted 2013-04-06 11:08:36 and read 13840 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 204):
So far no customers have announced to use a 10 abreast cabin in the A350. But it is officialy on offer so Airbus should put it into that slide.

I'm a bit uniformed on this.. But what makes people think the majority of airlines won't put 10 abreast in the A350, as well? They can say one thing, but whether they actually do it is another. Look at the 77W.. Tons of operators with 10 abreast, now. People still buy the tickets.  Wow!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BlueLight
Posted 2013-04-06 11:26:53 and read 13776 times.

Quoting KPDX (Reply 205):

Pretty simple really. It's just like how no mainline carriers are cramming 9 abreast into an A330/A340 now. It's why Singapore Airlines decided to use the 9 abreast A350 for their mainline ops and sent the 9 abreast 787s to their LCC Scoot Airlines.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: U2380
Posted 2013-04-06 11:28:30 and read 13798 times.

Quoting KPDX (Reply 205):
I'm a bit uniformed on this.. But what makes people think the majority of airlines won't put 10 abreast in the A350, as well

It's a fairly tight squeeze on the 777 as it now, the A350 is that little bit narrower still. Although no doubt a carrier(s) will attempt it at some point during the A350's years in service.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-06 11:33:26 and read 13800 times.

Quoting KPDX (Reply 205):
But what makes people think the majority of airlines won't put 10 abreast in the A350, as well?

You're given up comfort. 10 abreast in the A350 means going from 17" seats in the 777 to 16.4" seats. Airlines like AirAsiaX may eventually install a 10 abreast cabin, but they have to discover the A350 capabilities first.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: moo
Posted 2013-04-06 11:56:13 and read 13690 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 204):

Airbus shouldn't have to do anything, it's their PR and Marketing presentation so they can include and exclude whatever they like.

Just as you could produce a counter example and include it in your own presentation...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: bongodog1964
Posted 2013-04-06 12:28:20 and read 13553 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 194):
The passengers aren't involved in this decision at all.

Its true to say that passengers aren't directly involved in purchase decisions, howeve rits totally untrue to say that their requirements aren't taken into consideration. No point buying unsuitable aircraft and then watching your passengers walk. As said earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 for the carribbean and Florida routes, and passengers headed off to both VS and the charter airlines.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-06 13:58:35 and read 13333 times.

You make perfect sense, Stitch, though I wonder if performance characteristics for, let's say for example, some Caribbean destinations, and planning for future growth, might favour the Airbus offering over the stretched '87-10...

I'm using my iPad in an obscure hotel and have no usual access to data; I therefore apologise in advance for the lack of hard data, but...

I get the vibe viz a viz 772 to 787-10 replacement at BA, that there is something akin to the dilemma other operators have had in trying to replace the B757 with the A321. Is the -10 too compromised beyond its original spec to replace the type it is supposedly succeeding in this competition? would the -10 be able to operate year round with a profitable load out of SAN to LHR and conversely vice versa against the jetstream, for example? Is the range really going to be there? Could the -10 operate out of the smaller Caribbean destinations currently served by the B772 ? BA loathes tag-ons and have only a handful remaining, so I can not see them going back to them for the sake of ordering the -10. Would the A350-900 cover all bases and give a useful capacity increase over the current 772ERs that the -10 can't yet? Would the -10 be sufficient for future possible "beach" destinations which have been considered, such as Langkawi or Penang non-stop?

Had the -900 been considered in isolation, I'd agree that seeing it at BA would be unlikely. However, with the -1000 about to be firmed (sorry Columba   ), I'd say, on the grounds of commonality and future increases in passenger numbers, the -900 could find a sweet spot at BA...though not necessarily at LHR.

It kind of turns the tables and makes the 787-10 look like the niche offering.

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-06 14:05:00 and read 13328 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 209):
Airbus shouldn't have to do anything, it's their PR and Marketing presentation so they can include and exclude whatever they like.

Just as you could produce a counter example and include it in your own presentation...

Agreed, Airbus should have done nothing. I meant to say that such a PR slide is a bit pointless in a discussion where objectivity should have the upper hand.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-06 16:55:16 and read 12967 times.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 211):
You make perfect sense, Stitch, though I wonder if performance characteristics for, let's say for example, some Caribbean destinations, and planning for future growth, might favour the Airbus offering over the stretched '87-10...

The 787-10 really shouldn't be any worse at field performance than the 787-9 since it has the same take-off weight and wing. If anything, it might be a bit better since GE and RR seem to be developing higher thrust engines for it.

The A350-900 will offer BA an extra 27 World Traveller seats over the 787-9, but the 787-10 will give them that plus another row of Club World seats.

Honestly, the 777-8 is probably the best choice for a four-class 777-200ER replacement when one considers only seat count (which I fully understand an airline does not) as at 10-abreast it would seat around the same 8 more CW seats as the 787-10, but also 41 more WT seats.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-07 02:47:59 and read 12302 times.

Maybe I missed it but how would an A35J look like as a four-class 777-200ER BA replacement?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-07 04:06:11 and read 12142 times.

Quoting KPDX (Reply 205):
But what makes people think the majority of airlines won't put 10 abreast in the A350, as well?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
You're given up comfort. 10 abreast in the A350 means going from 17" seats in the 777 to 16.4" seats. Airlines like AirAsiaX may eventually install a 10 abreast cabin, but they have to discover the A350 capabilities first.

I did some research and there are A330 operators (Air Transat, AirAsiaX) with a 9-abreast Y config (= 16.5" seats). Given this fact it should only be a matter of time until some low cost carriers install a 10 abreast cabin in the A350.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: egnr
Posted 2013-04-07 07:40:34 and read 11732 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 215):
Given this fact it should only be a matter of time until some low cost carriers install a 10 abreast cabin in the A350.

"AirAsia X should receive its first A350, which will have a two-class configuration with 10 seats abreast in economy, in 2015 if there are no delays from Airbus, says Fernandes. The carrier has 10 A350s on order."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ong-haul-market-with-a350s-372354/

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: olle
Posted 2013-04-07 07:52:03 and read 11714 times.

How compares a 10 abreast A350 compared a 10 abreast B777?   

I fly the Airfrance 777 with 10 abreast to South america and I prefeer the Swiss 8 abreast A340s any day....

BR

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-07 08:00:12 and read 11684 times.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 198):

Airbus' chart is both inaccurate and biased to the extreme:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 199):
That chart is inaccurate. 747 seats are 17.5 max. 707 fuselage sets are 17.2. A380 can go 19 as can 777 in 9 abreast. As can 787 in 8 abreast.

  

Not only that, but they had specifically chosen the higher density 9 abreast configuration 787 and 10 abreast 777 to make that comparison instead of the more conventional 8 and 9 abreast planes respectively. 'Marketing' from one OEM about products of another can never be trusted, as they are never objective.

Quoting BlueLight (Reply 203):
I'm assuming Airbus used the average fleet width 747 as United and EVA are 17" whereas DL and KE are listed at 17.2" on seatguru.com. Regardless if max width is 17.5" the A380 is at least an inch wider, which is the point that Airbus slide is making.

The 747 at 10 abreast will generally, depending on airline configuration, have narrower seats (or narrower aisles/narrower armrests in lieu of narrower seats). That much is a given. But Airbus failed to mention that the 787 at 8 abreast and the 777 at 9 abreast are, respectively, wider than the A330/A340 and A350. There is no objectivity whatsoever in that presentation of theirs.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 204):
The slide is a bit misleading now.

  

Quoting KPDX (Reply 205):
I'm a bit uniformed on this.. But what makes people think the majority of airlines won't put 10 abreast in the A350, as well? They can say one thing, but whether they actually do it is another. Look at the 77W.. Tons of operators with 10 abreast, now. People still buy the tickets.

I think eventually, they will. As will the A380 go 11 abreast. Rising fuel prices as well as the demand for lower fares will see to that.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 210):
As said earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 for the carribbean and Florida routes, and passengers headed off to both VS and the charter airlines.

That doesn't mean they won't do it again if fuel prices continue to rise.

Secondly, the 777X will have a wider cabin than the current 777 which will enable 10 abreast seating with the same width seats as on the 747. If passengers on BA "accept" 10 abreast on the 747, there's no reason why they won't on the 777X.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 212):
such a PR slide is a bit pointless in a discussion where objectivity should have the upper hand.

  

Quoting olle (Reply 217):
How compares a 10 abreast A350 compared a 10 abreast B777?

Depends on how the airline configures their aircraft, but expect seat widths of around 16.5 inches vs between 17 - 17.2 inches for a 10 abreast 777. The A350's fuselage is narrower than that of the 777

[Edited 2013-04-07 08:50:26]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-07 08:03:48 and read 11673 times.

Quoting egnr (Reply 216):
"AirAsia X should receive its first A350, which will have a two-class configuration with 10 seats abreast in economy, in 2015 if there are no delays from Airbus, says Fernandes. The carrier has 10 A350s on order."

Thanks, I've totally missed this. Well, that makes 10 abreast on the A350 already a fact.

Quoting olle (Reply 217):
How compares a 10 abreast A350 compared a 10 abreast B777?

Nobody knows because the A350 is not flying yet but one can already imagine: if you find the 17" seats on the 777 too cramped then the 16.5" seats on the A350 will be worse.

[Edited 2013-04-07 08:16:54]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-04-07 08:34:39 and read 11531 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 218):
Not only that, but they had specifically chosen the higher density 9 abreast configuration 787 and 10 abreast 777 to make that comparison instead of the more conventional 8 and 9 abreast planes respectively.

Maybe 8 abreast in a 787 is "more conventional" than 9 breast, but it is less common. Ditto for most new operators of the 777. So 9 abreast in a 787 and 10 abreast in a 777 seem indeed to be the new standards.

[Edited 2013-04-07 08:34:57]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-07 08:47:25 and read 11464 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 218):
Not only that, but they had specifically chosen the higher density 9 abreast configuration 787 and 10 abreast 777 to make that comparison instead of the more conventional 8 and 9 abreast planes respectively. 'Marketing' from one OEM about products of another can never be trusted, as they are never objective.

While I don't really care about the slide one way or the other, implying that the 787 at 8 or the 777 at 9 are the standard configurations would seem to fly in the face of current trends. In comparison, the XWB at 10 or the A380 at 11 are rare. Indeed, this might change, but I wouldn't say it's completely off-base as presented in the slide. Slanted, for sure, but not out-of-hand wrong.

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-07 09:33:24 and read 11287 times.

The slide's not completely misleading

Nearly every operator of the 787 is going 9Y, even the likes of BA.
777 operators are increasingly going 10Y, including AA

Only charter and LCC operators have the A330 at 9Y
Only 1 LCC carrier has so far mentioned operating the A350 at 10Y
No operator is operating the A380 at 11Y

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Bogi
Posted 2013-04-07 10:36:38 and read 11079 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 222):
The slide's not completely misleading

Nearly every operator of the 787 is going 9Y, even the likes of BA.
777 operators are increasingly going 10Y, including AA

Only charter and LCC operators have the A330 at 9Y
Only 1 LCC carrier has so far mentioned operating the A350 at 10Y

And only 1 LCC carrier has so far ordered the A350?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-08 03:42:35 and read 10250 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 222):
Only 1 LCC carrier has so far mentioned operating the A350 at 10Y

Which runs A330s at 9 abreast now

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-08 05:31:33 and read 9881 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 224):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 222):
Only 1 LCC carrier has so far mentioned operating the A350 at 10Y

Which runs A330s at 9 abreast now

Well a small number of charter airlines operate the 767 at 8Y, but that hardly makes it normal!

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-08 08:08:27 and read 9650 times.

I was skeptical about BA going with the A350 since they already bought the 787. But the more I look at it, if BA is willing to ditch their 747s and downsize, the 351 offers them a lot of flexibility. I could see the IAG group going for a massive fleet of A350s.

A359 - 3-class 772/77E replacement for BA and 333 replacement for IB.
A351 - 4-class 772/77E replacment for BA, 744 replacement for BA and 346 replacement for IB

788/789s - 3 class, all based at LGW

A380 - 4-class high capacity LH routes

The 351 offers growth room for BA where they fly the 772/77E fleet. And the 351 at around 280 seats in 4-class config won't be too much of a hit as a 744 replacement. And if it is, then BA can always get more 380s or pick up the 777-9X. Though I think commonality concerns and the need to avoid capital spending on upgrading LHR to handle more Code F aircraft may well drive BA to go for the 351.

I do believe, we'll see IB going to a 3-class config with Y+ and maybe even some cabin commonality with BA (3-class aircraft). And I think we'll see a lot more expansion at LGW, largely focused on London O/D traffic for BA.

I could see IAG operating a combined fleet of 130 A350s in about 20 years from now.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-04-08 09:57:18 and read 9566 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 199):
That chart is inaccurate. 747 seats are 17.5 max. 707 fuselage sets are 17.2. A380 can go 19 as can 777 in 9 abreast. As can 787 in 8 abreast.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 218):
Not only that, but they had specifically chosen the higher density 9 abreast configuration 787 and 10 abreast 777 to make that comparison instead of the more conventional 8 and 9 abreast planes respectively. 'Marketing' from one OEM about products of another can never be trusted, as they are never

Off course such a comparison to a 9 abreast 777 or 8 abreast 787 is pretty moot, as a 9 abreast 777 and 8 abreast 787 will be easily outperformed by a 359 (and 351) in terms of CASM. Especially the 777 will need the 10 abreast to come even close.
The 787 will hold it's own at 8 abreast, however:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 222):
Nearly every operator of the 787 is going 9Y, even the likes of BA.

Off course every airline can put is own configuration in. Comparing the way Airbus did as shown in reply 198, did in no way show a skewed picture, IMHO.

PW100

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2013-04-08 11:52:48 and read 9258 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 227):
Comparing the way Airbus did as shown in reply 198, did in no way show a skewed picture, IMHO.

Yes and no. It's certainly not skewed in the sense that it's FACTUALLY correct. However, when presented singularly like it is, it implies to the general public (which is who the target audience obviously is) that this is how these aircraft are ALL configured, respectively. For instance, while it's certainly true that more 777 operators are going 10-abreast, I don't believe even a majority of the world fleet has that config, let alone ALL of them. Also, I personally don't know of very many A32X operators who use a 18" Y seat (which, if my math is correct, only leaves @ 18.5" for the aisle).

Quoting PW100 (Reply 227):
Off course every airline can put is own configuration in.

Which is exactly what the slide DOESN'T show. . .

So inaccurate? No. Misleading? Yes.


Hamlet69

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-08 12:07:34 and read 9163 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 214):
Maybe I missed it but how would an A35J look like as a four-class 777-200ER BA replacement?

It's not a direct replacement. It's a replacement with growth. Seat count would be ~280. And the seat count would be about the same in 3-class with a 359. Let's BA match the aircraft to the type/mix of traffic there is. Additional capacity would come through an additional flight or through deployment of a 777-9X or A380.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-04-08 12:21:38 and read 9105 times.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 228):
Which is exactly what the slide DOESN'T show. .

Well, to be fair, you would certainly not expect Airbus to show all thinkable configurations in one single slide. Also, I (and I suspect that also applies to most if not all A.nutters) was not present at the presentation, so it would be difficult for me to judge the whole context of the presentation.

Again, I don't really see anything wrong here, and think the misleading is pretty underwhelming. I'm sure digging into Airbus presentations (and Boeing's for that matter) will reveal a lot more misleading than this one.

PW100

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-09 00:03:11 and read 8666 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 230):
will reveal a lot more misleading than this one

It''s called presenting your product in the best possible light (or "a sales pitch"). Everyone does it, there's really no news here.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-09 02:24:53 and read 8384 times.

Leahy hints about selling 80 A350 aircraft this year. This gives the IAG order even more backbone.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: india1
Posted 2013-04-09 03:11:07 and read 8266 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 232):

We have 35 frames already ordered + 25 for AF/KLM to be confirmed by end of year = 60.
We're speculating IAG, LH, and JAL.
And knowing Leahy, there's bound to be something up his sleeve.

So, either we're misinformed and he knows better and the above aren't likely to happen, or he's seriously underquoting.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: MWHCVT
Posted 2013-04-09 04:18:14 and read 7989 times.

Quoting india1 (Reply 233):
So, either we're misinformed and he knows better and the above aren't likely to happen, or he's seriously underquoting.

He's very good at under estimating you can rest assured that if he has estimated sales of that he's already got more than that ready to sign the mans no fool 

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-09 04:31:49 and read 7921 times.

Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 234):
We have 35 frames already ordered + 25 for AF/KLM to be confirmed by end of year = 60.
We're speculating IAG, LH, and JAL.

Some sources have quoted 20 for BA so that would fit

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-09 04:32:58 and read 7920 times.

Quoting india1 (Reply 233):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 232):
We have 35 frames already ordered + 25 for AF/KLM to be confirmed by end of year = 60.
We're speculating IAG, LH, and JAL.
And knowing Leahy, there's bound to be something up his sleeve.

So, either we're misinformed and he knows better and the above aren't likely to happen, or he's seriously underquoting.

I don't think he's counting the 25 for AF/KL for 2013 yet, it could drag on a while. I do think he's counting IAG and LH though (IMO opinion these are as good as in the bag). Only 55 firm for them in total? Nothing to be sneezed at, just that I thought it would be more. Maybe 25 + 30 firm and the rest options.

Despite his reputation as a big mouth, Leahy has been very conservative as far as order predictions are concerned. Personally, I think there are far more negotiations with airlines for A350s but these could go Boeings way as well.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-09 04:39:01 and read 7872 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 226):
788/789s - 3 class, all based at LGW

And all with 9 abreast "tourist" Y

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-04-09 16:33:21 and read 7385 times.

IF Lufthansa ordered 787 and 777X's that would realy be something. John Leahy is getting too fat for his own good.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: RIX
Posted 2013-04-09 18:55:55 and read 7234 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 226):
788/789s - 3 class, all based at LGW
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 237):
And all with 9 abreast "tourist" Y

I remember there were seat maps of BA 787, soon after the first order, 788 - 3 class, 789 - 4 class, both with 8 abreast in economy. Nothing about LGW though  ...

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-10 07:42:12 and read 6844 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 220):
Maybe 8 abreast in a 787 is "more conventional" than 9 breast, but it is less common. Ditto for most new operators of the 777.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 221):
While I don't really care about the slide one way or the other, implying that the 787 at 8 or the 777 at 9 are the standard configurations would seem to fly in the face of current trends.

Yes, but that's not the point I was making. What I was trying to get at is that these configurations - 8 abreast 787 and 9 abreast 777 - exist, and it was partly a rhetorical question as to why Airbus didn't use those in their comparison slide instead of the higher density configurations which also exist.

Furthermore, at launch, the 787 was purely an 8 abreast aircraft and the 777 was mostly a 9 abreast aircraft, with very few airlines choosing higher seat count per row in order to improve its costs per seat. The A350, at launch, is also a mostly 9 abreast aircraft with very few airlines opting for 10 abreast. The pattern here is that in light of ever increasing fuel prices and the demand for lower fares, what we may consider to be high density configurations today may well become the norm in future.

To suggest that Airbus offers wider seats without qualifying that claim with facts rather than generalisations is fallacious.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 220):
So 9 abreast in a 787 and 10 abreast in a 777 seem indeed to be the new standards.

Just as higher density configurations is likely to also become a 'new standard' for the A350 and A380 in future.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 226):
And if it is, then BA can always get more 380s or pick up the 777-9X. Though I think commonality concerns and the need to avoid capital spending on upgrading LHR to handle more Code F aircraft may well drive BA to go for the 351.

With folding wingtips, the 777-9X will only be a Code F aircraft on runways. It can effectively be manoeuvred around the airport as a Code E aircraft with the wingtips folded. At least, that's the plan. I don't know whether the CAA will allow the 777X to be classified as a Code E if the wingtips are folded up.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 227):
Off course such a comparison to a 9 abreast 777 or 8 abreast 787 is pretty moot

It's not, because these configurations exist, just as 10 abreast on an A350 will also be reality when Air Asia get their hands on one.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 228):
However, when presented singularly like it is, it implies to the general public (which is who the target audience obviously is) that this is how these aircraft are ALL configured, respectively. For instance, while it's certainly true that more 777 operators are going 10-abreast, I don't believe even a majority of the world fleet has that config, let alone ALL of them.

      

Smear the opposition. That's the aim of marketing.

Trouble is that the general public may very well come to the mistaken conclusion that ALL Airbus aircraft have wider seats. Which is, frankly, untrue and depends very much on airline configuration.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 231):
It''s called presenting your product in the best possible light (or "a sales pitch"). Everyone does it, there's really no news here.

You won't get any argument from me there. Everyone does it, which is why I say anything one OEM says about another OEM's product cannot be trusted, or, at the very least, taken with a grain of salt.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-22 08:43:20 and read 6045 times.

News is coming in:

British Airways parent IAG ordering 18 A350-1000s plus 18 options.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-22 08:48:57 and read 6055 times.

And the official press release:

http://www.iagshares.com/phoenix.zht...rticle_Print&ID=1809195&highlight=

"For British Airways, there are 18 A350-1000 firm orders, plus 18 options. These are in addition to 18 Boeing 787 options which IAG announced previously that it plans to convert into firm orders.

The A350 and Boeing 787 firm orders will be used to replace 30 Boeing 747-400 aircraft between 2017 and 2023 while the options can be used to replace aircraft or provide opportunities for growth.

For Iberia, IAG has also reached agreement with Airbus as well as Boeing to secure commercial terms and delivery slots that could lead to firm orders for A350s and/or Boeing 787s. Firm orders will only be made when Iberia is in a position to grow profitably, having restructured and reduced its cost base."

[Edited 2013-04-22 08:50:39]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-22 08:58:04 and read 5858 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 242):
And the official press release:

http://www.iagshares.com/phoenix.zht...ight=

What has been secured for Iberia remains a bit of a mystery.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-22 09:07:36 and read 5749 times.

Airbus twitter:

Great news! International Airline Group (IAG), & @British_Airways have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to buy 18 Airbus #A350 aircraft

It is amazing, there will be a number of airlines that says "which is the best of the 787 and 350 programs? Both"

   but a bit unusual. I don't think this was what Boeing and Airbus planned  .

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-22 09:47:47 and read 5265 times.

So that's 12 A380-800, 18 A350-1000s and 6 777-300ERs on order to replace 36 of BA's 55 747-400s. That still leaves 19 frames. So I am guessing the 18 A350-1000 options are a hedging bet while BA evaluates the 777-9 and 787-10 (though that BA have said twice now they will be using the 787 in part to replace 747-400s, that seems a pretty firm indication they will convert some 787 orders/options to the 787-10).

[Edited 2013-04-22 10:30:49]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-22 10:31:49 and read 5018 times.

The press release clearly says "the A350 and Boeing 787 firm orders will be used to replace 30 Boeing 747-400 aircraft between 2017 and 2023".

To me, that sounds like 18 A350's and 12 787's will replace those 30 747's, unless I'm reading it wrong.

In the end, BA will have 18x A350 + 12x 787 + 12x A380 + 6x 77W = 48 747 replacements. I think we will see a few more 787's. And plenty of options left.

As for IAG, it seems like the fleet will also be split between A350's and 787's, combined with the new A330's.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-22 13:09:18 and read 4640 times.

@Stitch

Fail to see why the 787-10 is appropriate. If not the 777-X, then surely it'll be more A350-1000s.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-04-22 13:45:30 and read 4546 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 247):
@Stitch

Fail to see why the 787-10 is appropriate. If not the 777-X, then surely it'll be more A350-1000s.

Based on what we've heard the specs are for the -10, it will carry up to 323 people for a distance of up to 7,100 miles. It's lighter than the 350-1000 so it will burn less fuel than the -1000.

The -10 will also give BA operational flexibility but slotting capacity between the -1000 and a/c like the 777/789.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-22 14:08:07 and read 4460 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 248):
Based on what we've heard the specs are for the -10, it will carry up to 323 people for a distance of up to 7,100 miles. It's lighter than the 350-1000 so it will burn less fuel than the -1000.

323 is still less than 350. We are talking about replacing 747s after all. There is a limit to how low they can go....particularly given the slot constraints at LHR.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 248):
The -10 will also give BA operational flexibility but slotting capacity between the -1000 and a/c like the 777/789.

I doubt they need an aircraft to slot between those aircraft. If they get the 787-10, it'll be as a 772/77E replacement. I still think the 359 stands a solid chance.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-22 15:03:31 and read 4299 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 247):
Fail to see why the 787-10 is appropriate.

I believe the 787-10 would make an effective replacement for the High-J (70 seat Club World) 747-400s on high-yield markets. It can fit good-sized First, Club World and World Traveller Plus cabins and the smaller World Traveller cabin will raise yields due to less capacity.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-04-22 15:19:33 and read 4213 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 240):
Smear the opposition. That's the aim of marketing.

Well not usually, the aim of marketing is to highlight the advantage of your own product or service.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 250):
I believe the 787-10 would make an effective replacement for the High-J (70 seat Club World) 747-400s on high-yield markets. It can fit good-sized First, Club World and World Traveller Plus cabins and the smaller World Traveller cabin will raise yields due to less capacity.

What's the advantage of this vs. the A359? Not a criticism of your summation, just interested as to why you'd think the A359 would not be in the running.

An A380, A351, A359, 789 and 788 fleet would mean the A351 is not an orphan type and the A359 would be the heir apparent to the 77E I'd have thought. Or is the 781 and A359 feasible/likely/viable/complimentary?

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-22 15:57:51 and read 4191 times.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 251):
What's the advantage of this vs. the A359?

The 787-10 seats more and offers more cargo hold volume than the A350-900.



Quoting motorhussy (Reply 251):
An A380, A351, A359, 789 and 788 fleet would mean the A351 is not an orphan type and the A359 would be the heir apparent to the 77E I'd have thought.

I'd be shocked if IB gets (only) the 787-9 as opposed to the A350-900 when it comes time to replace their A340-300s so no worries about the A350-1000 being an orphan within the IAG group.



Quoting motorhussy (Reply 251):
Or is the 781 and A359 feasible / likely / viable / complimentary?

Now that BA have added the A350-1000, it improves the case for them to use both the 787-9 and the A350-900 as a 777-200 family replacement.

[Edited 2013-04-22 16:01:39]

[Edited 2013-04-22 16:09:27]

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: PM
Posted 2013-04-22 20:58:58 and read 3950 times.

So this order will take A350-1000 sales to 128.

Looks like it's starting to get the 'traction' that some here said it never would.

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-22 22:34:20 and read 3833 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 253):
Looks like it's starting to get the 'traction' that some here said it never would.

That was always a ridiculous position though, wasn't it?

Mind you, those same posters seem to have mustered enough intelligence to disappear from these threads in haste now that reality is emerging.......  

Let's just hope that those criticising the 777X and its timetable learn a lesson   

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG To Order A351 And A359
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-04-23 02:04:07 and read 3564 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 253):
So this order will take A350-1000 sales to 128.

Looks like it's starting to get the 'traction' that some here said it never would.

As expected by the posters with a more realistic approach to this topic, the A350-1000 is gaining momentum quite convincingly.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 254):
That was always a ridiculous position though, wasn't it?

Mind you, those same posters seem to have mustered enough intelligence to disappear from these threads in haste now that reality is emerging.......  

Well, we have seen that phenomenon before. But this order is another confirmation of blue chip airlines having high confidence in the capabilities of the A350-1000. Congratulations to Airbus, Rolls-Royce and IAG. For now we will see them in BA colors only, but IB can order their A350's and B787's later on.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 254):
Let's just hope that those criticising the 777X and its timetable learn a lesson  

I hope so too. Even if it is based on an older airframe, the B777-X will be a very good performer once it is launched and in operation at the customers who will order it.


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/