Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5870734/

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 02:59:23 and read 31283 times.

By reading recent news its quite obvious Airbus is leaving a promissing market to Boeing, the ~350-410 seat range.
Indeed, the future 777-9/8X seems to be already eating into A350J and A380's lunch, IMO.
Why so? Aren't airlines more inclined to buy a smaller, cheaper, less risky (in terms of passenger capacity in economic crisis context) and more cargo capable 777-9X??? as opposed to the undeniably efficient A380.
Therefore a 78m? streched A350-1100 as mentioned in a previous thread: " on 308 tonnes MTOW should carry 777-9X payload to within 1000Nm of what the 777-9X can .. would be a pretty eye-catching for a plane with a 44t lower MTOW..."

and couldn't it made available a bit earlier than the 777X?
i just cant believe Airbus management are still waiting to see how the market reacts first. recent news are plain clear.
airlines are ordering year 2020+ replacement TODAY.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-15 03:39:48 and read 31223 times.

While it appears the 777-9 is getting traction with customers, I don't believe it has yet presented itself as being a "clear and present danger" to the A350-1000 and A380-800.

Airbus has already pushed the A350-1000 back years just to make the tweaks they have already done. Pushing it to 78-80 meters will likely involve additional changes to the airframe, especially if they pursue higher weights and more powerful engines (and perhaps wider wings) to maintain performance.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-15 03:53:56 and read 31099 times.

A Fourth size before the first one has even entered sevivice is a bit premature. Let's see how big of a market there is out there as I think the a351 and a380 will hold their own for years to come. A larger wing, different MLG, and yet another engine anatomy would be necessary for the frame to be more than a simple stretch.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 04:00:19 and read 31051 times.

Quoting worldrider (Thread starter):
i just cant believe Airbus management are still waiting to see how the market reacts first

They are quite busy with the current three A350 family members, don't expect anything new in the coming years.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 04:00:30 and read 31058 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Airbus has already pushed the A350-1000 back years just to make the tweaks they have already done. Pushing it to 78-80 meters will likely involve additional changes to the airframe, especially if they pursue higher weights and more powerful engines (and perhaps wider wings) to maintain performance.

sure such a strech would be challenging, but no doubt the 777X is eating A350-1000's pie, for instance if there weren't a 777X on the line, what alternatives would airlines have as 777W/346/747 replacement? The A350-1000, market says yes the 748? nope..
just look at recent rumors from LH, NH, EK, BA and many others alike. it's about time for an A350-1100 and very appealing REPLY. Airbus has nothing to offer within the 350-450 gap as of today.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 04:04:14 and read 31026 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 4):
just look at recent rumors from LH, NH, EK, BA and many others alike.

BA, CX and EK also have -1000s on order which indicates both aircraft can be operated in the same fleet.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EmiratesEK231
Posted 2013-09-15 04:07:09 and read 31001 times.

This has been asked many-a-time before, and answered many-a-time before.

From John Leahy: "A double stretch [of the A350] has never been shown to work in this industry," claimed Airbus chief operating officer for customers John Leahy, speaking in Toulouse on 16 January. "We couldn't do it. And we don't think [Boeing] could do it either."

Now, there's been a few dieheards who have tried to even second guess the words of JL, himself, and state the a -1100 was possible and not out of the realm of possibility, but for now I will go with what JL has said out of his own mouth.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-over-further-a350-stretch-381285/

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 04:16:55 and read 30933 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):
A larger wing, different MLG, and yet another engine anatomy would be necessary for the frame to be more than a simple stretch

ok, yes, yet its a doable, the 350-1100 would be lighter, more composite, than the 777X for a similar size., bringing better economics. will airbus seat on the sidelines and taste a biter 500+ frames loss?
a larger and composite wing, plus new engines.. isnt it the new core attributes of the new 777x compared to the 777W?

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 04:25:39 and read 30887 times.

Quoting EmiratesEK231 (Reply 6):
Now, there's been a few dieheards who have tried to even second guess the words of JL, himself, and state the a -1100 was possible and not out of the realm of possibility, but for now I will go with what JL has said out of his own mouth.

His (Leahy) argument isn't valid because double stretches like the 787-10 and the 777-9 seems to be working pretty well. A salesman will "go with the wind".

Quoting worldrider (Reply 7):
ok, yes, yet its a doable, the 350-1100 would be lighter, more composite, than the 777X for a similar size., bringing better economics. will airbus seat on the sidelines and taste a biter 500+ frames loss?

As said, they're busy with the current A350 models. It's also not as easy as you might think, a bigger wing will probably not fit inside the Beluga.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Kengo
Posted 2013-09-15 05:11:39 and read 30693 times.

As karelXWB and tortugamon mentioned, the A35K is surely doable but it wouldn't be simple as one like to think. Just look at the 787-10 for comparision. Boeing in trying to keep the stretch as simple as possible with no real gain in MTOW, sacrifice in range is most noticeable but this was the intention from the beginning. However, if Airbus wants the -1100 to compete head to head with the 779 in payload and range, a simple stretch will not work.

Would love to see how much range is sacrificed if Airbus does a simple stretch from the -1000 to -1100 with standard 3-class seating of 400 pax with no gain in MTOW. Maybe ferpe or someone can run the numbers.  

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-15 06:04:58 and read 30420 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 7):

Airbus hasn't had a relevant airplane in the 300-550 seat market for many years. They are making tremendous progress with the a359 and A351. They are hardly on the sidelines. Can't do it all at once but down the road you could be right. Not sure how many companies would line up to design a new engine just to split the 400 seat market. Let's see what happens after the launch to see how much lunch the 777x is eating.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-15 06:32:20 and read 30079 times.

Quoting worldrider (Thread starter):
[i]["By reading recent news its quite obvious Airbus is leaving a promissing market to Boeing, the ~350-410 seat range. Indeed, the future 777-9/8X seems to be already eating into A350J and A380's lunch, IMO. Why so? Aren't airlines more inclined to buy a smaller, cheaper, less risky (in terms of passenger capacity in economic crisis context) and more cargo capable 777-9X??? as opposed to the undeniably efficient A380."

As I see it, Airbus started reacting to the B787 a bit late. We can't blame them too much for that, for a long time the A330 went on selling well. But when they DID react, they had little option but to aim the A350 at the 'mid-point' between the B787 and the B777.

But now Boeing have announced the 'next generation' B777 - as far as I can tell, two further models, basically a re-designed B772 AND a re-designed B773. And it is also becoming increasingly clear that the larger new ('over 400-seat') B777s look like putting not only the slow-selling B748, but ALSO the A380, more or less out of business.

Given the time it takes to develop new aeroplane designs, what it comes down to, in my opinion, is that, for the foreseeable future, Airbus looks like having to compete with a five-aeroplane range with only three types of its own? No-one's fault, really - until a few months ago, there was every reason to believe that both the B748 and the A380 would 'stay competitive' for some years to come?

[Edited 2013-09-15 06:52:47]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 08:46:19 and read 28677 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
But now Boeing have announced the 'next generation' B777 - as far as I can tell, two further models, basically a re-designed B772 AND a re-designed B773. And it is also becoming increasingly clear that the larger new ('over 400-seat') B777s look like putting not only the slow-selling B748, but ALSO the A380, more or less out of business.

No doubt the 777-X is eating B748i and A380 lunch, as stated before airlines are in general more inclined to buy
a smaller and cheaper jet but i doubt it will hurt the A380 the same way it will hurt the 748i..
But i would be very surprised if Airbus observes, passively, the 777X taking over the 400 seat market, the single shot
Needed here is the LIGHTER A350-1100

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 08:56:32 and read 28566 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 12):
But i would be very surprised if Airbus observes

Then why you assume they will?

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-09-15 09:20:19 and read 28325 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
But now Boeing have announced the 'next generation' B777 - as far as I can tell, two further models, basically a re-designed B772 AND a re-designed B773. And it is also becoming increasingly clear that the larger new ('over 400-seat') B777s look like putting not only the slow-selling B748, but ALSO the A380, more or less out of business.

My understanding is that the 777x is not simply a redesign of the two current versions. the 777-8 is closer in size to a 773 than a 772, and so more of a 773LR or 773-NG. The 779 is a stretch of the current 773, and so therefore is one size bigger. Boeing appears to be pulling the 777 frame out of the -200's market, and letting the 789 and 78J occupy that place in the line up.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-09-15 09:50:41 and read 28014 times.

This a-net obsession with not letting other manufacturers eat one another's lunch seems to disregard the development resources needed to field these planes. With the A350 (900 and 1000), Airbus staked out a huge chunk of territory in the 300-350 (nominal) seat market, and will have their hands full developing and optimizing these frames before doing anything else with them. Boeing has effectively ceded the 77E segment to the 350, and has decided to optimize the 779 at a higher size where they know they will have some of their own turf. Neither team has the dev budget to go after every segment, so it's better for them to split the market up in discrete 787-350-779 chunks.

This strategy of competing with slightly different frames is good for both manufacturers, because they don't have to discount as much when the other frame is not as optimal for a given airline's RFP. It ultimately benefits the airlines too, who have more choices to right-size their fleets and regain the slightly higher capex through better opex.

Now, as far as the development of the A350-1100 is concerned, Airbus probably doesn't want to commit anything until they understand exactly how the -1000 version works out, a bit like Boeing's caution with the 7810. Assuming the 779 doesn't show up before 2020 anyway, the smart move for Airbus is to sit tight and make a decision later on when they have more information.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 10:07:43 and read 27804 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 15):
Now, as far as the development of the A350-1100 is concerned, Airbus probably doesn't want to commit anything until they understand exactly how the -1000 version works out, a bit like Boeing's caution with the 7810. Assuming the 779 doesn't show up before 2020 anyway, the smart move for Airbus is to sit tight and make a decision later on when they have more information

I don't think they can afford to wait that longer, their ambition is to retain at least 50% of the WB market share
With the arrival of the 777-9X without a A350-1100 to compete (on time) they will lose it.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 10:23:26 and read 27606 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 16):
With the arrival of the 777-9X without a A350-1100 to compete (on time) they will lose it.

That's another strange assumption, you believe there is no room between Boeing's 323-class 787 seater and the 407-class 779 seater, a gap of 84 seats? The 350-class A350-1000 fits well in between those two.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-15 10:35:08 and read 27483 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):

Lets's say that im full of strange assumptions, i dont say the A350-1000 isnt right sized i just mean they have
Have nothing between within 350-450 seat gap to compete, it was fine till the 777-9X came into the game.
So as of now, nobody here has heard about any serious intention to place a streched 350-1100

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-15 10:35:37 and read 27482 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 16):
I don't think they can afford to wait that longer, their ambition is to retain at least 50% of the WB market share With the arrival of the 777-9X without a A350-1100 to compete (on time) they will lose it.

You do know the aircraft manufacturers have limited financial & man power resources right? They've barely started testing of the 359 and still have a lot of work to do to get the other 2 in the family in the air as well getting them into airline service as smoothly as possible.

Secondly, when has the 779 eaten the a380 and 748's lunch? It is not yet released and no airline has ordered it, so I am not quite sure how you jumped to this conclusion. In addition, a possible 350-1100 is going to dilute sales of the 350-1000 which in itself already requires substantial re-work as a result of it's seemingly minor differences. Now, if the 350-1000 modifications required it got pushed back a few years, how long do you think developing a new wing & landing gear will take? Airbus will react appropriately but I seriously doubt a 350-1100 is going to be the form it takes except this is a simple stretch based on the wing and MTOW of the 1000.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-09-15 10:52:07 and read 27300 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 15):
This a-net obsession with not letting other manufacturers eat one another's lunch seems to disregard the development resources needed to field these planes. With the A350 (900 and 1000), Airbus staked out a huge chunk of territory in the 300-350 (nominal) seat market, and will have their hands full developing and optimizing these frames before doing anything else with them. Boeing has effectively ceded the 77E segment to the 350, and has decided to optimize the 779 at a higher size where they know they will have some of their own turf. Neither team has the dev budget to go after every segment, so it's better for them to split the market up in discrete 787-350-779 chunks.

This strategy of competing with slightly different frames is good for both manufacturers, because they don't have to discount as much when the other frame is not as optimal for a given airline's RFP. It ultimately benefits the airlines too, who have more choices to right-size their fleets and regain the slightly higher capex through better opex.

Now, as far as the development of the A350-1100 is concerned, Airbus probably doesn't want to commit anything until they understand exactly how the -1000 version works out, a bit like Boeing's caution with the 7810. Assuming the 779 doesn't show up before 2020 anyway, the smart move for Airbus is to sit tight and make a decision later on when they have more information.

Agree, I think most A meters think ordering desicion is only based on capacity and fuel, also that Airbus and Boeing will launch a new type to cover all the small gaps on the market, quite the contrary if you see the sub 140 pax market where they simply got out...

The latest WB have similar configurations, and their capacities are within -120 Pax, and ranges and MTOW all aver the place, also they have promised stellar maintenance cost (that some carriers are still unsure of), and fuel consumption, so choosing a new airplane is based on a very complex set of needs and parameters, neither A or B can make an aircraft good for everybody, they will make their best guesses an offer the product hoping that it will cover most of all their customer needs.

Airbus will wait for the 777X launch and see the final specs, and the reaction, and then make desicions based on that, heck we may even see Aibus going down with a lighter, sort range A330 and aet Boeing lunch on the lower end of the market...

TRB

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-09-15 14:18:07 and read 25844 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
His (Leahy) argument isn't valid because double stretches like the 787-10 and the 777-9 seems to be working pretty well. A salesman will "go with the wind".

The 777-9 isn't a double stretch, it is an NG. 78J could be called a double stretch but a lot of the frame was designed for the 789 in the beginning.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-15 14:30:59 and read 25756 times.

The 777-300 fuselage was a stretch, and the 777-9 fuselage will be another (small) stretch. The airframe itself will of course get a new wing and engines too.

[Edited 2013-09-15 14:35:58]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-15 19:20:14 and read 24504 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):
The 777-300 fuselage was a stretch, and the 777-9 fuselage will be another (small) stretch. The airframe itself will of course get a new wing and engines too.

By that logic, wouldn't the A333 be a double stretch of the A300?

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-09-15 19:29:35 and read 24453 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
And it is also becoming increasingly clear that the larger new ('over 400-seat') B777s look like putting not only the slow-selling B748, but ALSO the A380, more or less out of business.

I personally think that's a bit premature of a statement to make. We only have rumors of potential 779X orders - how that is extrapolated into putting the A380 out of business is beyond me.

-Dave

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-09-15 19:37:00 and read 24905 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 9):
Would love to see how much range is sacrificed if Airbus does a simple stretch from the -1000 to -1100 with standard 3-class seating of 400 pax with no gain in MTOW. Maybe ferpe or someone can run the numbers.

If Airbus do anything at all I suspect it will be a lightened 35J to compete with the 787-10. This is the aircraft that is really going to give Airbus some grief in terms of lost sales. A light 35J would use much the same formula as the 787-10 keeping R&D costs to a minimum along with time to market.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-15 19:49:43 and read 24845 times.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 14):
My understanding is that the 777x is not simply a redesign of the two current versions.

Agreed, tjh8402 - trouble is, though, it's hard to find the right word for what Boeing are planning to do. It appears to be basically a stretch of both existing types, plus use of new materials; specifically, aluminium/lithium (lighter for the same strength) for the fuselages, and lighter composite wings.

Not much doubt about the strategic objectives, though; 'hopefully,' one type to out-perform the A350-1000, and a larger one to 'out-sell' the jumbos by carrying almost as many passengers at substantially-lower costs per head.

[Edited 2013-09-15 19:55:02]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-09-15 21:46:47 and read 24700 times.

Problem with the A350 is, it's not wide enough, it will have to be stretched excessively to compete with the new triple 7's on capacity and that will cost too much on the weight side.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-15 21:46:45 and read 24749 times.

This is the present cabin dimensions of the 350-400 frames in question.

..........Lenght m......Whith m.......Fuse. m
35J.......59.................5.6...............72
346.......62.................5.3...............75
77W......59................5.9...............73
779.......62.................6.0...............76

The problem for Airbus is that the 777 cross section is 0.4m wider an therefore more suitable for 75m birds, it is struturally more efficient and seats 10 abreast in Y. A 350-1100 would have to add a stretch of 6m to enable an additional 6 rows of Y to come in the 404 seats range. It means we would be looking at bird 78m long, 3 meters longer then the A346 and 2 meters longer then the 779! It would weight less (probable OEW around 160-165t versus 175t for the 779) but would need changes to MLG (articulating as the 777), the wing (the 779 has a 71m span versus 65m for the 35J) and engines (the 779 has 103klbf engines with PR 60 vs 97klbf with PR 53).

So even if the 35K (  ) would have a lower OEW it needs a LOT of changes to be competitive with the 779 (the wing and engines need to be as good). It is a major project, one that A would like to do after the 35J is flying and a good way through certification.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Pacific
Posted 2013-09-15 22:03:11 and read 24633 times.

So the "refreshed" 777X is going to have new wings, engines and an Al-Li fuse, and is guaranteed to ruin the business case for a new-build composite aeroplane.

I seem to recall hearing something similar back in 2005.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-15 23:11:49 and read 24401 times.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 29):
So the "refreshed" 777X is going to have new wings, engines and an Al-Li fuse, and is guaranteed to ruin the business case for a new-build composite aeroplane.

I seem to recall hearing something similar back in 2005.

The key difference between these cases (787 vs A350 mk1) and 35J vs 779 is in the engine freeze dates. The A350 mk1 should have used the same engines as the 787, thus the fuselage inferiority would not have been masked by better engines. This is the case in the 779, the GE9X has a 4-5 year later design date then the TXWB and the fuel consumption per pound of force is therefore also 4-5% better (you gain about 1% per year according to RR and GE). This masks the higher weight of the 777X for the same task.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-15 23:14:53 and read 24347 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 9):
Just look at the 787-10 for comparision

The 787-10 is MTOW limited because Boeing chose to stick with a 4 wheel main gear, Airbus is moving to a 6 wheel gear for the -1000 so should not be limited in the same way for the -1100

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23):
By that logic, wouldn't the A333 be a double stretch of the A300?

By that logic the 777-9 is a triple streach of the 777-200 ---> 777-8 ---> 777-300/ER ---> 777-9..

Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
but would need changes to MLG (articulating as the 777)

That depends on where the frame was stretched, in front of or behind the wing.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
A 350-1100 would have to add a stretch of 6m to enable an additional 6 rows of Y to come in the 404 seats range

4 or 5 rows should be sufficient, 380-390 seats would be the sweet spot I would think, plus a 4m extension would be less problematic from an engineering standpoint.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 15):
This a-net obsession with not letting other manufacturers eat one another's lunch seems to disregard the development resources needed to field these planes.

Yup you can live with a lot of shared lunches if owning the lunch cart is going to cost you several billion dollars.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-15 23:47:53 and read 24288 times.

I made a quick check of what a -1100 could possibly look like. Here the data:

Fuselage:
I added 9 frames, 5 before the wing and 4 aft (like the 787-10) which makes for a 78m fuselage (frame spacing is 0.635m). This takes the wettted area from 1220m2 to 1330m2.

Wing:
I added Y type wingtips like the MAX to gain start performance and cruise drag, it takes the effective wing span from 65.7m to 67.0m. The 779 effective wingspan is 70m but it is heavier.

Engines:
I took a tuned TXWB 97klbf core and refanned it with a CRRP fan to a 10+ BPR. This increases PR, BPR and thus fuel efficiency to the ballpark of the GE9X. TO Thrust around 100klbf.


These changes brings the OEW from some 150t to about 160-165t, it put in 163t. It all now requires a MTOW of 320t to make the bird fly 8100nm ESAD which is rumored to be the spec range of the 779. That weight gives a wingloading of 690kg/m2 which is a little below the 779 and should be OK. The MLG would need some tuning to take the higher weight and help with the tail clearance.

And now to the magical numbers, the fuel consumed per pax and 1000nm would be 33kg vs 36kg for the 779, trip fuel for the 8100nm spec trip would be 108t vs 121t. I will have to check that I did not miss anything, it was a first cut but it seems plausible, the 779 would have a 12t higher OEW and 30t higher MTOW to gain the same payload-range figure.

[Edited 2013-09-15 23:54:51]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-15 23:58:02 and read 24126 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
Engines:
I took a tuned TXWB 97klbf core and refanned it with a CRRP fan to a 10+ BPR. This increases PR, BPR and thus fuel efficiency to the ballpark of the GE9X. TO Thrust around 100klbf.

You should remove 1t per engine if you are changing fan to CRRP.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-09-16 01:16:05 and read 23726 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 15):

This a-net obsession with not letting other manufacturers eat one another's lunch seems to disregard the development resources needed to field these planes.

Here's the key issue.

Any business has a backlog. if you're a bakery, its cupcake flavors. If you're a software company, its features. If you're a planemaker, its airplanes and their improvements.

These things MUST be prioritized, and you CANNOT do it all at once. You must prioritize these things and do them as makes sense.

The airline industry continues to demand more airplanes. Delta is ordering A321s and 737-900ERs. Others are ordering A350s + 777s of all types.

There's plenty of pie.

NS

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EmiratesEK231
Posted 2013-09-16 01:44:16 and read 23554 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
I added Y type wingtips like the MAX to gain start performance and cruise drag, it takes the effective wing span from 65.7m to 67.0m.

Would that even be feasible, since I'd imagine Boeing definitely has a patent on that design???

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: parapente
Posted 2013-09-16 02:17:38 and read 23461 times.

Re Reply 22
The 777-300 fuselage was a stretch, and the 777-9 fuselage will be another (small) stretch. The airframe itself will of course get a new wing and engines too.

IE The 777-9 is NOT a double stretch as it is getting a totally new (larger) wing.

The 787-10 however is. The issue here is just how compromised will be the range of the aircraft?

It's abit like the A322 argument. Suddenly the wing loading goes off the chart,flight ceilings are compromised (as are landing and T/O speeds), also flying in thicker (lower) air effects fuel consumption and so it goes on. I am surprised that the smallest version of the 787 wing can indeed carry the loads associated with the -10 efficiently. Boeing think so so I guess they are right.

The same would be true of a 1100. Range would suffer heavily. If thats not a problem - and there is a demand for the aircraft then yes - perhaps - one day. But as stated they have more than enough to get on wth at the moment!

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-16 02:41:14 and read 23382 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
And now to the magical numbers, the fuel consumed per pax and 1000nm would be 33kg vs 36kg for the 779, trip fuel for the 8100nm spec trip would be 108t vs 121t. I will have to check that I did not miss anything, it was a first cut but it seems plausible, the 779 would have a 12t higher OEW and 30t higher MTOW to gain the same payload-range figure.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 34):
The airline industry continues to demand more airplanes. Delta is ordering A321s and 737-900ERs. Others are ordering A350s + 777s of all types.

There's plenty of pie.

Yes. plenty of pie available for a lighter A350-1100, IF airbus goes for it, lighter than a 777-9x with more or less the same capacity. Airbus messed up with the 340-550/600, ridiculed!, i repeat they have nothing to offer at 400 seat capacity, and they didnt need it until the 777-9x arrived, as you all know, will they allow the later cannibalize the 350-1000 and the A380 big time! they saw the 777X landing long ago, did the baby ever learn chess game? we're talking about a trillion, yes, trillion dollar market, the wide body jet market.
they cant afford to wait until the 350-1000 is flying to offer a longer jet, by then 90% of the 350-450 seat jets would already be ordered, long gone, to Boeing

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-16 02:54:45 and read 23331 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):

You should remove 1t per engine if you are changing fan to CRRP.

As I raise the BPR the fan and fan case is larger, I have estimated that what I gain on the engines with CFRP I loose in the lager engine dimensions and nacelle and somewhat beefier pylon. I have the engines as a wash.

Quoting EmiratesEK231 (Reply 35):
Would that even be feasible, since I'd imagine Boeing definitely has a patent on that design???

Don't think so, Whitcombs original winglet was a double feather and on that followed Zig double feather designs including the MD-11 and latest from Aviation partner. It should be no IP problem, more a ground clearance one. Key is A needs more aspect ratio to fight with the 779 without going to folding wingtip, this is mined with B patents on the contrary IIRC  .

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aither
Posted 2013-09-16 03:45:20 and read 23097 times.

Quoting worldrider (Thread starter):
By reading recent news its quite obvious Airbus is leaving a promissing market to Boeing, the ~350-410 seat range.

I'm not sure it's so obvious. From many hubs there is clear gap between routes to the big "world cities" (LHR, LAX, etc.) and the other markets that are much much smaller.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-16 04:07:13 and read 23044 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 37):

A350-1000 should be flying in 2016. You think that 90% of the 400 seat market will be gone by then? The 757-300 and the 767-400 might have sold similarly but they were not successful frames. All successful aircraft are sold over 15+ years.

The A350 already has ~700 orders and zero are in service and probably won't be for a year. Their goal is about 10/month by around 2017 which means slots are full into the 2020s and no one can be sure that the supply chain will fully ramp up so quickly. There is a lot of work to be done with what they have at the moment.

I really don't see this as that big of a market that Airbus needs a response.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-16 04:29:25 and read 22915 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 27):

Problem with the A350 is, it's not wide enough, it will have to be stretched excessively to compete with the new triple 7's on capacity and that will cost too much on the weight side.

wouldn't they be able to make it up in total revenue by touting the higher cargo-to-bags ratio ?

The bigger issue seems not to be Airbus failing to make a A35K, but Airbus not optimizing the A358.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-16 06:17:48 and read 22720 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 38):
As I raise the BPR the fan and fan case is larger, I have estimated that what I gain on the engines with CFRP I loose in the lager engine dimensions and nacelle and somewhat beefier pylon. I have the engines as a wash.

Why bother re-engineering the TXWB to raise BPR? RR can most probably add 3k thrust without any major work plus year on year improvements will get it to GE90x levels in the next 8 years which is when the 777x will EIS. Just re-fan it with CRRP, save 2 tonnes in OEW and add efficiency through weight loss, simple.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-16 08:45:38 and read 22523 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 41):
The bigger issue seems not to be Airbus failing to make a A35K, but Airbus not optimizing the A358.

Agreed. The latter should be the priority in my opinion and it is low hanging fruit.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
RR can most probably add 3k thrust without any major work

It should take more than 3k to do the job.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-16 09:06:58 and read 22474 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43):
It should take more than 3k to do the job.

I don't think so but it depends on the length of the stretch and what they decide to make MTOW, but for reference the 4k boost from 93-97klbs allowed a 10t MTOW growth and 400nm range increase so 3k will be plenty for even a 5m stretch.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43):
Agreed. The latter should be the priority in my opinion and it is low hanging fruit.

The A358 is not going change, if it does it gets pushed beyond 2018 because of the -1000 development. The low hanging fruit is a A330NEO.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AustrianZRH
Posted 2013-09-16 09:22:01 and read 22426 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 37):
Airbus messed up with the 340-550/600, ridiculed!

We might even be in the same situation as we were before - just the other way round. Airbus designed the A345/A346 with 742/743 replacement in mind, and compete with the 744 on the lower end. The only pity was that Boeing had the more modern 777 at hand to further develop into the 777-300ER - and the rest is history, as they say. The 346 was never the dog it was made to here on a.net - until the 788 came online it was probably the 2nd-most efficient plane flying!

So now Boeing is tweaking the 777 into another generation - history might repeat itself if Airbus engineers manage to do to the A350 what Boeing did to the 777. Boeing will have an extremely efficient 777 derivative on offer - but maybe the European guys will simply manage to have something more efficient!

And yes, I am an Airbus fanboy, so please bear with me  .

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-16 09:36:21 and read 22399 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):

The A358 is not going change, if it does it gets pushed beyond 2018 because of the -1000 development. The low hanging fruit is a A330NEO.

Agreed. A 332neo or 333neo with low-enough up-front sticker price would give 787-8 a run for its money on short-haul or mid-haul routes.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-09-16 09:54:54 and read 22353 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 9):
However, if Airbus wants the -1100 to compete head to head with the 779 in payload and range, a simple stretch will not work.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
So even if the 35K ( ) would have a lower OEW it needs a LOT of changes to be competitive with the 779 (the wing and engines need to be as good).

Why is everyone implying that a -1100 would be competing with the 779? Airbus already has the A3510 for that. The 779 was launched as the direct competitor to the A3510. As I see it, the -1100 would be a regional VLA. Its range would be secondary only to its ability to carry more payload a shorter distance.
What would the range be for an hypothetical simple streatch of the A3510?

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-16 09:57:49 and read 22407 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
The low hanging fruit is a A330NEO.

Not going to happen.   



Quoting a380787 (Reply 46):
Agreed. A 332neo or 333neo with low-enough up-front sticker price would give 787-8 a run for its money on short-haul or mid-haul routes.

It would be a less-effective competitor than the A350-800 and that model isn't doing so hot against the 787-8 at the moment.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-16 10:02:48 and read 22360 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 9):
As karelXWB and tortugamon mentioned, the A35K is surely doable but it wouldn't be simple as one like to think.

It will be a nice design challenge for the Airbus research and development teams after the A350's are in full production and after the B77X-program is also in production. With the order book as full as it is they have plenty of time to react.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
So even if the 35K (  ) would have a lower OEW it needs a LOT of changes to be competitive with the 779 (the wing and engines need to be as good). It is a major project, one that A would like to do after the 35J is flying and a good way through certification.

Exactly.   .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
I made a quick check of what a -1100 could possibly look like. Here the data:

Fuselage:
I added 9 frames, 5 before the wing and 4 aft (like the 787-10) which makes for a 78m fuselage (frame spacing is 0.635m). This takes the wettted area from 1220m2 to 1330m2.

Wing:
I added Y type wingtips like the MAX to gain start performance and cruise drag, it takes the effective wing span from 65.7m to 67.0m. The 779 effective wingspan is 70m but it is heavier.

Engines:
I took a tuned TXWB 97klbf core and refanned it with a CRRP fan to a 10+ BPR. This increases PR, BPR and thus fuel efficiency to the ballpark of the GE9X. TO Thrust around 100klbf.


These changes brings the OEW from some 150t to about 160-165t, it put in 163t. It all now requires a MTOW of 320t to make the bird fly 8100nm ESAD which is rumored to be the spec range of the 779. That weight gives a wingloading of 690kg/m2 which is a little below the 779 and should be OK. The MLG would need some tuning to take the higher weight and help with the tail clearance.

And now to the magical numbers, the fuel consumed per pax and 1000nm would be 33kg vs 36kg for the 779, trip fuel for the 8100nm spec trip would be 108t vs 121t. I will have to check that I did not miss anything, it was a first cut but it seems plausible, the 779 would have a 12t higher OEW and 30t higher MTOW to gain the same payload-range figure.

Great analysis. Thanks for that. After 2020, there is plenty of room to go after an A35K or A350-1100.  .

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-09-16 10:24:36 and read 22292 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 46):
Agreed. A 332neo or 333neo with low-enough up-front sticker price would give 787-8 a run for its money on short-haul or mid-haul routes.

A very cheap 330neo, would find a sweet spot, one of the main reasons the 787 sold like crazy at launch was its price just north of 115 million (according to industry lore), now its over 200 million, the 777 is a very expensive airplane, if A
Airbus offers a 330Neo at 165 million or less, a lot of airlines would order it, because of the proven performance, commonality and capital expenditure BUT...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
Not going to happen.   

Its not going to happen because why Airbus would shoot itself in the foot and cannibalize its own new product?

Seeing the price of the 777 and the possible higher prices for the next gen T7, the A380 getting to the break even point, airbus can offer a bigger, airplane at a price not far away from the T7next gen.

Something to wonder, and to prove once again that some little changes and price, make huge differences in sales.

TRB

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-16 10:45:08 and read 22287 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 50):
Its not going to happen because why Airbus would shoot itself in the foot and cannibalize its own new product?

That's part of it.

On a 4000nm mission, Airbus claims the A350-800 is 23% more fuel efficient per seat than an A330-200 - and that's with no effort whatsoever put into the A350-800 beyond pulling 10 fuselage frames.

There is no way new engines are going to get an A330-200 near that level of efficiency.   

Even Airbus expects the A330-200 to only sell as a freighter once the A350-800 is available in quantity.



Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 50):
A very cheap 330neo, would find a sweet spot, one of the main reasons the 787 sold like crazy at launch was its price just north of 115 million (according to industry lore), now its over 200 million...

If it costs a billion to hang new engines off the A320 family, it's going to be at least that expensive - and probably more - to hang them off the A330 family. And then there is the billion or more GE or RR will need to spend to create the GEnx-1A and Trent 1700 again. The airframe and engine OEMs are going to want a positive return on that investment so the price of an A330neo is certainly not going to be trending down.   

If Airbus is desperate to shift A330s (and at the moment, they give no signs of appearing to be), they should have pretty good margins to work with, allowing them to reduce the Average Sales Price by a few tens of millions.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-09-16 11:00:47 and read 22079 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):

Agree 100% thanks for the additional nails in the coffin for the 330neo, as much as I like it, it will die, killed by new tech...

TRB

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-16 11:16:40 and read 22017 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 52):
Agree 100% thanks for the additional nails in the coffin for the 330neo, as much as I like it, it will die, killed by new tech...


You are welcome.



A new engine option works for the A320 and the 737 because the airframes are already very optimized for their roles and the weight-saving benefits of primary CFRP structures and electrical architectures are not nearly as impressive on their small frames compared to large widebodies like the 787, 777 and A350.

As such, a new engine option was an inexpensive, yet effective way to keep the A320 and 737 families competitive with new entrants like the CSeries, MS-21 and C919 over the next two decades or so until Airbus and Boeing are ready to put their next generation of narrowbody families into service.

For the 767, 777, A330 and A340 families, they all have new competitors in the 787 and A350 that are overall sufficiently better that new engines alone are not enough to keep them competitive. This is why Boeing is having to make so many changes to the 777X beyond new engines for it to have a hope of being competitive against the A350-900 and A350-1000 and even there, Boeing needs to increase seat counts as well to help lower the CASM.

The 767, A330 and A340 cannot benefit from the level of enhancements that Boeing is planning for the 777X because the 787 is already larger than the 767 and the A350 is already larger than the A330 and A340. So the new planes would still have a CASM advantage from their higher seat counts even if the 767, A330 and A340 were as heavily modified as the 777X looks like it will be.

The 757 is in a slightly different boat for while it is a bit longer than the 737-9 and A321-200neo, it is also a fair bit heavier and has "bespoke" engines powering it so the costs of developing a new engine for it would be a fair it higher in comparison to what is being spent to develop them for the 737-900ER and A321-200neo. A fair bit of the 757 fleet is getting on in years and cycles, as well, so even with new engines, they'd still suffer from higher maintenance costs and that would impact the desirability with operators.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-16 17:27:38 and read 21447 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 57):
An available current generation bleed engine is a problem for RR but a GEnx-2B should work just fine, it is exactly the same diameter as a CF6

Based on the Engine Yearbook data, the GEnx2B is similar in length to the CF6-80E1-A3, but the fan is larger and the weight is 8000 pounds heavier. That last one is going to impact mounting, I would think...

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 57):
Sales price includes more items than production cost, you conveniently forget that Airbus

A) Has already amortised the program cost over 1000+ delivered frames
B) Has been driving the cost of production of the A330 down for 20 years

This would allow Airbus to offer the aircraft for a competitive price, we should also add

I did not forget any of that - I did note in my original reply that Airbus had sufficient margin built into the A330 (for those reasons even if I did not specifically list them) to discount the ASP by eight-figures if they wanted to shift product.



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 57):
C) Every 787 that they kill at birth deprives Boeing of revenue

And every cheap A330neo they sell kills an expensive A350 at birth and that deprives Airbus of revenue.

And unlike the A330 program, the A350 program cost has not been amortized nor is the cost of production very low. So Airbus could very much use that revenue.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-09-16 19:15:05 and read 21344 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
If Airbus is desperate to shift A330s (and at the moment, they give no signs of appearing to be), they should have pretty good margins to work with, allowing them to reduce the Average Sales Price by a few tens of millions.

  

Competitive advantage isn't just about CASM and exotic technical specs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
Based on the Engine Yearbook data, the GEnx2B is similar in length to the CF6-80E1-A3, but the fan is larger and the weight is 8000 pounds heavier. That last one is going to impact mounting, I would think...

Airbus have stated that the extra weight of new engines for any 330Neo would require extensive modifications to the wing, centre wing box, main gear and many other less obvious features. The R&D would be in the billions which would then wipe out the 330's main competitive advantage of price for somewhat modest gains in fuel efficiency.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-09-17 02:32:00 and read 21115 times.

Both manufacturers accept that the giant airline groupings will mix and match between the products of Boeing and Airbus, especially with widebodies, and will happily fly in the future a mix of A330s, 787s, A350s, 777s and A380s. Each plane has its own sweet spot, perfectly suited for a mission, thus avoiding the 737 vs A320 direct battles, or the 3 way engine battles on early 777s...

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-17 06:16:02 and read 20920 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 56):
and will happily fly in the future a mix of A330s, 787s, A350s, 777s and A380s.

Generally agree, AirbusA6. Have to wonder, though, whether Airbus have got their overall strategy right. Agreed, the A330 is still selling quite well; but the A380 (like the B748, apart from freighters) isn't attracting any orders worth mentioning?

I'm afraid that I do begin to wonder if (please excuse the pun  ) Airbus have 'missed the bus' by only countering Boeing's new types with the A350 (which looks like competing adequately with the 787, but NOT with the likely 'new generation' 777s)?

[Edited 2013-09-17 06:19:18]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-17 06:20:21 and read 20905 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 57):
I'm afraid that I do begin to wonder if (please excuse the pun &nbsp Wink Airbus 'have 'missed the bus'

I am not afraid of that at all. Maybe Boeing missed the bus with their execution of a strategy which on paper looks very good?   

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-17 07:06:21 and read 20800 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 58):
Maybe Boeing missed the bus with their execution of a strategy which on paper looks very good?

Of course that's equally possible at this stage, EPA001.

It's a 'toss-up,' really. Boeing are clearly taking the view that the big fours have had their day, and that the future lies in the development of say 450-seat big twins - which they are well-placed to design and produce quite soon. Airbus seem equally convinced that A380 sales will revive, occupying the ground 'vacated' by the B748 being discontinued; and that the A350 in its present form (competing mainly with the 787 and the smaller 777s) will be sufficient to keep the Airbus range competitive?

Just a case of 'interesting times ahead,' in my view. Either firm could be right...........

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 07:10:54 and read 20804 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 59):
and that the future lies in the development of say 450-seat big twins

Except that the 777X won't be a 450-class twin.

[Edited 2013-09-17 07:16:55]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: finn350
Posted 2013-09-17 07:19:20 and read 20756 times.

Just remember the history:

Boeing decided to launch the 787.

Airbus said that re-engineering A330 is enough to counter the 787 and launched the original A350.
Then Airbus realized that re-engineering A330 is not enough and Airbus launched a clean-sheet design, A350 XWB. Airbus aimed for a double-strike: both 787 and 777 would be targeted with the new A350 XWB.

Boeing said there is no need to re-engineer 777-300ER to counter A350-1000. Then Boeing realized that is has to substantially re-engineer 777 to counter A350 XWB and is about to launch 777-8/9 .

Now it is Airbus' turn to react. Airbus has to either give away 400-pax market to Boeing or launch A350-1100 at some point of time in the future. Launching a clean-sheet design to compete againsta 777-8/9 is most likely way too expensive.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 07:27:32 and read 20740 times.

Quoting finn350 (Reply 61):
Now it is Airbus' turn to react. Airbus has to either give away 400-pax market to Boeing or launch A350-1100 at some point of time in the future. Launching a clean-sheet design to compete againsta 777-8/9 is most likely way too expensive.

They can give the 400-seat market to Boeing and go after the 350-seat market instead. This could also equally split the numbers.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-17 07:30:01 and read 20729 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Except that the 777X won't be a 450-class twin.

Fair enough, I guess, KarelXWB - let's just say '400-plus,' then.   I get sick of googling up all sorts of speculative articles every five minutes...........  
Quoting finn350 (Reply 61):
Airbus has to either give away 400-pax market to Boeing or launch A350-1100 at some point of time in the future.

That 'mirrors' my own view, finn350 - unless Airbus suddenly wins about fifty new (and 'urgent'  Smile) orders for the A380............

[Edited 2013-09-17 07:42:31]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 07:44:13 and read 20710 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 63):
I get sick of googling up all sorts of speculative articles every five minutes...........

There is no speculation, it is common knowledge that the 777-9 will feature 407 seats in a typical 3-class Boeing configuration. Even your beloved Wikipedia says so.

And I'm sorry if people force you to "googling" every five minutes, but you can't come to a discussion with wrong information.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: panais
Posted 2013-09-17 07:47:12 and read 20688 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 57):
I'm afraid that I do begin to wonder if (please excuse the pun ) Airbus have 'missed the bus' by only countering Boeing's new types with the A350 (which looks like competing adequately with the 787, but NOT with the likely 'new generation' 777s)?


You got your sizes mixed up. Airbus is going after the size that sells the most, from 270 to 350 seats.
The 787-8 and the 777-9x will be the niche planes of their family.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-17 08:06:58 and read 20607 times.

Quoting panais (Reply 65):
The 787-8 and the 777-9x will be the niche planes of their family.

The 787-8 so far already has 498 firm orders. Airbus would be really glad to be a "niche" that big.

Long-term I expect 787-9 to have most sales, but 787-8 is definitely no slouch.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-17 08:08:20 and read 20617 times.

Quoting panais (Reply 65):
The 787-8 and the 777-9x will be the niche planes of their family.

Honestly don't 'get' that, panais? The 787-8 currently has over 400 orders in hand?

Agreed, it's an open question as to how well the 777-9x will fare, since it hasn't been designed yet. But there's no doubt that the current 777 versions are so far continuing to sell well?

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-17 08:13:15 and read 20616 times.

Quoting panais (Reply 65):
The 787-8 and the 777-9x will be the niche planes of their family.

As niches go, they're rather large.

The 787-8 order book has not seen a significant conversion to the 787-9 - heck, some customers (AA, for example) have converted 787-9s to 787-8s.

And while I've not been a fan of the 777X, LH ordering the 777-9 has forced me to re-evaluate the plane and I'm starting to think Boeing may have a winner on their hands.

I could see IAG ordering it for IB to replace their A340-600 fleet and for BA to replace the high(er)-density 747-400s, I could see VS choosing it for their A340-600 and 747-400 replacement (either finally putting to rest their A380-800 order or using them for LHR-HKG/PVG/NRT/SYD). And I'm pretty confident the Gulf carriers will hoover them up (EK may not be exaggerating when they say they could conceivably use close to 300 777Xs).

[Edited 2013-09-17 08:14:19]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 08:44:24 and read 20555 times.

The 787-8 is certainly not a niche plane. But it might eventually fade away, like happened with the 767-200, because the larger 787-9 will have better economics. Therefore Airbus will not invest heavily in a market that will shift to a larger plane anyway in the near future (post 2020). The A330 might just do fine until 2020, with over 1000 in service by that time.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-17 08:47:11 and read 20546 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
The low hanging fruit is a A330NEO.

Its so low-hanging that it is in the ground dead  . I don't see an engine manufacturer putting in the R&D to get something competitive with the Trent 1000/GE9x.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
the 4k boost from 93-97klbs allowed a 10t MTOW growth and 400nm range increase

It take 13klbf to get from an A359 to a A351. With a larger wing they probably would not need a full 13k for this hypothetical case but it should be closer to that than 3k.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
I could see IAG ordering it for IB to replace their A340-600 fleet and for BA to replace the high(er)-density 747-400s, I could see VS choosing it for their A340-600 and 747-400 replacement (either finally putting to rest their A380-800 order or using them for LHR-HKG/PVG/NRT/SYD). And I'm pretty confident the Gulf carriers will hoover them up (EK may not be exaggerating when they say they could conceivably use close to 300 777Xs)

Agreed and with the recent speculation about CX also forgoing a VLA for the 777-9x; it could really be a solid program to be sure. I personally did not think too many operators would be using the 777-9x and the A351 in the same fleet but the chatter seems to indicate that will be the case.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 08:59:53 and read 20520 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
I personally did not think too many operators would be using the 777-9x and the A351 in the same fleet but the chatter seems to indicate that will be the case.

There is a big gap of almost 60 seats between the A350-1000 and 777-9, that's even more than the difference between the 787-9 - A350-900 and yet many airlines are buying both. I think BA, CX and EK having the -1000 on order but also being interested in the 777-9 are proving you can use both too. The -1000 can also be used for airlines who are looking for something more than 300 seats (growth), but thinks 400 seats is too much on certain routes.

[Edited 2013-09-17 09:01:16]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-17 09:33:02 and read 20464 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
Therefore Airbus will not invest heavily in a market that will shift to a larger plane anyway in the near future (post 2020)

I am not so sure that the sales for the 787-8 will completely dry up. The A330-200 sales are drying up now that the A333 range has picked up but it still had a very healthy run as a shrink. There are many airlines that have the 767 as their largest plane and the 787-9/A58 could be just too much. Also the low cost carriers seem to be flocking to the 788 as well fitting 300+ seats in an aircraft designed for 240. They may not have a need for much more space as well. I agree that the larger variants will be better selling but I think the 788 will stay relevant if they are able to drop the OEW from 177.7 to below 115 or so.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
The A330 might just do fine until 2020, with over 1000 in service by that time.

Haven't they already delivered 1,000? Shouldn't be too long  

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-09-17 09:47:26 and read 20423 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
And while I've not been a fan of the 777X, LH ordering the 777-9 has forced me to re-evaluate the plane and I'm starting to think Boeing may have a winner on their hands.

I wouldn't base it on LH alone. LH is anything but mainstream when it comes to fleet selection. They have stayed away from the 777 entirely, and are essentially the only customer of the 748i (I know that a few others have ordered in small numbers).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
The 787-8 is certainly not a niche plane. But it might eventually fade away, like happened with the 767-200

It is a nice in the same sense that the 762 and A332 are niche aircraft. The busines case for it at launch was different than what it is today, and it could very well disappear in a few years. Even if the 400+ orders remain, we're talking about a market that is in the thousands.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-17 09:49:02 and read 20442 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 73):
I wouldn't base it on LH alone. LH is anything but mainstream when it comes to fleet selection.

Well I've argued for years that LH would not order it, so that they did surprised the heck out of me. As such, they must see something in it to choose it over the A350-1000 at this time.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-09-17 09:52:16 and read 20428 times.

Quoting worldrider (Thread starter):
a 78m? streched A350-1100

It is not going to happen, regardless of 777X sales. The development costs would be high since the A350 was not intended to be that long, it could not be used at some airports because it exceeds the 75M standard, and it would be a low volume specialty aircraft.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-17 10:18:39 and read 20408 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
I am not so sure that the sales for the 787-8 will completely dry up. The A330-200 sales are drying up now that the A333 range has picked up but it still had a very healthy run as a shrink.

A332 sales are stalling because the range of the larger A333 had been increased. The -300 can do almost all -200 missions but with more seats, thus a lower CASM and more revenue.

The 788 vs 789 is a bit different, because the 789 already has more range than the 788. I don't expect many new sales for smallest 787 once the backlog has shrunk, and when you can get a 789 within 2-3 years, somewhere beyond 2020.

Even Boeing believes the larger 787 will become the sweet spot.

http://twitter.com/dominicgates/status/380014324145598464

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
Also the low cost carriers seem to be flocking to the 788 as well fitting 300+ seats in an aircraft designed for 240.

But you are now comparing a 2-class cabin with a 3-class cabin.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
Haven't they already delivered 1,000? Shouldn't be too long

Delivered yes, but there aren't 1000 A330s in service yet. Some are stored, others were scraped.

[Edited 2013-09-17 11:19:04]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-17 14:54:40 and read 20191 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
I don't expect many new sales for smallest 787 once the backlog has shrunk

As I mentioned, some airlines will have a hard time with the larger frame. For example: LAN seats 221 seats in its J-heavy 763s. The 787-8 adds 26 Y seats or about 12% more seats. If they jump to the 787-9 the capacity grows by almost 33%. Now maybe they have ordered what they need and won't order in your post 2020 timeframe, but the US majors have only about 57 787-8s on order for almost 140 763s on-hand; I cannot see all of these 767s turning into 787-9s when all is said and done.

Plus, some airlines are going to want 787-8s to test new routes before they dedicate the larger aircraft to these untested routes. Can you see routes like LHR-AUS, NRT-BOS, OSL-OAK turning into 787-9 routes?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
Even Boeing believes the larger 787 will become the sweet spot.

I completely agree that it is the better frame. I fully expect it to be the best selling as well. I just believe that not all 767 operators will be able to jump up to a 777-sized aircraft just because its more efficient. The 787-8 is already a capacity bump.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
But you are now comparing a 2-class cabin with a 3-class cabin.

Not sure how that changes the thought that LCC are using the 788 in solid numbers and may not want to change to the larger airframe. QR fits 254 seats in its two-class 787s clearly the DYs, ANAs (domestic), Jetstar's, etc are going for a different kind of customer. Not sure if these low cost carriers are going to have a need for 350-400 seats the same way they seem to like the 290-335 option.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
Delivered yes, but there aren't 1000 A330s in service yet.

Wiki says 972 were in service at the end of May. Its obviously very close and won't need until 2020. 1,500 should be a much closer figure by then.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-09-17 19:32:40 and read 20041 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 59):
Boeing are clearly taking the view that the big fours have had their day, and that the future lies in the development of say 450-seat big twins - which they are well-placed to design and produce quite soon.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Except that the 777X won't be a 450-class twin.

It has been quite an effort for Boeing to get the 777X to 407 seats - thats about as far as it can go (other than bone crushing high density layouts).
The big twin that will comfortably seat 450 pax is most likely to be Y3 and thanks to the need to get a decent ROI on the massive R&D for the 777X program any Y3 is going to be pushed a long long way into the future - it wont be happening "soon". One consolation for Boeing is that Airbus is very much in the same position with the 350 family not even out of the blocks at this point in time. Airbus also don't want to see any 450 seat twins being marketed while they are selling the 380.


Regards
StickShaker

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-09-17 20:40:39 and read 19981 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
And while I've not been a fan of the 777X, LH ordering the 777-9 has forced me to re-evaluate the plane and I'm starting to think Boeing may have a winner on their hands.

Well, as devil's adovcate:

"And while I've not been a fan of the 747X, LH ordering the 747-8 has forced me to re-evaluate the plane and I'm starting to think Boeing may have a winner on their hands."  

To be fair, you have not suggested that, but I guess I'm still where you have been - mildly to moderately skeptical of the 777X program.

-Dave

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-09-17 20:52:48 and read 19946 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
I really don't see this as that big of a market that Airbus needs a response.

Agreed, I think worldrider is fretting about very little. There's no need for Airbus to do a kneejerk response and launch a costly double stretch on top of all it's already doing before it's even clear how large a market for the as yet unlaunched 777-9X there is. It might well NOT be worth it to for Airbus to chase Boeing into this niche, just as Boeing felt it wasn't worth chasing Airbus into the Superjumbo market. As was said earlier, neither airframer has the resources to cover all market niches and both have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable. A350-1000 may very well be even with the 777-8X, despite less advanced engines, owing to its lighter weight. Doing a costly complex double stretch to match the -9X in the near term for an as yet undetermined market size makes no sense at all; best to wait at least until the 777-9X is fully defined and see how much early interest there is in it.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: panais
Posted 2013-09-18 00:52:13 and read 19758 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 66):
The 787-8 so far already has 498 firm orders. Airbus would be really glad to be a "niche" that big.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
Honestly don't 'get' that, panais? The 787-8 currently has over 400 orders in hand?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
As niches go, they're rather large.

Look at it from a numbers perspective. If Boeing forecasts that the small widebody market from 2013 - 2032 will have a size of 4,530 airplanes and if they manage to get 50% of that market, then 498 firm orders are about 22% of that market. The 767-200 was 23% of the 767 market. Everybody seems to agree that the 787-9, -10 will get the bulk of the orders, just like with the 767.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
The 787-8 order book has not seen a significant conversion to the 787-9 - heck, some customers (AA, for example) have converted 787-9s to 787-8s.

787-8 conversions to 787-9 = 179 airplanes, 15 Airlines
787-9 conversions to 787-8 = 27 airplanes, 4 Airlines

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2013-09-18 01:25:36 and read 19738 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79):
To be fair, you have not suggested that, but I guess I'm still where you have been - mildly to moderately skeptical of the 777X program.

I'm also in the sceptical camp, and the figures produced by ferpe further up thread concern me as far as the 779 go-

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
And now to the magical numbers, the fuel consumed per pax and 1000nm would be 33kg vs 36kg for the 779, trip fuel for the 8100nm spec trip would be 108t vs 121t. I will have to check that I did not miss anything, it was a first cut but it seems plausible, the 779 would have a 12t higher OEW and 30t higher MTOW to gain the same payload-range figure.

That's a 10% fuel burn difference. That's in the ballpark of the cost difference that done for the 346. As ferpe often acknowledges, there will be some leeway with his numbers, but it doesn't look too rosy at the moment. This type of analysis, which I'm sure Airbus has done, makes the decision to launch the 3511 in 2017 for EIS for about 2020 easy. The engineers will be free after 3510 and 320neo are in service, so I see the 3511 and a 389 as the next projects.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-18 01:37:46 and read 19771 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
the 779 would have a 12t higher OEW and 30t higher MTOW to gain the same payload-range figure.

What are your 6000 nm numbers ? the A350-1000 to 77W is about 20t lighter OEW and 20t less fuel for a 6000 nm trip (40t lower TOW).

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-18 02:03:10 and read 19702 times.

Quoting panais (Reply 81):
Look at it from a numbers perspective. If Boeing forecasts that the small widebody market from 2013 - 2032 will have a size of 4,530 airplanes and if they manage to get 50% of that market, then 498 firm orders are about 22% of that market. The 767-200 was 23% of the 767 market. Everybody seems to agree that the 787-9, -10 will get the bulk of the orders, just like with the 767.

You're assuming the entire demand of 4530 is already on the books today. Summing up all orders of 787, 350, and outstanding backlog of 77L and 330 doesn't even come close to that figure today.

There's a difference between minority market share (e.g. 787-8) and "niche" (e.g. A340-500). Is it getting lost in translation here ?

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: parapente
Posted 2013-09-18 02:24:54 and read 19642 times.

Reply 78 stickshaker.

It has been quite an effort for Boeing to get the 777X to 407 seats - thats about as far as it can go (other than bone crushing high density layouts).
The big twin that will comfortably seat 450 pax is most likely to be Y3 and thanks to the need to get a decent ROI on the massive R&D for the 777X program any Y3 is going to be pushed a long long way into the future - it wont be happening "soon". One consolation for Boeing is that Airbus is very much in the same position with the 350 family not even out of the blocks at this point in time. Airbus also don't want to see any 450 seat twins being marketed while they are selling the 380.


This is my great sadness.Over the last decade we have seen all sectors of aircraft refreshed.

380/748
77X/3510
787/350
737/320 both "NEO's.

All are 20th centuary engineering designs.All watching each others backs. No one trying to "break the mould". Airbus never have tried and never will. Boeing just don't dare any more.

Belatedly producing a warmed up 747 was a big knee jerk and wrong reaction. I fear this may be the case too for the 777X.Having said this it will probably do ok.But then thats it - all aircraft revamped and no real "move forward".

The (BWB) X-48C has now completed (I think) it's test flights and from what I have read - done very well. This scaled aircraft was based on a single pax deck of 450 Pax and a lower cargo hold. Such an aircraft from "wing" design alone was predicted to be 30% plus more efficient than anything else out there. And in the -C configuration nearly silent. Add pehaps a geared next gen fan engine and it would not matter whether it 'could' take 450 pax it would (have been?) be more efficient than a full 350 pax aircraft! It would have swept the floor for decades to come.

But we are not now going to see it in my life time.

We will continue to discuss the colour of the chrome (ie nothing of importance) of standard tube and wing aircraft. Shame.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-09-18 05:19:52 and read 19466 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
Well I've argued for years that LH would not order it, so that they did surprised the heck out of me. As such, they must see something in it to choose it over the A350-1000 at this time.

What they've seen was competition from EK who are packing 10 abreast in their 77W's. LH wouldn't be able to do that with the A350-1000.

Quoting parapente (Reply 85):
All are 20th centuary engineering designs.All watching each others backs. No one trying to "break the mould". Airbus never have tried and never will. Boeing just don't dare any more.

Are you kidding? You do realize that the 21th century is just starting right? Of course all are 20th century designs. That's when they were conceived   What exactly does your mold looks like if the 787 and A350 are not breaking the mold? Each is 15-20+% more efficient than the airplanes that they are replacing.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 05:41:37 and read 19421 times.

Quoting panais (Reply 81):
787-8 conversions to 787-9 = 179 airplanes, 15 Airlines

Many of these order conversions could have been just 787-8 place holders where they waited to upgrade in order to save on down payment costs. Many traded up for economics reasons but probably not all of them. Regardless, I expect more to come.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 82):
That's a 10% fuel burn difference.

Nobody is doubting that it would be more efficient. Of course a new build 777-9x would be more efficient than the current proposal and if Airbus scales all components of the A351 to the A3511, of course it would be more efficient. Hopefully it does not surprise anyone. The NSA would have been more efficient than the 737 Max as well. And Ferpe's numbers show 12% more efficient, not 10.

Investing ~$3B to split a 400-seat market is not a wise investment when there are other projects that have a better return. The A351 will do just fine on its own.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 82):
the decision to launch the 3511 in 2017 for EIS for about 2020 easy.

It is a very easy decision: don't do it. Programs take 5-6 years from launch to EIS now, not 3. GE started the GE9x two years ago it won't enter service until 2019 at the earliest. A 350-11 that would make sense would be a simple stretch as you would not need a new engine and it would just trade range for capacity. However, I think the A351 will already have a solid share of this market so I think it will be competing with its sister.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 82):
The engineers will be free after 3510 and 320neo are in service, so I see the 3511 and a 389 as the next projects.

A358 optimized, A389, and A359F should all be higher priorities in my opinion. Despite being in a different class, an A389 would be an excellent competitor to the economics of a 777-9x.

Quoting parapente (Reply 85):
No one trying to "break the mould".

I would argue that the 787 tried to break it. New materials, new power systems, new engine types. Still tube on wings, I know but it is a very efficient design to carry people and a lot of infrastructure is based on it. The problem I have is that one of the lessons of the 787 program is not to over reach and instead focus on incremental improvements or you might get burned. Not the type of environment that is conducive to the BWB concept  .

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: parapente
Posted 2013-09-18 07:15:29 and read 19284 times.

I would argue that the 787 tried to break it. New materials, new power systems, new engine types. Still tube on wings, I know but it is a very efficient design to carry people and a lot of infrastructure is based on it. The problem I have is that one of the lessons of the 787 program is not to over reach and instead focus on incremental improvements or you might get burned. Not the type of environment that is conducive to the BWB concept .

tortugamon

You are right of course and indeed Boeing did offer the (Trans) Sonic Cruiser and the market answered. Yes it would be far too much of a risk I guess. Just that it- 777X -was 'the last chance'. Can't see any totally new planes now for a long time to come,the die is cast.
I guess it is because I come from the Jumbo/Concorde/Apollo era! Ah well!

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 07:50:55 and read 19223 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 88):
I guess it is because I come from the Jumbo/Concorde/Apollo era! Ah well!

The Jumbo has incrementally improved but you are right in that no commercial aircraft has had a similarl level of 'disrupter' status like the original.

Unfortunately we have gone backwards from Concorde technology. A lot of what we have collectively learned from that program hasn't been used in commercial aviation since. Its sad when technology backslides.

I think I will also agree with you on Apollo. We have not been similarly compelled to very lofty seemingly unattainable goals like that. Its amazing what the cold war brought to a head. Not that dissimilar to what Boeing/Airbus do for each other.

However, similarly disruptive I think the Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites and SpaceX (Dragon, Dragonfly, etc) are going to change space flight for the better. The concept of sending someone to the moon was shocking to most in the 60's but the idea of private companies sending private citizens there is also extremely impressive. Now if we can only get the Elon Musks and Burt Rutans of the world to change their gaze toward commercial aviation.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-18 09:08:00 and read 19089 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79):
Well, as devil's adovcate:

"And while I've not been a fan of the 747X, LH ordering the 747-8 has forced me to re-evaluate the plane and I'm starting to think Boeing may have a winner on their hands."  

To be fair, you have not suggested that, but I guess I'm still where you have been - mildly to moderately skeptical of the 777X program.

And to be honest, I have not been a fan of the 747-8 and have generally held the view it was a mistake for Boeing to launch.

That being said, LH has long-expressed interest in a larger 747 (at least back to 2000), whereas they have repeatedly passed over the 777 until now.



Quoting panais (Reply 81):
Look at it from a numbers perspective. If Boeing forecasts that the small widebody market from 2013 - 2032 will have a size of 4,530 airplanes and if they manage to get 50% of that market, then 498 firm orders are about 22% of that market. The 767-200 was 23% of the 767 market. Everybody seems to agree that the 787-9, -10 will get the bulk of the orders, just like with the 767.

And I am in full agreement the 787-8 will be the lowest-selling member of the family when the final totals are tallied (hopefully) many decades down the road. But still, ~500 airframes is nothing to sneeze at.  
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 82):
I'm also in the sceptical camp, and the figures produced by ferpe further up thread concern me as far as the 779 go...That's a 10% fuel burn difference. That's in the ballpark of the cost difference that done for the 346.

The A340-600's...disadvantages...were more than just fuel burn, however. It carried less people than the 777-300ER (though it could carry more cargo by weight), the four engines lowered dispatch reliability (if only a couple of percentage points) and may have increased maintenance costs, etc.

While the 777-9 may be certified for the same exit limit as the A350-1000, in practical use it will be able to carry more passengers (and more cargo, at least by volume). It will have two engines, so dispatch reliability and maintenance should be very similar.

So I believe the 10% fuel burn penalty won't be as impacting for the 777-9 as it was for the A340-600. That's not to say it won't have any impact, to be sure.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-18 11:13:39 and read 18956 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 59):
Boeing are clearly taking the view that the big fours have had their day, and that the future lies in the development of say 450-seat big twins - which they are well-placed to design and produce quite soon.

LOL

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Except that the 777X won't be a 450-class twin.

partypooper  
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 63):
I get sick of googling up all sorts of speculative articles every five minutes...........

except when it suits of course

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 64):
you can't come to a discussion with wrong information.

Oh but he can, and does  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
It take 13klbf to get from an A359 to a A351. With a larger wing they probably would not need a full 13k for this hypothetical case but it should be closer to that than 3k

Also bear in mind the A350-1000 has 300nm over the A359

Quoting parapente (Reply 85):
The big twin that will comfortably seat 450 pax is most likely to be Y3 and thanks to the need to get a decent ROI on the massive R&D for the 777X program any Y3 is going to be pushed a long long way into the future - it wont be happening "soon".

I've got to agree, which is why I also agree with this..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
A358 optimized, A389, and A359F should all be higher priorities in my opinion. Despite being in a different class, an A389 would be an excellent competitor to the economics of a 777-9x.

  

Rgds

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2013-09-18 12:42:22 and read 18806 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
Nobody is doubting that it would be more efficient. Of course a new build 777-9x would be more efficient than the current proposal and if Airbus scales all components of the A351 to the A3511, of course it would be more efficient. Hopefully it does not surprise anyone. The NSA would have been more efficient than the 737 Max as well. And Ferpe's numbers show 12% more efficient, not 10.

Investing ~$3B to split a 400-seat market is not a wise investment when there are other projects that have a better return. The A351 will do just fine on its own.

I'm not following you when you say the 779 will be more efficient than the current proposal, I'm (or ferpe was) comparing the 3511 to the 779, not current aircraft.

121t v 108t, 13t less, 13t as a percentage of 121t is 10 (and a bit)%, either way, its a good saving and 12% even better. I thought they'd be closer,

I agree the 3510 will do fine on its own, but why not get a good slice of the 400ish seat market for a reasonable investment. Aircraft sizes are trending upwards so going a bit bigger is, IMHO, future proofing the program. I can see the merits of spending a bit more to match the 779 more closely.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
It is a very easy decision: don't do it. Programs take 5-6 years from launch to EIS now, not 3. GE started the GE9x two years ago it won't enter service until 2019 at the earliest. A 350-11 that would make sense would be a simple stretch as you would not need a new engine and it would just trade range for capacity. However, I think the A351 will already have a solid share of this market so I think it will be competing with its sister.

Its a derivative, surely they won't need 5-6 years for a derivative. The GE9x is quite a big improvement over the GE90, the 3511 will only(I use that word loosely) need some tweeking, surely that doesn't need 4 years plus. I can also see the merits of the straight stretch 35k, cheaper, quicker and can fly the majority of 779 routes. The question I know have is, if a beefed up 3511 can make at least a 10% fuel burn saving, a 3510 stretched 6m may well push that saving north of 15%.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
So I believe the 10% fuel burn penalty won't be as impacting for the 777-9 as it was for the A340-600. That's not to say it won't have any impact, to be sure

As fuel prices increase, and the general consensus seems to follow that they will, the impact of that fuel saving will get bigger and bigger. As it did with the 346 v 77w. I fear history will repeat itself with the roles reversed.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-09-18 14:07:55 and read 18729 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 59):
Boeing are clearly taking the view that the big fours have had their day, and that the future lies in the development of say 450-seat big twins - which they are well-placed to design and produce quite soon.

That is undoubtedly why Boeing continues to invest money into developing the B748, and why it currently has no 450-seat twin on the drawing board...

"Clearly" in your exceptional mind only.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
The 787-8 currently has over 400 orders in hand?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
But there's no doubt that the current 777 versions are so far continuing to sell well?

In the English language, the accepted convention is to put a period after a statement, and a question mark after a question.
Please make up your mind whether you want to make a statement or ask a question.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 14:46:53 and read 18645 times.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):
I'm not following you when you say the 779 will be more efficient than the current proposal, I'm (or ferpe was) comparing the 3511 to the 779, not current aircraft.

Re-read and look for the words 'new build' vs 'current proposal' and it should become clear. I was comparing a clean sheet program vs the current stretched proposal.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):
but why not get a good slice of the 400ish seat market for a reasonable investment

Because it isn't a good investment. There aren't enough incremental planes to sell and it would take too much money to get those few sales. I feel like I am writing in circles here. Make you case: how big do you think this 400 seat market is? How much money do you think it would take to create a program that could compete with the 779? What is the margin per incremental plane? Where is the break even point? Why would that program be more valuable than an A389?

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):
surely they won't need 5-6 years for a derivative

787-10 is a derivative without a new engine that is being launched in 2013 and delivered in 2018.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):
the 3511 will only(I use that word loosely) need some tweeking

Not if it wants to close the gap on the 5% gain the GE9x is supposed to have one the Trent XWB.

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-18 14:52:11 and read 18673 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Not if it wants to close the gap on the 5% gain the GE9x is supposed to have one the Trent XWB.

Define what the 5% is supposed to be, I assume TSFC not block fuel flow. The GE9 engine will need to produce more will need to produce more thrust in cruise.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 14:54:15 and read 18633 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 95):

Yes TSFC

tortugamon

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-18 15:00:30 and read 18637 times.

This thread is going too fast to follow, I will try to answer everyone asap.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Not if it wants to close the gap on the 5% gain the GE9x is supposed to have one the Trent XWB.

Not sure if that is necessary, the GE9x engine will burn less fuel but that doesn't mean the engine/airframe combination will burn less fuel per passenger. The 777X is heavier thus need a lower fuel burn to compensate.

With the knowledge of today, both A350 and 777X will have around the same fuel burn per passenger despite the lower engine fuel burn of the latter one. Of course, the 779 will have a higher trip cost, but will also generate more revenue.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
The problem for Airbus is that the 777 cross section is 0.4m wider an therefore more suitable for 75m birds, it is struturally more efficient and seats 10 abreast in Y. A 350-1100 would have to add a stretch of 6m to enable an additional 6 rows of Y to come in the 404 seats range. It means we would be looking at bird 78m long, 3 meters longer then the A346 and 2 meters longer then the 779! It would weight less (probable OEW around 160-165t versus 175t for the 779) but would need changes to MLG (articulating as the 777), the wing (the 779 has a 71m span versus 65m for the 35J) and engines (the 779 has 103klbf engines with PR 60 vs 97klbf with PR 53).

Indeed, except that a -1100 won't need 400 seats to compete with the 779. An 3 meter stretch with 380 seats might do the job just fine, and have a lower CASM.

[Edited 2013-09-18 15:32:50]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-18 15:26:39 and read 18556 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
So I believe the 10% fuel burn penalty won't be as impacting for the 777-9 as it was for the A340-600. That's not to say it won't have any impact, to be sure.

It might have some impact, but the 779 will also seat 60 more pax = more revenue.

Don't look too much at fuel burn numbers, there are many other variables involved.

[edit]

I now read these numbers are for a theoretical 400 pax -1100, in that case forget my above sentence.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 89):
However, similarly disruptive I think the Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites and SpaceX (Dragon, Dragonfly, etc) are going to change space flight for the better. The concept of sending someone to the moon was shocking to most in the 60's but the idea of private companies sending private citizens there is also extremely impressive. Now if we can only get the Elon Musks and Burt Rutans of the world to change their gaze toward commercial aviation.

Yes, I'm keeping an eye on this development.

If Virgin Galactic becomes a success, more private companies will join the party and eventually compete with each other. New technology will become available, can travel higher and faster etc and will cut costs. A ticket today is already very cheap, $200,000 I believe, and don't be surprised to get a ticket for $20,000 over 20-30 years. That's still no lunch money of course, but within reach of many people.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 86):
What they've seen was competition from EK who are packing 10 abreast in their 77W's. LH wouldn't be able to do that with the A350-1000.

Indeed. Also, the -1000 would have around the same seat count as the A346 while Lufthansa needs something bigger. The 779 will also have a payload/range advantage: it can haul more payload a bit further than the -1000 which makes it interesting as cargo workhorse for Lufthansa.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart35J-8Xand-9XJulycorrected2013_zpsc99befda.jpg

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
The A340-600's...disadvantages...were more than just fuel burn, however. It carried less people than the 777-300ER (though it could carry more cargo by weight), the four engines lowered dispatch reliability (if only a couple of percentage points) and may have increased maintenance costs, etc.

  

[Edited 2013-09-18 15:44:14]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2013-09-18 15:47:37 and read 18472 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
I was comparing a clean sheet program vs the current stretched proposal.

This clears it up, thank you.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
I feel like I am writing in circles here.

I thought it was more along the lines of a discussion, or do you think your opinions shouldn't be questioned?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Make you case: how big do you think this 400 seat market is?

1000+ frames between 2020-2040, I'm thinking Boeing wouldn't invest north of $5b on a smaller market than that.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
How much money do you think it would take to create a program that could compete with the 779?
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
Investing ~$3B to split a 400-seat market

You've quoted $3b, if it is that much I think the 3511 program would be a profitable addition to the 350 family. Again going from Ferpe's post, improvements needed to wing, engine & the stetched fuse will be required to hit the numbers. In the 5-6 years between 359 EIS and when I anticipate a 3511 EIS, there will be improvements made to the family, helping later members acheive thier goals.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Why would that program be more valuable than an A389?

I think they should do both as I stated above. By 2017 the engineers will mostly be free from the 3510 & 320 neo. I agree with your point earlier about optimising the 358, but there are currantly engineers working on 3 members of a clean sheet design and a re-engine of a existing airframe, whats not to say that they can get the 358, 3511, and 389 all on the go at once?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):surely they won't need 5-6 years for a derivative787-10 is a derivative without a new engine that is being launched in 2013 and delivered in 2018.

I was thinking Airbus not Boeing in that Airbus are doing 3 members of a clean sheet family to EIS withing 3 years. I am assuming a further derivative of that family would take around 3 years.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 92):the 3511 will only(I use that word loosely) need some tweekingNot if it wants to close the gap on the 5% gain the GE9x is supposed to have one the Trent XWB.

The TXWB dosen't need to match the GE9x, it needs to compete, with the 3511 airframe, against the GE9x, with the 779 airframe. The 779 has about a 30t higher MTOW, 12t higher OEW and burns about 13t more fuel on a 8000nm sector. The engine combined with the airframe makes it more effeicient. The GE9x maybe a very effeicient engine, but it is lumbered(and I use that word losely) with the 779's heavy fuse.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-18 16:00:02 and read 18468 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
As I mentioned, some airlines will have a hard time with the larger frame. For example: LAN seats 221 seats in its J-heavy 763s. The 787-8 adds 26 Y seats or about 12% more seats. If they jump to the 787-9 the capacity grows by almost 33%. Now maybe they have ordered what they need and won't order in your post 2020 timeframe, but the US majors have only about 57 787-8s on order for almost 140 763s on-hand; I cannot see all of these 767s turning into 787-9s when all is said and done.

One important difference: the 787-9 is only a bit heavier than the 787-8, the extra fuel cost for those 40 extra empty seats will be marginally small but will generate way more revenue during a peak season where you can fill them.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
The 787-8 is already a capacity bump.

When Boeing designed the 7E7 and showed it to their customers, those customers even wanted something bigger which became the 787.

Up-sizing has always been the trend. And it still is today and I don't expect this to change. Beware, I'm talking about post 2020, not about tomorrow. The market won't shift that fast of course.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
Not sure how that changes the thought that LCC are using the 788 in solid numbers and may not want to change to the larger airframe. QR fits 254 seats in its two-class 787s clearly the DYs, ANAs (domestic), Jetstar's, etc are going for a different kind of customer. Not sure if these low cost carriers are going to have a need for 350-400 seats the same way they seem to like the 290-335 option.

I understand your point but I don't agree with you original statement:

"as well fitting 300+ seats in an aircraft designed for 240"

The 787-8 is designed to carry 242 pax in a 3-class configuration, 296 pax in a 2-class configuration and 381 pax in a high density configuration. In other words, airlines are fitting 300+ seats in an aircraft where it was designed for.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
Wiki says 972 were in service at the end of May. Its obviously very close and won't need until 2020. 1,500 should be a much closer figure by then.

  

[Edited 2013-09-18 16:02:08]

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-18 16:15:52 and read 18452 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 96):
Yes TSFC

In terms of block fuel flow,and fuel per seat, it is possible for the TXWB to be ahead of the GE9. It all comes down to how much thrust the engine needs to produce in cruise to overcome drag, with the larger airframe with more wetted area, larger engine nacelles, and higher weights, someone will need to do the numbers to work out if more thrust required.

Ferpe in reply 32 did some numbers which tend to indicate the airframe has high block fuel flow.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
When Boeing designed the 7E7 and showed it to their customers, those customers even wanted something bigger which became the 787.

And rage as well, the original 787-9 was rejected by the market, the 787-9 is a HGW version.

Topic: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 17:13:34 and read 18389 times.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
I thought it was more along the lines of a discussion

Sorry, I just caught myself saying the same things multiple times. No hard feelings. I am all for hashing it out.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
I'm thinking Boeing wouldn't invest north of $5b on a smaller market than that.

I think they are planning on investing the money because they think they are going to compete against the A351 and the A388 (A389?) and the 748 (hard to write that) for sales; I think they thought Airbus would have to do a new wing, engine, MLG, and a stretch in order to eat its lunch entirely and I don't think they thought Airbus would do it (me either, at least not for another decade and only if the market improves along with engine technology).

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
1000+ frames between 2020-2040

Boeing predicts in the next 20 years 2,090 new sales of medium wide bodies (I believe this is 300-400 seats and they include 779). So that market includes A359, A351, 787-10, 777-8, and 777-9. Crowded with very new aircraft. Now the time period doesn't perfectly line up with yours but to think that roughly half of the sales that Boeing predicts in this segment is going to come from a $380 Million 400-seat aircraft is unrealistic to me. I think 500 is a homerun. The 77W has had a larger market to itself and hasn't even sold 750 yet and that is a resounding success.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
whats not to say that they can get the 358, 3511, and 389 all on the go at once?

They are not all working on the design at once. Really the focus is on the design for the A351 at this point. It seems very aggressive and unrealistic to me to do all of the said programs at once. I think the freighter is important seeing as Airbus really does not have a competitive freighter in the industry.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
I was thinking Airbus not Boeing

Airbus has had three aircraft enter service within 2 years before so it is not impossible.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
Airbus are doing 3 members of a clean sheet family to EIS withing 3 years.

I personally don't think all three will be in service by 2017 but I wish them the best of luck. I hope to see them do it. I am not sure when you considered the program was launched but 2005/2006 (8 years already +/-) but I think 3-years for a new derivative is unrealistic. I assume they haven't been working on a new wing, new engine, new stretch, new gear, etc for a 350-11 so I think it may take more time as the clock on the design work hasn't even started.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
I am assuming a further derivative of that family would take around 3 years.

It would take about a year just to certify the engine if it was available today. The design freeze for the 787-9 came in July 2010 (over three years ago) and it just had its first flight yesterday. Maybe the 787-9 is slow but at least they started trying to design that frame around ~2004. Again, I don't think Airbus has started the A350-11 design work, how long do you think it would take from pencils up to pencils down + engine testing?

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
The TXWB dosen't need to match the GE9x

True.

I think Airbus' money is better spent elsewhere. They are competing with themselves if they launch a stretch A350-11. They are already going to get a significant share of the sales for comfy 9 abreast, super efficient, Airbus-loyal (or not), 350+ seat widebody market; how many more sales units will they get if they stretch it again that they wouldn't already be getting with their current offering? 50? 100? That and the opportunity cost is too high. Launch a better/bigger helicopter, expand the A400m platform, improve the tanker, go heavier into unmanned drones, NASA needs a new manned orbiter, re-usable rocket technology like the Grasshopper, the US President needs a new fancy ride, scramjets, etc. There are plenty of places with more measurable returns.

Tell me we don't need another 400-seat me-too. We already have enough group think in this industry.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
One important difference: the 787-9 is only a bit heavier than the 787-8, the extra fuel cost for those 40 extra empty seats will be marginally small but will generate way more revenue during a peak season where you can fill them.

Very true. But I suspect the 788 will get lighter when the 789 improvements are implemented and the additional fuel cost for the 789 will get higher.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
those customers even wanted something bigger which became the 787.

True, but not all. The average customer wanted larger and they got it. The 788 size is not without demand let alone those customers that were content with the 763-size but their voice was not heard. I am not saying it will be a top seller but I don't think 650+ is unrealistic and I think there will be plenty (100+) of sales post 2020.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
In other words, airlines are fitting 300+ seats in an aircraft where it was designed for.

Ok, poor choice of words. My point was that some LCC are going to use the smallest aircraft possible that can complete the route and then fill it with as many people as reasonably possible. If they are successful there is little risk of them going to larger frames IMO. In reality I see them buying more frames so they can launch additional markets.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-18 21:30:18 and read 18303 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 28):
The problem for Airbus is that the 777 cross section is 0.4m wider an therefore more suitable for 75m birds, it is struturally more efficient and seats 10 abreast in Y

Just a point of order on this one, Ferpe.

The 777 might be 0.4m wider, but it isn't 0.4m taller. The A350 is an ovoid, the 777 is a cylinder.
So the difference in the vertical plane (the one that matters) will be a lot less.
And the A350 has a CFRP fuselage, which we're all told gives the 787 an advantage when it comes to stretching ..

A 78m A350 shouldn't be a problem, IMO

Rgds

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-09-18 22:07:45 and read 18227 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Launch a better/bigger helicopter, expand the A400m platform, improve the tanker, go heavier into unmanned drones, NASA needs a new manned orbiter, re-usable rocket technology like the Grasshopper, the US President needs a new fancy ride, scramjets, etc.

None of these have anything to do with the civilian aircraft division of Airbus. They are not going to eat into Airbus'engineering resources and reallocate them to other divisions. And I question the profitability of any of these examples compared to that of Airbus' commercial aircraft business.

The questions remains: What is Airbus going to do with its engineering resources once the 3 versions of the A350 are up and running and the NEO is flying?

There are only a handful of options:
-A350-1100 to fill the gap between the A35J and A380. Fairly low risk development IMO but not urgent (the 77W flew 10 years after the first 777 flight). More of a when than if for me.
-A350F. Straight forward, low risk development, but until the cargo market picks up, I don't see any urgency in it.
-A330 NEO. Higher risk approach, but the only way not to give that segment up to Boeing's 787. If the 77X is a success, so could this. Officially, however, the A350 is the 'one size fits all' / Goldilocks program (I never agreed with that).
-Narrowbody replacement. Technological advances likely won't make it worthwhile before 2030 or so.
-A389. I'm not even gonna touch that hot potato...

They seem to have the man power to conduct 2 overlapping development programs at once (eg. A380 and A350, then A350 and NEO).
It will be interesting to see what they decide to do.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-09-19 00:51:57 and read 18029 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):

I think Airbus' money is better spent elsewhere. They are competing with themselves if they launch a stretch A350-11. They are already going to get a significant share of the sales for comfy 9 abreast, super efficient, Airbus-loyal (or not), 350 seat widebody market; how many more sales units will they get if they stretch it again that they wouldn't already be getting with their current offering? 50? 100? That and the opportunity cost is too high. Launch a better/bigger helicopter, expand the A400m platform, improve the tanker, go heavier into unmanned drones, NASA needs a new manned orbiter, re-usable rocket technology like the Grasshopper, the US President needs a new fancy ride, scramjets, etc. There are plenty of places with more measurable returns.

are you talking serious? remember the tanker fiction? why would EADS waste their breath with the US "defence" again? when was the last time they bought foreigner air/space technology?

no, if Airbus want to show a good shot it should be the A350-1100, a simple strech and the A350 will
cover a market ranging from 250 to 400 pax and fully compete with 787/777X, in bright manner

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-09-19 01:49:30 and read 17976 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
The questions remains: What is Airbus going to do with its engineering resources once the 3 versions of the A350 are up and running and the NEO is flying?

That is a interesting question.

IMHO the next project will be 330NEO/350-800 combined solution. Possibly dropping the 350-800 and do the 330NEO or just dropping them both, and develop all new aircraft based on the 350 program to cover the 330/787 segment.

Another possible program could be to develop new, slightly bigger wing for the 320/321 that would benefit both types. Make the 320 more future proof until the UDF shows up, bring TATL capability to the 321, and make 322 a possibility.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-19 05:04:21 and read 17846 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
-A350-1100 to fill the gap between the A35J and A380. Fairly low risk development IMO but not urgent (the 77W flew 10 years after the first 777 flight). More of a when than if for me.

The introduction date of a theoretical -1100 will depend on what this airframe should be. A simple 3 meters stretch which would seat around 380 pax and with the small improvements as described by ferpe might see the daylight relatively soon.

But an upgrade like the 77W was (new engines, new wing etc) will likely not happen before the -1000 is at least 10 years in service. It's a bigger investment and will kill the -1000, something neither Airbus and RR wants to see happening in the short term.

And besides, a bigger wing won't fit inside the current Beluga, so it will have to wait until Airbus introduces the new A330 Beluga fleet between 2020 and 2025 anyway.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
-A350F. Straight forward, low risk development, but until the cargo market picks up, I don't see any urgency in it.

I don't see an A350F being offered as long as Airbus has the A330F and as long as the cargo market remains weak. Even Boeing won't offer a 777X freighter before 2025, and won't offer a 787-9 freighter before 2020.

I believe a A350-900R will be offered first, it's relatively cheap to certify (would only require a handful orders to launch it) and will be the perfect baseline for a future freighter.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
-A330 NEO. Higher risk approach, but the only way not to give that segment up to Boeing's 787. If the 77X is a success, so could this. Officially, however, the A350 is the 'one size fits all' / Goldilocks program (I never agreed with that).

An A330neo is something I never see happening. The engines will be heavier, the wing will need to be reinforced thus the airframe will become heavier too, and the fuel burn will never be able to match the A350. But no engine maker will commit to this project in the first place.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
-Narrowbody replacement. Technological advances likely won't make it worthwhile before 2030 or so.

Assuming a development time of 6 to 8 years for a new clean sheet narrow-body jet, they will have to start soon after 2020 to EIS it around 2030.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
-A389. I'm not even gonna touch that hot potato...

This has been discussed to death indeed.

[Edited 2013-09-19 05:08:11]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-09-19 05:17:35 and read 17773 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
I believe a A350-900R will be offered first, it's relatively cheap to certify (would only require a handful orders to launch it) and will be the perfect baseline for a future freighter.

If the 7810 turns out to be successful as a "regional specialist" then I see a 3510 fuselage length with 359 engines, wing, MLG etc as Airbus' next step, being a regional specialist competitor but bigger than the 7810.

Having said that, today's LH order for 359 over 7810 makes that perhaps less likely.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: finn350
Posted 2013-09-19 05:37:37 and read 17750 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
And besides, a bigger wing won't fit inside the current Beluga, so it will have to wait until Airbus introduces the new A330 Beluga fleet between 2020 and 2025 anyway.

Any potential 777-9 competitor can't have a greater wing span than current A350 XWB. If Airbus is going to develop A350-1100, and it needs bigger wing span Airbus has to use folding wingtips, just as 777-9 does. This is due to airport gate restrictions regarding over 65 m wing span.

Regarding "the next big project" for Airbus, I believe it will be the new narrowbody (after all current A350 XWB variants have been developed).

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-19 05:51:18 and read 17718 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 105):
when was the last time they bought foreigner air/space technology?

C-27J, C-144, C-145, C-146, T-52, U-28 (from your country!), UV-18, MI-8, MiG-29, Su-27, C-23, C-31, EO-5, UH-72, DHC-6, An-26, HC-144, HU-25, HH-65, 100+ Harriers, RQ-5, CQ-10. This does not include all of the US built aircraft with foreign components, the ISS, 90+ foreign military base purchases for radar, ammunition, etc.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 106):
Another possible program could be to develop new, slightly bigger wing for the 320/321 that would benefit both types. Make the 320 more future proof until the UDF shows up, bring TATL capability to the 321, and make 322 a possibility.

Add it to the list.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
But an upgrade like the 77W was (new engines, new wing etc) will likely not happen before the -1000 is at least 10 years in service.

Agreed. 3 lengths and possibly 5 derivatives (not including papered versions) is enough to keep the program busy for a while. 10-15 years from now, I could definitely see a refresh that could include a stretch if the 777-9x is successful.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
Even Boeing won't offer a 777X freighter before 2025

That is true but Airbus does not have an answer to the 77F. If they are waiting for the freight business to pick up they may miss the boat. An A359F would be a terrific aircraft. Airbus could conceivably launch it before the 789F as I think the 789F will need a higher thrust engine and the A359F won't.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-19 07:07:50 and read 17596 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 103):
A 78m A350 shouldn't be a problem, IMO

With the A340-600 already at 75 meters length, it should be no problem indeed. The A340-600 paid heavily for the necessary reinforcements to be stretched to that length, that will not be the case for the CFRP fuselage of the much wider A350 (compared to the A340).

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
It will be interesting to see what they decide to do.

Indeed it will be. I think an A389, despite it being a hot potato here on A-net, will be part of the future development program at Airbus.  .

And A350-1100 is a given imho as well. But an A350-1100ER would require improved engines and wings at least. I agree with KarelXWB that we will not see that version for at least another 10 years or so. And since the sales are going very well, the A350-1000 does not need that at present. Who would have thought we could write this about the A350-1000, a airplane which was by many already dead and buried on A-net. Luckily the market in the real world has valued the offering Airbus makes with this airliner very different.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
I believe a A350-900R will be offered first, it's relatively cheap to certify (would only require a handful orders to launch it) and will be the perfect baseline for a future freighter.

But both could be niche aircraft at this point in time. But hopefully in 5 or 10 years the prospects for these markets are (much) better then they are now.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):
An A330neo is something I never see happening. The engines will be heavier, the wing will need to be reinforced thus the airframe will become heavier too, and the fuel burn will never be able to match the A350. But no engine maker will commit to this project in the first place.

The A330 is highly successful as she has been continuously improved. And Airbus is still investing a couple of hundred million dollars yearly into further optimising the airframe. At some point they will lose out against the B787 on performance, but Airbus can do a lot with the sales price to close some gaps. On the shorter stretches the A330's are already more efficient then the B787 which are hurting because of their longer range capabilities.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-19 07:32:55 and read 17537 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 111):
At some point they will lose out against the B787 on performance, but Airbus can do a lot with the sales price to close some gaps. On the shorter stretches the A330's are already more efficient then the B787 which are hurting because of their longer range capabilities.

Hmm this isn't quite true, the 788 has a lighter OEW, MTOW and lower fuel burn than the 330 despite its longer range capability. Whilst the 330 has a payload advantage on the short and medium haul routes, efficiency wise the 788 is already well ahead from short haul to long haul with the 789 coming in to take over the payload advantage.

The 330 is currently competing on price, availability and perhaps to an extent reliability but certainly not efficiency.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-19 09:51:35 and read 17394 times.

If the 777-9x sells well I wonder if Boeing will look into doing a 777-10. Just like the 787-10 it could be a simple stretch and would not require a MTOW increase so no change to wing, MLG, engine, etc. 7,000nm range seems reasonable and with the average A380 trip at 4,000nm it should be plenty enough. There is still 3.5m to go before it reaches the mythical 80m long mark which should make it a 450-seat twin. If Boeing is already toting the 779 as having the lowest seat economics of any other airliner I imagine the -10 would be tough to beat. It would probably need taller gear for the extra length.

No wide body aircraft has ever been popular at four different lengths, in fact, I think the 787 is the only wide body airliner that has sold more than 100 frames (once BA's order for 12 gets finalized) at three different lengths.

Sometimes it seems like an arms race between these guys. Maybe an A350-1100 will push them to respond. I suspect there isn't enough market for either frame but it is fun to think about.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-19 09:56:36 and read 17379 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
Just like the 787-10 it could be a simple stretch

I guess the landing gear dimensions and the chances of a tail strike might be the biggest problem if they want to lengthen the B777 even further. I do not know how much margin there is left on the B777 gear.

I think that a possible A350-1100 is (much) more likely then a possible B777-10, but that is just my opinion.   

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-09-19 10:27:00 and read 17322 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
The 787-8 order book has not seen a significant conversion to the 787-9 - heck, some customers (AA, for example) have converted 787-9s to 787-8s.

Also, SQ/Scoot. Half of the 20 -9s originally ordered have been converted to the shorter version.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 73):
I wouldn't base it on LH alone. LH is anything but mainstream when it comes to fleet selection. They have stayed away from the 777 entirely, and are essentially the only customer of the 748i (I know that a few others have ordered in small numbers).

Is KE that insignificant in your books? Their order (in 2 tranches of 5) is more than 50% of the current firm LH total. Surely not exactly small numbers; comparatively. As such, your statement of LH being "essentially the only customer of the 748i" is patently untrue.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-19 10:30:28 and read 17317 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 114):
B777-10

Are they going to add a hitch and a trailer?

Seriously though i think that the timeline for the A350-1100 just got moved up by the LH decision, if the Airlines are telling Airbus that they want something a little bit bigger I think that they will build it.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-19 10:32:39 and read 17349 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
If the 777-9x sells well I wonder if Boeing will look into doing a 777-10.

I firmly believe that if Boeing felt they could have stretched the 777-9 farther (say all the way to 80m), they would have as it would have improved the CASM even more.

I expect they stopped at 76m (a 2m stretch) because of one or more of the following:

1) Tail-strikes;
2) A too-shallow rotation angle resulting in too long a take-off roll;
3) Worries about clearance at gates (as in traffic taxiing behind them)

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-19 10:42:01 and read 17332 times.

A further stretch would give rotating issues. Just look at how much Airbus had to re-design the A346..

Quoting neutrino (Reply 115):
Also, SQ/Scoot. Half of the 20 -9s originally ordered have been converted to the shorter version.

Air Canada just did and Air Berlin is about to make a switch to the larger type too. I expect more conversions to the -9 to come.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-19 13:35:09 and read 17188 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 105):
are you talking serious? remember the tanker fiction? why would EADS waste their breath with the US "defence" again? when was the last time they bought foreigner air/space technology?

no, if Airbus want to show a good shot it should be the A350-1100, a simple strech and the A350 will
cover a market ranging from 250 to 400 pax and fully compete with 787/777X, in bright manner

There is a 350-seat A350 and a 400-seat 777, both can divide the market share. I posted some numbers in here.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-19 14:04:51 and read 17113 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 114):
I guess the landing gear dimensions and the chances of a tail strike might be the biggest problem if they want to lengthen the B777 even further.

I suspect your are right. I imagine they stretched it until they knew they would have to redesign the gear and then they stopped to keep costs down.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 116):
if the Airlines are telling Airbus that they want something a little bit bigger I think that they will build it.

I think airlines are looking for the most profit which usually equates to a CASM vs RASM. I personally don't think the airlines are asking Airbus to build anything bigger because they probably have no problem buying from Boeing. I imagine the airlines would want Airbus to focus on an underserved market rather than a 400-seat-me-too that might save them a couple percentage points.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 117):
I firmly believe that if Boeing felt they could have stretched the 777-9 farther (say all the way to 80m), they would have as it would have improved the CASM even more.

If they did that then their would be about an 85-seat difference between the A351 and 777-9. Not sure Boeing would want to open up that much of a difference unless they would have optimized the 777-8 at around 385 seats (read 77W). I suspect they wanted to keep costs down. They can always stretch it later if there is a need for the biggest twin possible and this way they stay close enough to the A351 to keep it in check and not get too far out of touch from the seating of current 777 operators.

Surely Boeing could redesign the landing gear if they needed to

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-19 18:35:20 and read 17003 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 104):
There are only a handful of options:
-A350-1100 to fill the gap between the A35J and A380. Fairly low risk development IMO but not urgent (the 77W flew 10 years after the first 777 flight). More of a when than if for me.
-A350F. Straight forward, low risk development, but until the cargo market picks up, I don't see any urgency in it.
-A330 NEO. Higher risk approach, but the only way not to give that segment up to Boeing's 787. If the 77X is a success, so could this. Officially, however, the A350 is the 'one size fits all' / Goldilocks program (I never agreed with that).
-Narrowbody replacement. Technological advances likely won't make it worthwhile before 2030 or so.
-A389. I'm not even gonna touch that hot potato...

I think there will be an ATR project, 100+ seat turboprop as well.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 112):
Hmm this isn't quite true, the 788 has a lighter OEW, MTOW and lower fuel burn than the 330 despite its longer range capability. Whilst the 330 has a payload advantage on the short and medium haul routes, efficiency wise the 788 is already well ahead from short haul to long haul with the 789 coming in to take over the payload advantage.

You maybe comparing the 788 to A333, the 788 and A332 OEW is almost identical in airline configurations.The MTOW observation is correct due to the lower fuel burn which Airbus could solve by putting a new engine on the wing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 114):
I guess the landing gear dimensions and the chances of a tail strike might be the biggest problem if they want to lengthen the B777 even further. I do not know how much margin there is left on the B777 gear.

Didn't you know that you can stretch Boeing's as long as you want, and only Airbus has limits on what they can do.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-19 19:54:33 and read 16897 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
You maybe comparing the 788 to A333, the 788 and A332 OEW is almost identical in airline configurations.The MTOW observation is correct due to the lower fuel burn which Airbus could solve by putting a new engine on the wing.

I was comparing the 788 to the 332; excluding the over weight aircraft, there is usually btw 1 and 2 tons difference in OEW with the 787 coming in lower. I was trying to point in response to EPA001 that based on the lower weights and fuel burn the 787 even on short haul trips is more efficient.

Hmm the latter part I seriously doubt considering that using the trent 1000 is going to add 4000 to 5000 lbs to the 330 OEW not including any wing modifications. Add to this that calculations show the 358 will still be more fuel efficient than the 330 with new engines....and 358 prelim numbers show that it does have a slightly higher fuel burn than the 788 and 789. I believe Airbus would have quickly put on new engines on the 330 had that been a feasible option seeing what the current 350 and 787 can do.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-19 20:11:34 and read 16886 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 122):
I was comparing the 788 to the 332; excluding the over weight aircraft, there is usually btw 1 and 2 tons difference in OEW with the 787 coming in lower.

In airline configurations, as I said they are almost identical. You are looking at the marketing numbers.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 122):
Hmm the latter part I seriously doubt considering that using the trent 1000 is going to add 4000 to 5000 lbs to the 330 OEW not including any wing modifications

The Trent 1000 is lighter than then Trent 700. A new P&W engine is also a possibility.

Trent 700 Dry engine weight (kg) 6160
Trent 1000

Engine Models
Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H
Maximum dry engine weight (kg) Without SB 72-G319 5936
With SB 72-G319 6033
Including nacelle EBU items certified as part of the engine but not including fluids.
Engine Models
Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000 D-2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2,
Trent 1000-K2, Trent 1000-L2
Maximum dry engine weight (kg) 6096

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...700_series_engines-01-06032006.pdf
http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...000_Series_engines-04-10092013.pdf

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-09-19 21:59:38 and read 16757 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 122):
I was comparing the 788 to the 332; excluding the over weight aircraft, there is usually btw 1 and 2 tons difference in OEW with the 787 coming in lower. I was trying to point in response to EPA001 that based on the lower weights and fuel burn the 787 even on short haul trips is more efficient.

also the 788 will be getting lighter as they back fill the 789 changes into the 788. And if the 789 actually has less drag then that will probably be back filled to the 788 as well. So the 788 is likely to end up weighing less than it does now and have lower drag in the future.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-09-19 23:15:59 and read 16676 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
I think there will be an ATR project, 100+ seat turboprop as well.

That's something that I hope happens sooner rather than later. A family in the 90-125 passenger range would be nice.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Didn't you know that you can stretch Boeing's as long as you want, and only Airbus has limits on what they can do.

Seriously?  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-09-19 23:47:36 and read 16626 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 93):
In the English language, the accepted convention is to put a period after a statement, and a question mark after a question.
Please make up your mind whether you want to make a statement or ask a question.

Actually, I think NAV20 has got it right using a question mark. After all, almost all of his statements are questioned around here.  

Think of it more as an 'uncertainty mark'.

btw, in English English, it's 'full stop' not 'period'. A period is what women have once a month - you really don't want to find one of those at the end of every sentence.  

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-09-20 00:03:01 and read 16625 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
I think there will be an ATR project, 100+ seat turboprop as well.

I read recently that Airbus was reticent at the idea of allocating the engineering resources into designing a large ATR.
ATR is adamant and determined that they want to do it, but since they haven't designed a brand new frame in 25 years, they have lost the engineering resources and know how, and they need Airbus'.
However, they have gone on the record as saying that if Airbus didn't want to play along, they'd find other financing partners and would source the engineers on their own...

But even if Airbus allowed some of its resources to help ATR, I still don't expect them to otherwise sit on their hands once the A350 and NEO are up and flying.
They'll need to do something
  

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-20 00:04:18 and read 16617 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
In airline configurations, as I said they are almost identical. You are looking at the marketing numbers.

Please speak for yourself, but I am looking at the OEW of a ME airline which has both these aircraft. In addition we do expect the 788 to get lighter on the production line as the airframe matures.

With regards to the engine weight, I was looking at txwb engine weight rather than trent 1000 weight..my mistake.

However, from EASA

PW4000-100 =5851.5kg
CF6-80E1 = 5091kg

Both lighter than the trent 1000.

Also, if the 358 which isn't optimised will beat a reengined 330 on fuel burn....I struggle to see why a new PW engine will see time on a 330 when the 350 will gain even more.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-20 00:17:03 and read 16606 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
Based on the Engine Yearbook data, the GEnx2B is similar in length to the CF6-80E1-A3, but the fan is larger and the weight is 8000 pounds heavier. That last one is going to impact mounting, I would think...

Looking a Zeke's post, reply 123, I decided to look up the EASA numbers and I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on your 8000lb figure, the actual as certified weight difference between the GEnx-2b and the CF-6 is 1,125lbs and the GEnx-2b at 5625kg actually weighs 535kg less than a Trent 700 at 6160kg.

So no strengthening of wingbox or mounting issues, nor would there be an issue with bleed air if Airbus chose to create A330 NEO, GE claims that the GEnx-2b has 13% greater fuel efficency than the CF-6. Looks like free cake.

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/genx/genx-2b.html

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-20 00:33:58 and read 16579 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 129):
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on your 8000lb figure...

Please direct all corrections to The Engine Yearbook care of UBM Aviation News.  

Anyway, it's a moot point as Airbus doesn't want to hang new engines off the A330 because they need to sell A350s and GE, P&W and RR are not going to invest in a new A330 engine even if Airbus wanted to do so.

[Edited 2013-09-20 00:36:07]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 00:37:37 and read 16551 times.

I'm almost sure that T700 weight includes thre Thrust reverser weight in the EASA TCDS

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...700_series_engines-01-06032006.pdf

Quote:
The engine DIS includes the starter motor and Thrust Reverser Unit, and all engines are approved for reverse thrust operation.

Or

http://www.aftd.com/TCDS_PDFS%5CE39NE_3.pdf

Basic engine (without TR) : 11023 lbs : 5004 kg

So GenX2b is still a little bit heavier than the heaviest A330 engine (PW)

[Edited 2013-09-20 00:38:40]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-09-20 00:48:46 and read 16516 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):

Anyway, it's a moot point as Airbus doesn't want to hang new engines off the A330 because they need to sell A350s

Yup its a moot point, Airbus don't seem to want the free cake.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
GE, P&W and RR are not going to invest in a new A330 engine even if Airbus wanted to do so.

GE already have one with the GEnx-2b, I don't think that either RR or P&W are up for it.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-20 01:25:13 and read 16435 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 128):
Please speak for yourself, but I am looking at the OEW of a ME airline which has both these aircraft.

That airline has 3 different configs on their 332s, which one are you looking at ? To get an apples to apples, you need the same product installed in both aircraft. The CL3620 seats on their 787s have a different weight to those on the 777s within the same airline.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
Anyway, it's a moot point as Airbus doesn't want to hang new engines off the A330 because they need to sell A350s and GE, P&W and RR are not going to invest in a new A330 engine even if Airbus wanted to do so.

Try buying a A350 them, not exactly easy to get a slot. P&W is very interested in a 65 klb GTF.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-20 01:33:33 and read 16420 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 132):
Yup its a moot point, Airbus don't seem to want the free cake.

If Airbus really thought slapping new engines on the A330 was good enough to compete with the 787 and they were content with letting Boeing have the 300-500 seat market to themselves, they would have told SUH to take a long walk off a short pier and continued with the original A350 and not bothered with the A350XWB.


Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 132):
GE already have one with the GEnx-2b, I don't think that either RR or P&W are up for it.

Well GE could actually be interested in such a program since the 747-8 is not going to be a long-term sales platform for the GEnx2B series...



Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
Try buying a A350 them, not exactly easy to get a slot.

So they buy the regular A330.

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
P&W is very interested in a 65 klb GTF.

P&W is very interested in being relevant in commercial aviation propulsion again.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 01:57:20 and read 16371 times.

I guess we are sliding off topic

But if airbus want 50 share in the widebody, it will need to produce at least 20 plane / month...
Wether it will be 20 planesof an 4 member A350 familly, or a mix of A350 ans another product (A330 for now), I don't know.
The wide range of offering from Boeing might be hard to face with the current line up at the end of the decade.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-20 02:03:44 and read 16393 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 135):
The wide range of offering from Boeing might be hard to face with the current line up at the end of the decade.

Airbus may be "weak" on the low end (A350-800) and they may be "absent" on the top end (777-9), but they're very-well positioned in the middle with the A350-900 and A350-1000.

Just as they have been very well positioned in the middle with the A330-200 and A330-300 (with the 767-300ER and 777-300ER on the low and top ends).

And as we have seen with the A330 family, being well-positioned in the middle is a very lucrative position to be in.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 02:06:00 and read 16369 times.

Yes, but boeing will do quite quickly 20 widebody a month ...
Retaining a 50 share, induce Airbus need the same ...
How ?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-20 02:10:55 and read 16359 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 135):
The wide range of offering from Boeing might be hard to face with the current line up at the end of the decade.

But that's not different from the past. Boeing had the 767 on the lower hand and the 777 on the upper hand, and the A330 combined with a few A340s did just fine. At some point Boeing had 5 777 family members on offer, now only 2 of them are selling. The 787 has 3 family members but the smallest -8 has the biggest chance to fade away.

I think they will just do fine.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-20 02:12:40 and read 16367 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 137):
Yes, but boeing will do quite quickly 20 widebody a month ... Retaining a 50 share, induce Airbus need the same ... How?

That's 20 airframes a month across four families (747, 767, 777, 787) and two of them are transitioning exclusively to freighters (747 and 767).

Airbus will be at similar rates with three families (A330, A350, A380), with none of them transitioning exclusively to freighters.

So Airbus should comfortably be able to hold a similar share of the passenger market compared to Boeing. Boeing will dominate the freighter market, but that is significantly lower volume compared to passenger planes.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 02:33:01 and read 16314 times.

Stitch
Looking at 2020

> 10 A350 / month -> room for more
5 A330 / month -> not so easy
3 A380 /month -> not so easy

787 > 10 / month -> at least, 12 was the initial target at least
777 > 8 / month -> hard during 2016-2019, easier with 777X
767 > 2 / month -> easy if you include tankers ( as Airbus include it in A330 count)
747 > 1.5/ month ->not that easy ?

IMHO, with the current line up it will be hard to maintain 50 market share for airbus ... So linking with the A350-1100 or tweaking / replacement for A330 and under

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-20 02:50:34 and read 16262 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 140):
IMHO, with the current line up it will be hard to maintain 50 market share for airbus ... So linking with the A350-1100 or tweaking / replacement for A330 and under

The about 50% overall market share comes mainly from the narrow bodies. This is true for Airbus and Boeing. And in 2020 Airbus has had 3 years for the R&D department to work on new projects if the A350 in all it's versions has entered service at the clients. And with all the A320-NEO's underway to their customers.

So they will come up with some interesting things for sure, we can speculate now on what that will be. An A350-1100 as a bigger B787-10 is relatively easy to do, and I expect we will see that version of the A350 maybe somewhere around 2020. A more capable A350-1100 is much further away since the A350-1000 is already very capable and has still to enter service in 2017.

[Edited 2013-09-20 02:56:26]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 02:57:46 and read 16248 times.

EPA001

Airbus wants more than 50% market share in the single aisles
And 50% in the widebody if I recall.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-20 03:11:45 and read 16214 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 140):
Looking at 2020

...

Nobody can give you a proper answer, only opinions. We will have to wait and see what Airbus will do after the -1000, but they'll do whatever they need to do to remain or capture market share. So if there is enough demand for a 4th A350 family member, they might launch it. The A350 program is new so IMO the current three family members are just the beginning and not the end. This is a program for the next 20 years, a lot can happen.

[Edited 2013-09-20 03:14:18]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-20 03:18:12 and read 16183 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
That airline has 3 different configs on their 332s, which one are you looking at ? To get an apples to apples, you need the same product installed in both aircraft. The CL3620 seats on their 787s have a different weight to those on the 777s within the same airline.

I am looking at the 2 diff non biz class configs and the F config, which is why I mentioned a range earlier. For an apples to apples comparison the 332 with 236 Y seats is still heavier vs the 788 despite the latter having a much heavier J cabin.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-09-20 03:39:39 and read 16142 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 108):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 107):I believe a A350-900R will be offered first, it's relatively cheap to certify (would only require a handful orders to launch it) and will be the perfect baseline for a future freighter.
If the 7810 turns out to be successful as a "regional specialist" then I see a 3510 fuselage length with 359 engines, wing, MLG etc as Airbus' next step, being a regional specialist competitor but bigger than the 7810.

I agree - there is a massive market for regional/long haul platforms such as the 787-10 but only a niche market for ULH platforms such as the 77L and any prospective 359R. The developmet costs for a regional 35J shouldn't be that much greater than a 359R but the potential market is much bigger as indicated by the rush of orders for the 787-10.
Aircraft OEM's are driven by ROI so I expect the regional option would get priority.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 05:16:03 and read 16059 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):

I've done my homework based on end 2012 airbus forecasted figures for Beluga flleet utilization ...  http://avia.superforum.fr/t222p340-actualites-airbus#34652

So ? how airbus wil retain the 50% market share ? The -1100 is for sure one answer

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-20 06:32:58 and read 15966 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Didn't you know that you can stretch Boeing's as long as you want, and only Airbus has limits on what they can do.

I am not sure to who's bias you are referring. I am sure that individual would love to respond to any criticism in logic if prompted. Until then, nameless cynicism is not productive.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-20 06:41:18 and read 15978 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 145):
I agree - there is a massive market for regional/long haul platforms such as the 787-10 but only a niche market for ULH platforms such as the 77L and any prospective 359R.

If the 7knm-787-10 cannot handle 40% of LH's routes with its longest route not being longer than (6,200nm) 14 hours, maybe we have to re-think these new ULH platforms.

These super light efficient frames lose much more range with every additional ton that is added in cargo than the previous generation aircraft. If a 7knm aircraft can't provide enough range do we think a 8.1knm aircraft will completely do the job? And will that be enough for non-European Airlines who have to cross the Pacific, Indian, or flyover Europe en route to the Americas?

I am slowly buying into the very real need for the A359/B778. They are not the same as the 77L/A345 and neither is the modern market.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-09-20 07:00:07 and read 15911 times.

Don't forget that in "real life" a350-900 is according to SAS own rules a 7000 Nm bird (PAX only) ... vs and advertised 8100 Nm... Put some cargo underfloor and then it shrinks again.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-20 07:03:46 and read 15916 times.

Yeah ferpe explained a few times why these new aircraft have a bigger payload hit once you load them full with cargo.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-20 08:16:56 and read 15836 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 146):
So ? how airbus wil retain the 50% market share ? The -1100 is for sure one answer

The 1100 (simple stretch) is one answer. I think it would compete too much with the A351 and A380 (just a little is too much if I were Airbus) However, I would like to see Airbus launch something that could attack the 787-8 from the bottom. A 322 could do it but I am leaning more toward a smaller CFRP wing stripped down and shortened A332 with ~45klbf engines. Sort of like a cross-over vehicle: a truck made on a car chassis. Doesn't do the off-roading but it fits lots of stuff and doesn't have terrible gas mileage like a real SUV.

In 10-years time the 788's engines will be a generation behind and its over built structure will make it easy prey for a short/medium haul takeover. Everyone seems to think the 788 is going to die off in the early 2020s on its own so why not be there with an optimized model when it does? The long haul roles will go to the 789 but what about the shorter routes?

Two models: 210 seat and 250 seats so as not to compete with the A358 in size but offers more range than the A321. There are a lot of 3-5knm TATL and InterAsia routes that don't require an OEW of 117t and the A321NEO and 737Max won't reach and can't really carry cargo.

These paper derated A359s and A330s are a joke, do it right Airbus!

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 149):
Don't forget that in "real life" a350-900 is according to SAS own rules a 7000 Nm bird (PAX only) ... vs and advertised 8100 Nm... Put some cargo underfloor and then it shrinks again.

Very true. I remember the slides. I remember wondering at the time if Airbus is presenting the information like that in order to sell A350s vs A330s but I think the point is still very valid.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 150):

Yeah ferpe explained a few times why these new aircraft have a bigger payload hit once you load them full with cargo.

Indeed, I should have given him credit. I think this LH order really hammers home that point. A 787's 8knm range is not the same as a 77W's 8knm (almost) range when cargo is being considered.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-20 08:23:16 and read 15905 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 151):
These paper derated A359s and A330s are a joke, do it right Airbus!

Derated A330s and A380s exist since many years and airlines use them, so they have a purpose. It's just an option, nothing more.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-20 08:52:34 and read 15817 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 152):
Derated A330s and A380s exist since many years and airlines use them, so they have a purpose.

Of course they have a purpose; to mask the fact that they are carrying too much weight around. Its like a woman's corset; I'd rather have the thin girl thank you very much.  

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-09-20 20:54:58 and read 15505 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 148):
If the 7knm-787-10 cannot handle 40% of LH's routes with its longest route not being longer than (6,200nm) 14 hours, maybe we have to re-think these new ULH platforms.

It depends on the individual needs of the airline. The 787-10 is quoted as being able to perform 90% of all routes flown by the 772 and its sales success upon launch supports this. The upcoming ULH aircraft may well be more successful than their predecessors but my point was that the OEM's will get a better return on platforms such as the 787-10 rather than the 359R. The 778 is a little different as it fills an important segment now occupied by the 77W and it doesn't have an optmised sibling of lesser range such as the 772ER/77L.
There is a massive market for regional wide bodies and the newer platforms that fill that role will have unbeatable CASM.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-09-20 21:21:49 and read 15473 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 151):
These paper derated A359s and A330s are a joke, do it right Airbus!

To be fair, Boeing offers exactly the same with its aircraft.
It allows operator to use a lower weight category when calculating airport fees. It's just a piece of paper, really.
It's more a convenience, not a different version of the type that the manufacturer is offering.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 05:27:57 and read 15242 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 154):
The 787-10 is quoted as being able to perform 90% of all routes flown by the 772 and its sales success upon launch supports this.

But if LH says it can't do 40% of its destinations and its longest route is 6,200nm and if the 77E range is 7,725nm isn't there a disconnect in that logic? The 90% figure is just passengers and bags; I assume LH includes their typical cargo loads.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 154):
the OEM's will get a better return on platforms such as the 787-10 rather than the 359R

It might be closer than you think. The shrink will be less popular but it is the basis for the freighter as well so you get two models of profit for one model worth of engineering resources. Overall, though, yes, stretches are typically better sellers than shrinks.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 154):
it doesn't have an optmised sibling of lesser range such as the 772ER/77L

If you are suggesting that the 77E was the prime reason for the lack of sales on the 77L then I disagree. The 77W and A330 had far more impact on 77L's sales than the 77E did. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 154):
There is a massive market for regional wide bodies and the newer platforms that fill that role will have unbeatable CASM.

Sounds about right to me.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 155):
To be fair, Boeing offers exactly the same with its aircraft.

My exclamation point was intended to show enthusiasm rather than admonishment. More of cheerleader than a principal. Of course, Boeing does the same thing and it makes a lot of sense in a lot of cases. I wasn't trying to single out Airbus, just advocating for their next project.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-21 06:34:16 and read 15163 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 154):
The 787-10 is quoted as being able to perform 90% of all routes flown by the 772...
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
But if LH says it can't do 40% of its destinations and its longest route is 6,200nm and if the 77E range is 7,725nm isn't there a disconnect in that logic?

Airbus claims the 242 ton MTOW version of the A330-300 will perform some 90% of the missions flown today by 777-200ERs so I guess most 777-200ER missions aren't anywhere near the plane's design range.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 08:24:09 and read 15001 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 157):
Airbus claims the 242 ton MTOW version of the A330-300 will perform some 90% of the missions flown today by 777-200ERs so I guess most 777-200ER missions aren't anywhere near the plane's design range.

That is a possible rationale. The larger routes must be going to the 77W and once the 787-9/A359s come on board I wonder if the 77Es will be relegated to even shorter routes than they are now. We will see how much cargo plays a roll there.

In regard to the 787-10, I think LH wants the flexibility to down gauge some of its A346s and therefore will need a heavy lifter for those ~5knm+ missions to SIN/HKG/NRT/SFO/LAX/EZE instead of just the shorter-routed-A343s. Ferpe has estimated that the 787-10 loses its payload advantage at around 4,500nm making the A359 the better aircraft for the route.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: SelseyBill
Posted 2013-09-21 09:00:18 and read 14954 times.

Quoting EmiratesEK231 (Reply 6):
From John Leahy: "A double stretch [of the A350] has never been shown to work in this industry," claimed Airbus chief operating officer for customers John Leahy, speaking in Toulouse on 16 January. "We couldn't do it. And we don't think [Boeing] could do it either."

Now, there's been a few dieheards who have tried to even second guess the words of JL, himself, and state the a -1100 was possible and not out of the realm of possibility, but for now I will go with what JL has said out of his own mouth.

Whilst its always dangerous to disagree with JL given his proven track record, comparing A358 sales totals so far, and expressions of interest in the 779X, it seems to me the potential market for a A35K is much bigger than the A358, especially given the overlap between A330 and A358.

Seems to me Airbus could do worse than considering cancelliing the A358, and potentially get a A35K to market quicker than the 779.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-21 11:22:36 and read 14849 times.

John Leahy is a salesman. Today the double stretch is a bad product because his company don't have one, but it will be a good product when his company launches one tomorrow.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):
Airbus may be "weak" on the low end (A350-800) and they may be "absent" on the top end (777-9), but they're very-well positioned in the middle with the A350-900 and A350-1000.

The opposite is also true: with only a 9400nm niche 777-8, Boeing will be "weak" in the 350-seat market.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-09-21 11:54:27 and read 14783 times.

If Airbus decides to do a truly range/payload capable A350-1100 double stretch, they risk further plundering sales of their own A380-800, already under some assault from the up and coming larger twins from both A and B. This is a significant consideration they must wrestle with while studying it. It was easier for Boeing to decide since the 747-8I was already losing too much ground to the A380 but for Airbus it's much harder since they risk undermining the A380's positioning in their lineup. If they want to beat Boeing'777-9X with a super A350 stretch, they'll have to deal with the extreme likelihood that it will significantly dent the A388's future prospects. This is not a move to be considered lightly, given the 380's elusive breakeven point. A wiser move might be to accelerate the planned A380-900 stretch with improved engines that extend range and payload, rather than birth a super twin that risks cannibalizing sales of the superjumbo. Surely that's why the original A350XWB lineup was capped by the -1000 model; Airbus wouldn't want to risk encroaching too much on sales of the A388, already not up to where Airbus expected them to be by now. This is a really difficult question for them to wrangle with so I expect them to take a good deal of time before they commit to a stretched twin that brings them even closer to the 388's seat count without a range penalty. One that will beat up on the 779X will also give the 388 a good run for its money with many customers not entirely sold on the merits of the superjumbo and that's a thorny question indeed.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-21 12:18:48 and read 14750 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
The 90% figure is just passengers and bags; I assume LH includes their typical cargo loads.

Correct.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
Of course they have a purpose; to mask the fact that they are carrying too much weight around. Its like a woman's corset; I'd rather have the thin girl thank you very much.  

Sure, it's just impossible to have a A350-880/890/900/910/920 etc. But my point was, those de-rated planes exist like forever (Boeing have them too) but now suddenly the media is making an issue of it. Storm in a glass water.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 12:28:50 and read 14747 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 160):
The opposite is also true: with only a 9400nm niche 777-8, Boeing will be "weak" in the 350-seat market.

I disagree. The 787-10 / 777-8x combo might turn out to be quite solid. The 787-10 is not too far away (5.5m shorter than an A351) from the 350 seat mark and should do well. The 777-8, if it has a fuel burn that is similar to the A351, could turn out to be a solid success story as it will be much more capable. EK, EY, IB, QF, DL, and AC could all be solid buyers. For 787, 77W, and 777-9 operators the 777-8x might fit in nicely. For hot/high operators like IB/ET/AM it could also work well.

The 777-8 is also due to come on board at a great time: when the oldest A346s, 77Ws, and 77Es will start hitting 20, 18, 25 years of age and therefore will be well positioned for those replacement cycles.

I think the verdict is still out on this area. With just ~145 orders over 7 years on offer and within 4 years of EIS, the 351 is not setting any selling records even if we know it should be a solid aircraft. There is still a lot to be decided.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 12:37:04 and read 14706 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 162):
But my point was, those de-rated planes exist like forever (Boeing have them too) but now suddenly the media is making an issue of it. Storm in a glass water.

I've heard tempest in a teapot but that is a more modern interpretation. I like it.  

I know they serve a purpose. However, when you find your self doing it more and more often, there may come a time when you might just want to offer a regional aircraft.

Is anyone worried that with another stretch to the A351 the wing loading may be a little high? Maybe they could keep MTOW identical with the A351. However, the wingspan on the 351 is already shorter, proportionally, than the 787-10 and that is a 'regional' aircraft. I know Airbus' philosophy is different and that its wing area is certainly bigger but it is only 4% bigger than the A359 and certainly was not designed for a double stretch. Can they do more extensions on the leading edge or is there a limit to that and they will have to design a larger wing?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-21 12:41:11 and read 14713 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 163):
I disagree. The 787-10 / 777-8x combo might turn out to be quite solid. The 787-10 is not too far away (5.5m shorter than an A351) from the 350 seat mark and should do well. The 777-8, if it has a fuel burn that is similar to the A351, could turn out to be a solid success story as it will be much more capable. EK, EY, IB, QF, DL, and AC could all be solid buyers. For 787, 77W, and 777-9 operators the 777-8x might fit in nicely. For hot/high operators like IB/ET/AM it could also work well.

The A351 and 779 will have the same fuel burn per passenger, thus the 778 with less seats will have a higher fuel burn per passenger. In fact, Boeing said the 778 will burn 16% less fuel than the 777-200LR, so this airframe can't match the A351.

The 777-8 is like the 777-200LR, to serve a niche market. Nothing wrong with that of course.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 163):
I think the verdict is still out on this area. With just ~145 orders over 7 years on offer and within 4 years of EIS, the 351 is not setting any selling records even if we know it should be a solid aircraft. There is still a lot to be decided.

That's one side to look at it. From the other side: Airbus increased the A351 backlog from 68 units in August 2012 to 145 today, with another 18 to come later this month (IAG). So we have an increase of 95 units in about 12 months which came after firm design in late 2012 (Airbus re-designed the A351). And with the EIS still 4 years away, it shouldn't be too hard to gather another 150-200 orders in the next 4 years, which would bring the backlog to around 350 units, half of all 77W aircraft in service and on order. Not a bad number to start with IMO.

[Edited 2013-09-21 12:45:52]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-09-21 13:16:56 and read 14637 times.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 126):
Actually, I think NAV20 has got it right using a question mark. After all, almost all of his statements are questioned around here.  

Think of it more as an 'uncertainty mark'.


LOL

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 126):
btw, in English English, it's 'full stop' not 'period'. A period is what women have once a month - you really don't want to find one of those at the end of every sentence.  

 

In American English, period can mean "full stop", the thing women have once a month, as well as a number of other things. One is supposed to figure out what is being referred to from the context.

For example, when your American girlfriend turns down your advances because of her "period", she doesn't usually have "full stop" in mind...  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 164):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 162):
But my point was, those de-rated planes exist like forever (Boeing have them too) but now suddenly the media is making an issue of it. Storm in a glass water.

I've heard tempest in a teapot but that is a more modern interpretation. I like it.  


More language fun...

Dutch-speakers do not typically drink much tea. And "storm/tempest in a glass of beer" was perhaps deemed insufficiently educational...


Back to topic, Bregier actually commented on the possibility of some sort of double stretch A350 (A350-1100) at the latest Paris Air Show, taking a rather different stance from that of Leahy:

"Bregier does not rule out that possibility, but he cautions that it has also not been studied in any detail"

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_06_17_2013_p62-582991.xml&p=3

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-21 13:34:13 and read 14600 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
In regard to the 787-10, I think LH wants the flexibility to down gauge some of its A346s and therefore will need a heavy lifter for those ~5knm+ missions to SIN/HKG/NRT/SFO/LAX/EZE instead of just the shorter-routed-A343s. Ferpe has estimated that the 787-10 loses its payload advantage at around 4,500nm making the A359 the better aircraft for the route.

Agreed.


If the 787 has a future with LH, it's likely the 787-10 as an (eventual) A330-300 replacement.



Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 160):
The opposite is also true: with only a 9400nm niche 777-8, Boeing will be "weak" in the 350-seat market.

They'll be weak against the A350-900 for ULH missions, I agree. But for A-market and B-market missions, I believe the 787-10 will fare better than the A350-900R. *

As such, I see something more akin to the 777-200ER / A330-300 duopoly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, just with the OEM position swapped.



* - I've seen more and more blogs refer to the A350-900 Regional as the A350-900R, so this is how I intend to do so in the future and use A350-900LR to refer to the proposed HGW model designed for deep C-Market missions.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-09-21 13:49:56 and read 14571 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 166):
Back to topic, Bregier actually commented on the possibility of some sort of double stretch A350 (A350-1100) at the latest Paris Air Show, taking a rather different stance from that of Leahy:

"Bregier does not rule out that possibility, but he cautions that it has also not been studied in any detail"
ferpe has noted that his calculations imply that the A350 and 787 families seem to have a steeper drop-off at the far end of the payload-range curve then previous generation widebodies.

Aspire Aviation claims Boeing has raised the MTOW of the 777-9X from the original 342 ton figure to the 351t figure of the 777-300ER and increased the GE9X thrust from 100k to 102k to improve the design range (passengers + baggage), but if it is true, I wonder if Boeing did it to improve the "useful" range (passengers + luggage + revenue cargo) and prevent the 777X from having as steep a drop-off in the payload-range curve.

An A350-1100 with the same MTOW and thrust as the A350-1000 would suffer a not-insignificant reduction in design and usable range just as the 787-10 has due to it having the same MTOW and (almost the) same engine thrust as the 787-9. As such, another strong MTOW and thrust bump would be necessary to recover that, plus whatever they would need to match a 351t / 102k 777-9.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 14:06:57 and read 14537 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165):
In fact, Boeing said the 778 will burn 16% less fuel than the 777-200LR, so this airframe can't match the A351.

16% less trip cost but its 15% larger so the savings will be considerable. Ferpe has the fuel burn per m2 of cabin at nearly identical values (in fact this dated one below shows a 778 advantage). The 778 should be fitting more passengers per m2 because of its 10 abreast 17.4 seats so I would think that would indicate an advantage.
http://s298.photobucket.com/user/fer.../PR-9-10-10ER359351-8X-9X.jpg.html

Regardless, my point was that all it needs to be is close. The A332 had a higher fuel burn than the 764 and it beat the tar out of it because of range (and cargo). Ferpe's chart shows an advantage on payload/range for the 778 at around 5,400nm. As of last year there were 150 routes that were longer than that and that is sure to grow as more routes become more economical. Its these ULH routes where cargo is so valuable.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165):
The 777-8 is like the 777-200LR,

The 77L was hindered by the 77W success. I don't think many will be able to jump to 400 seats quite as readily and it won't have the 77E to split non-Airbus sales. As Ferpe has mentioned the drop off is different in these modern frames and the A351 may not be able to hang. It may still be a niche for the 778, but it won't be like the 77L IMO.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165):
it shouldn't be too hard to gather another 150-200 orders in the next 4 years, which would bring the backlog to around 350 units,

If it does that, I will officially shut my mouth and fall in line. Just wondering why it hasn't yet. The 779 could very well be able to gain more orders this year before launch and 7 years in advance of its entry into service. Clearly customers are being more cautious with the A351.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 166):
More language fun...

Funny stuff.  
Quoting Scipio (Reply 166):
Bregier does not rule out that possibility

Of course he doesn't.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 167):
If the 787 has a future with LH, it's likely the 787-10 as an (eventual) A330-300 replacement

It appears that way.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):
ferpe has noted that his calculations imply that the A350 and 787 families seem to have a steeper drop-off at the far end of the payload-range curve then previous generation widebodies.

Yes!

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-21 14:50:20 and read 14461 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 166):
Dutch-speakers do not typically drink much tea.

Tea? Bah. Black coffee, no sugar and served per liter please.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 169):
The 778 should be fitting more passengers per m2 because of its 10 abreast 17.4 seats so I would think that would indicate an advantage.

10-abreast doesn't mean you can fit more seats because the 778 will be shorter. In the end, it's only a difference of 3 seats (A351: 350 pax @ 9-abreast, 778: 353 pax @ 10-abreast).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 169):
If it does that, I will officially shut my mouth and fall in line. Just wondering why it hasn't yet. The 779 could very well be able to gain more orders this year before launch and 7 years in advance of its entry into service. Clearly customers are being more cautious with the A351.

The original A350-1000 with 7900nm range wasn't that good. It had payload issues too. Airbus announced a re-design for the -1000 in 2011 (engine thrust increase, bit bigger wing), and firmed the design in the 2nd half of 2012. Since then (12 months ago), Airbus noted 95 extra sales for the -1000 which seems to suggest the re-design was the right move. Now I'm not saying they will sell 95 units every year, but it shouldn't be too hard to sell between 35-50 unites per year, which would give them another 140 to 200 sales in the next 4 years and bring the backlog between 300 and 350 units. I think that's not impossible. And to put that number in contrast: this would be half of all the 77W's in the order book.

And of course, no doubt customers are cautious given the poor start-up of the -1000. But EK, LH and SQ (and perhaps others too) have all secured conversion rights for the larger -1000, which indicates they're interested, but are probably waiting until more performance numbers become available. As Tim Clark said:

Quote:
"As Airbus knows, I want to see it on its wheels with its engines running and preferably in the air," Clark said in an interview at a recent trade show. "I am afraid I am not prepared to accept anything until I see telemetry giving performances of the engines and the fuel. The A350-1000 is definitely one that we would be looking at. But first of all - show me."

All those conversion rights and this quote of Clark gives me the impression many are waiting to see if Airbus can meet the performance promises. If they do, it should only be a matter of time before more A351 sales (or conversions) see the daylight.

I think the A351 will have a good position in the 350-seat market, but as always, time will learn. I don't have a crystal ball.

[Edited 2013-09-21 14:58:24]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 15:48:56 and read 14402 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
10-abreast doesn't mean you can fit more seats because the 778 will be shorter. In the end, it's only a difference of 3 seats (A351: 350 pax @ 9-abreast, 778: 353 pax @ 10-abreast).

Right, but Ferpe's fuel burn numbers are per m2. I think the 777 cabin is tighter: more seats per m2. Ferpe says the fuel burn is largely identical between the 778 and the A351 therefore the 777 would have a per seat advantage not including the 3 seats. Regardless if they are similar, wouldn't you want the more capable frame? It doesn't have to beat it if the operator thinks he will have cargo some of the time or if he has commonality or for a host of other reasons. Its the only reason I can come up with why the A351 has not sold well.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
Airbus announced a re-design for the -1000 in 2011 (engine thrust increase, bit bigger wing), and firmed the design in the 2nd half of 2012

After they announced the redesign the 77W sold 200 units in 2011. In fact, it took a year for the A351 to sell a single frame after they announced the redesign and EY canceled some of theirs. If it was universally accepted as a good move, why the long wait? I am not sure that is a vote of confidence. I am not sure they did the redesign for any other reason than to accomplish what they had already promised as they knew they were going to fall short and they undoubtedly knew what Boeing was going to do with the 777x and it makes all of the sense in the world. Many customers had no idea they were even making the change until they announced it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
All those conversion rights and this quote of Clark gives me the impression many are waiting to see if Airbus can meet the performance promises.

Why so skeptical? Have you heard of another frame that customers were waiting for telemetry data for? Not sure why I haven't heard similar things for the 787-10 or 777-9x.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
I think the A351 will have a good position in the 350-seat market, but as always, time will learn. I don't have a crystal ball.

Me too. The next year or two will tell us a lot. If the 777-8x comes out with less than 50 sales in its first year on offer and if the A351 gains 50 we will know a lot.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-21 17:03:38 and read 14338 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
After they announced the redesign the 77W sold 200 units in 2011. In fact, it took a year for the A351 to sell a single frame after they announced the redesign and EY canceled some of theirs. If it was universally accepted as a good move, why the long wait? I am not sure that is a vote of confidence.

Airlines are buying 77Ws for delivery now just like people are buying A330s. Its available now. Not in 5 or more years.
Yes there were few orders for the A35J after the redesign till the likes of CX and more recently BA, UA! Don't forget the 77W wasn't exactly selling like hotcakes the first few years after being offered and before first flight either.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-21 18:00:33 and read 14314 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 163):

I do not agree with your assessment that the only solid linup is the 787/777, a lot of airlines are opting for dual source.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 172):

To support your availability comment, CX does not have any further 777 deliveries after the A350s start arriving. Naturally this will be shown to be just a coincidence or part of some greater conspiracy.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-21 18:59:20 and read 14264 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 173):
I do not agree with your assessment that the only solid linup is the 787/777

Please do not put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself. If you care to know a specific opinion of mine, ask me.

Quoting zeke (Reply 173):
To support your availability comment, CX does not have any further 777 deliveries after the A350s start arriving.

CX got EY's early A351 canceled slots and probably got a great deal because the A351 hadn't had an order in 4 years (but it did have cancellations) up to that point and given their interest in keeping cabins the same (didn't you tell us that?) and phenomenal fuel savings (25%+/-), it makes a ton of sense. Why would you take delivery of a 77W when you can have an A351; didn't you say that it was only a difference of two seats? Is that really what you are suggesting that people think? Who? Please don't make up arguments that don't exist.

Answer me this: if this is just an availability story then why did the A351 have just 62 orders 5 years before service (this time last year) while the 787-10 which launched 5 years before its EIS has 102 orders? If its just about timing, how could that happen? Why is the 777-9 expected to launch with more orders than the entire current A351 order book even if it won't enter service until years later than the A351 while being bigger and more expensive? What is the conspiracy theory there?

Quoting trex8 (Reply 172):

You may disagree with some of my points above but I agree with all of yours.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-22 07:00:53 and read 13959 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 174):

Okay, I got it. The only reason Cx ordered A350s is because of EY cancellations.

Funny...I hear EY are ordering more A350s...............

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-22 07:05:41 and read 13958 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 174):
Answer me this: if this is just an availability story then why did the A351 have just 62 orders 5 years before service (this time last year) while the 787-10 which launched 5 years before its EIS has 102 orders? If its just about timing, how could that happen? Why is the 777-9 expected to launch with more orders than the entire current A351 order book even if it won't enter service until years later than the A351 while being bigger and more expensive? What is the conspiracy theory there?

Without wishing to downplay the quality of the 787-10 and 777-9, launch customers get strong incentives for being launch customers - something that for the A350-1000 missed out on - the A350-900 being the primary recipient on that programme, as they all launched together.

I'd suggest sitting back and watching the longer term picture unfold before we sentence the A350-1000's prospects against the 787-10 and 777X

Rgds

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-22 08:00:37 and read 13955 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
Right, but Ferpe's fuel burn numbers are per m2. I think the 777 cabin is tighter: more seats per m2. Ferpe says the fuel burn is largely identical between the 778 and the A351 therefore the 777 would have a per seat advantage not including the 3 seats. Regardless if they are similar, wouldn't you want the more capable frame? It doesn't have to beat it if the operator thinks he will have cargo some of the time or if he has commonality or for a host of other reasons. Its the only reason I can come up with why the A351 has not sold well.

His charts also show a fuel burn advantage for the A358 over the 789 so there is more involved than fuel burn.

I'm skeptical about the 778 because:

> It will be a simple shrink, not optimized airframe
> It will be heavier than the A351
> Not everyone needs those payload capabilities
> Even Aspire Aviation believes the A351 will have a fuel burn advantage
> Last but no least, per leehamnews.com, customer meetings indicated that the proposed 777-8 isn’t particularly well received.

But don't get me wrong: I also believe the 778 will sell in larger numbers than today's 777-200LR because the lower fuel burn and the extra seats (more revenue) can make ULH worth going for.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
why the long wait?

Because customers waited until the design was frozen in 2012.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
I am not sure that is a vote of confidence.

Well, the boost of 95 orders after design freeze last year is a vote of confidence. It seems customers are happy with the final design.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
Why so skeptical? Have you heard of another frame that customers were waiting for telemetry data for? Not sure why I haven't heard similar things for the 787-10 or 777-9x.

They are skeptical because Airbus itself didn't know where to put the -1000. Would you have fate in an airframe if the manufacturer itself doesn't feel right about the product?

Quoting trex8 (Reply 172):
Airlines are buying 77Ws for delivery now just like people are buying A330s. Its available now. Not in 5 or more years.
Yes there were few orders for the A35J after the redesign till the likes of CX and more recently BA, UA! Don't forget the 77W wasn't exactly selling like hotcakes the first few years after being offered and before first flight either.

  

[Edited 2013-09-22 08:02:32]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-22 08:52:31 and read 13870 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
The only reason Cx ordered A350s is because of EY cancellations.

I did not say that. I am not going to repeat myself.

Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
Funny...I hear EY are ordering more A350s...............

Not sure why that is relevant to our discussion about CX, care to draw me a map? I had not heard that rumor though. That would be an interesting development. Share any info you can. They have ordered 3 Boeing 787 FFS, 1 Airbus A380 FFS, 1 Airbus A350 FFS so I figured their order sizes would mirror that.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 176):
the A350-900 being the primary recipient on that programme, as they all launched together.

The 787-8 and 787-9 were launched together and the latter still garnered significant share.


Quoting astuteman (Reply 176):
I'd suggest sitting back and watching the longer term picture unfold before we sentence the A350-1000's prospects against the 787-10 and 777X

My points were to suggest that it isn't 100% an availability issue. There are more issues to consider. My points were not to suggest one aircraft will be better/more successful than another. Too early to tell.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 177):
Last but no least, per leehamnews.com, customer meetings indicated that the proposed 777-8 isn’t particularly well received.

All are good points Karel. I too, expect the 778 to have a higher fuel burn, its carrying too much weight not to. I just think it will get interesting if they can get it close enough. They don't have to match it.

It makes sense why airlines wouldn't be very excited (other than EK). If I were an airline and if I had two OEMs to chose from I would want them producing very different products in order to give me more choice. At best the 778 is a better lifter than the A351 with similar fuel burn so I wouldn't be happy either.

My point is that the verdict is still out but the A351 has the advantage and should garner more orders overall. The 747 replacement gig is almost up the next wave of orders will be for the A346/744ER/77E/77L/77W replacements and that is where it will get interesting.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-22 09:20:51 and read 13810 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 178):
My points were to suggest that it isn't 100% an availability issue

I certainly can't disagree with that.
But it is a major factor when the primary measure that airlines are going to use to make their purchase decisions is NPV.
The A350-1000's experience is a clear example.
It recorded cancellations when it was delayed from 2015 to 2017.
2 years after THAT delay was announced, the floodgates have opened once again on the order stream.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 178):
The 787-8 and 787-9 were launched together and the latter still garnered significant share

In a like manner, the first 787 orders were clearly very heavily biased in favour of the 787-8 as it was available sooner.
It was actually quite some time before 787-9 orders came in similar numbers.
And as with the A350-1000, we have seen that as the 787 programme EIS went from 2008 to 2011, it recorded significant negative sales.

So availability isn't the 100% factor, but it is a significant one.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-22 10:18:07 and read 13693 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 179):
So availability isn't the 100% factor, but it is a significant one.

No disagreement there.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 179):
The A350-1000's experience is a clear example.
It recorded cancellations when it was delayed from 2015 to 2017.

Right, and the 77W gained 200 orders even though it is most likely 20+% less efficient and only available about 2-3 years earlier; clearly airlines put a lot of value in availability. There are other factors in that decision but there is no mistaking it.

However, in order to get early delivery slots on an aircraft that will give them advantages vs the peers and is worth it, the well-run, long term visioned airlines will still tie up aircraft well in advance even if other models are available sooner.

I actually think timing aircraft to coincide with replacement cycles is more critical to long term success than early availability is. The 351 sales that we have seen so far are primarily for the last of the 747/773 replacements and for growth. The real meat of the 350+ seat market hasn't even started yet.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-22 10:32:50 and read 13683 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 178):

Not sure why that is relevant to our discussion about CX, care to draw me a map? I

In reply 174 you stated that CX got EY slots, however it is a matter of public record that CX converted 16 of their -900 slots to -1000.

Sorry to bring the actual facts into the discussion.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-22 11:55:06 and read 13573 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 181):
Sorry to bring the actual facts into the discussion.

Can't we have a conversation without crass and boorish commentary?

Quoting zeke (Reply 181):
In reply 174 you stated that CX got EY slots, however it is a matter of public record that CX converted 16 of their -900 slots to -1000.

Right because EY didn't cancel 26 A351s (the total size of the CX order) they only canceled 7 and then 6 so there was a need to transfer their own A359 slots to secure all 26 positions. CX is getting all 26 in the first three years despite a much later 2012 order and right after EY's (the 3rd A351 customer overall) canceled its orders. I accept that I could be wrong about this but the evidence points me to the contrary.

I would have thought that you would know all of this but maybe you are not privy.

Not sure why an airline with only about 100 aircraft gets so much attention. This has nothing to do with this thread. I am done contributing to the degradation of this thread.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-22 22:29:53 and read 13289 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):
What are your 6000 nm numbers ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 101):
In terms of block fuel flow,and fuel per seat, it is possible for the TXWB to be ahead of the GE9. It all comes down to how much thrust the engine needs to produce in cruise to overcome drag, with the larger airframe with more wetted area, larger engine nacelles, and higher weights, someone will need to do the numbers to work out if more thrust required.

Ferpe in reply 32 did some numbers which tend to indicate the airframe has high block fuel flow.

Sorry for late reaction, been on a business trip. Before I do the 6000nm numbers lets give the rationale for my assumed OEWs. The spec OEW for the 77W is 168t, Reuters has given the 778 as 175t which seems plausible (I had it at 173t when I calculated myselves before), it is only a 2.6 M fuselage stretch. I have the wing + engines as a wash. To this shall be added 40 additional seats with galley/toilet/safety/crew infrastructure, so an additional 7t is reasonable in a spec config as the present structure and LG are all made for the MTOW.

Re the -1000 I have got the spec OEW as around 148-150t. The stretch I proposed was 9*0.635= 5.7m. To that shall be added 55 more seats with galley/toilet/safety/crew infrastructure and an upgrade of the structure + LG for another 12t TOW. The structural stretch is a little more then double on a less favorable cross section (fuse length to dia is 13 vs 12.2 for 779, optimum is around 10 ). With the other factors a double increase in OEW is not unreasonable.

The 6000nm numbers are TOW 286 vs 313t, block fuel 76t vs 84t, drag at average cruise weight 26,600 vs 29,500 lbf.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Speedbored
Posted 2013-09-23 00:03:07 and read 13079 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 182):
Can't we have a conversation without crass and boorish commentary?

I think many of us would agree with you on this.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 182):
I would have thought that you would know all of this but maybe you are not privy.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 178):
Not sure why that is relevant to our discussion about CX, care to draw me a map?

Hmmm....
You really shouldn't criticise others for what you are also doing yourself.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-23 01:37:40 and read 12986 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
It's also not as easy as you might think, a bigger wing will probably not fit inside the Beluga.

It's not just the Beluga, we don't know if a further stretch would fit in the assembly buildings.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-23 03:25:14 and read 12889 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 183):

Interesting analysis. What would the 77W do ?

Are you able to indicate the amount of payload each type can take over the two lengths ?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-09-23 05:46:25 and read 12742 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 178):
The 747 replacement gig is almost up the next wave of orders will be for the A346/744ER/77E/77L/77W replacements and that is where it will get interesting.

Looks like more of a 'toss-up,' tortugamon, seems to me. I won't be at all surprised if Boeing just consign the B747 to history - apart from maybe the odd freighter - and concentrate 100%, for the next few years, on the 'next generation' 777.

Doesn't make much sense, on the face of it, to 'mess around' developing and building yet more four-engined aeroplanes when you can already carry almost as many people (say 80%-plus of what a four can carry) with just two?

Boeing - and Airbus, for that matter - don't need to aim for a situation where either firm sells ALL the aeroplanes - each of them just have to sell 'enough.'

The interesting question will be what Airbus do from here. They face the problem that the A350 was necessarily a compromise - starting so late, they had no option but to aim it at the 'midpoint' between the B787 and the B777.

On available evidence, their current plan is to produce the A358 next, and only after that the A350-1000? My guess is that, if it's feasible in manufacturing terms, they'd be well-advised to do the A351 stretch first, to give themselves half a chance of staying competitive with the new 777s?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-23 07:17:01 and read 12594 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 164):
I've heard tempest in a teapot but that is a more modern interpretation. I like it.  

That is just the English version of the phrase "Storm in a glass of water" which afaik is a typical Dutch expression.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
Tea? Bah. Black coffee, no sugar and served per liter please.

Hear, hear! That is indeed how it should be.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
10-abreast doesn't mean you can fit more seats because the 778 will be shorter. In the end, it's only a difference of 3 seats (A351: 350 pax @ 9-abreast, 778: 353 pax @ 10-abreast).

Which will make the B778 struggling against the A35J. Unless you really need the full range, you can either go A35J (more efficient) or go B779 (more capable, but less range).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 170):
I think the A351 will have a good position in the 350-seat market, but as always, time will learn. I don't have a crystal ball.

I think so too, but since we all are lacking crystal balls, it is all conjecture.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 177):
I'm skeptical about the 778 because:

> It will be a simple shrink, not optimized airframe
> It will be heavier than the A351
> Not everyone needs those payload capabilities
> Even Aspire Aviation believes the A351 will have a fuel burn advantage
> Last but no least, per leehamnews.com, customer meetings indicated that the proposed 777-8 isn’t particularly well received.

But don't get me wrong: I also believe the 778 will sell in larger numbers than today's 777-200LR because the lower fuel burn and the extra seats (more revenue) can make ULH worth going for.

Very well put. Exactly the way I see it.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NYC777
Posted 2013-09-23 11:06:05 and read 12441 times.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 16):
I don't think they can afford to wait that longer, their ambition is to retain at least 50% of the WB market share
With the arrival of the 777-9X without a A350-1100 to compete (on time) they will lose it.

Even if they were to decide to pursue it today, given all that they have on their plate right now with the A350-900, -800, and -1000; a -1100 wouldn't even reach the market until early to mid 2020s.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-23 13:44:27 and read 12339 times.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 189):
Even if they were to decide to pursue it today, given all that they have on their plate right now with the A350-900, -800, and -1000; a -1100 wouldn't even reach the market until early to mid 2020s

A plane launched in 2015 could EIS in 2022, some 2 years after the 777-9X (and 5 years after the A350-1000), and on the same development timeline as the 777-9X (7 years). And by definition could include new wings and new engines in that timeframe

If such a plane were to be just a "simple stretch" then that timeline is probably about 2 years pessimistic - 5 years would match the 787-10 and EIS at the same time as the 777-9X

If Airbus don't launch something significant by 2015 then they will need to start to lay core engineering resource off. By then the A350-800 should be flying and the A350-1000 be in final assembly

Rgds

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-23 13:51:56 and read 12309 times.

Delivery slots are also an issue. With a production rate of 3 units per month / 36 per year, the current backlog for the -1000 stretches into 2021-2022 already (163 / 36 = 4.5 years production). A further A350 stretch would require a higher production rate.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-24 00:43:39 and read 12155 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 186):
Interesting analysis. What would the 77W do ?

Here the values including how the mid cruise drag stack up for a 6000nm trip with spec payload (their nominal pax+bags):

.............OEW...TOW...Trip fuel.....Cruise drag....Non lift drag....Drag due to lift
77W........168t...309t......94t............29500lbf..........16700lbf......12800lbf
779.........175t...306t......83t............29000lbf...........18400lbf.....10600lbf
-1100.......163t...286t......76t............26600lbf..........16600lbf......10000lbf

I had a small fault in the OEW for the 779 before, therefore the slightly different figures. It is funny that the 77W and 779 have the similar overall drag at their mid cruise weights (261t vs 265t) but their composition is different. The wing gives you the same drag for more weight and therefore payload and engines gives you the lower fuel burn at the same drag level.


Re the max payload they can take over a 6000nm leg, it stacks up as: 77W 64t, 779 72.4t, -1100 63.3t. This is a quick calculation and I have to check that any MZFW assumptions I have made for the 779 and -1100 makes sense.

[Edited 2013-09-24 00:52:46]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-24 00:57:04 and read 12125 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 190):
A plane launched in 2015 could EIS in 2022, some 2 years after the 777-9X (and 5 years after the A350-1000), and on the same development timeline as the 777-9X (7 years). And by definition could include new wings and new engines in that timeframe

Having a -1100 in service in 2022 is not a big issue because the 777X will be sold out for the first years anyway. Enough customers are going to buy it, with or without -1100.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-24 01:01:14 and read 12123 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 186):
Are you able to indicate the amount of payload each type can take over the two lengths ?

What 2 lenghts do you want, 6000nm is clear, guess the other one could be the max the 77W can do in spec trim with spec payload, should it be 7900nm?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-24 01:11:38 and read 12095 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 190):
If such a plane were to be just a "simple stretch" then that timeline is probably about 2 years pessimistic - 5 years would match the 787-10 and EIS at the same time as the 777-9X

I don't think that's impossible for a simple stretch as long as they have delivery positions.

IMO Airbus should increase production for the -1000 to 5 units per month. Customers will buy whatever there is available, as long as the product is good.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-24 02:33:26 and read 12039 times.

Your memory get's worse and worse, here the Reuters article about the 779 empty weight:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2..._1_airbus-paris-airshow-john-leahy

"BEHIND THE SALES PITCHES

According to sources familiar with confidential briefings, a new 777X engine should increase fuel efficiency per seat by 10 percent and its outsized carbon-fibre wings - designed to fold upwards at the tip when parked - will contribute 7 percent.

But engineers must pay back 4-5 percent of these savings because the larger jet's basic structure is expected to be at least 12 tonnes heavier. The net gain from the latest technology will be closer to 12-13 percent, according to these sources."

So it should be my original assumption of 180t empty weight, don't know where I got 175t from. I will correct and come back.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-24 04:42:40 and read 11886 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 190):
If Airbus don't launch something significant by 2015 then they will need to start to lay core engineering resource off. By then the A350-800 should be flying and the A350-1000 be in final assembly

I am sure that is a scenario which they will want to prevent. The loss of knowledge could have big consequences on the next projects. Probably a lot of the technical development and/or production problems Boeing has suffered on the B787 and B748 could be the result of several rounds of lay-offs in the company, especially in the engineering department.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 193):
Having a -1100 in service in 2022 is not a big issue because the 777X will be sold out for the first years anyway. Enough customers are going to buy it, with or without -1100.

   Agreed.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 195):
IMO Airbus should increase production for the -1000 to 5 units per month. Customers will buy whatever there is available, as long as the product is good.

   Again agreed.

And since the R&D department at Airbus needs new projects to work on after the EIS of the A400M, the A320-neo's and the A350-variants, further A350 versions are highly likely possibilities to fill the gap.  

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-09-24 19:05:46 and read 11725 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 192):
............OEW...TOW...Trip fuel.....Cruise drag....Non lift drag....Drag due to lift
77W........168t...309t......94t............29500lbf..........16700lbf......12800lbf
779.........175t...306t......83t............29000lbf...........18400lbf.....10600lbf
-1100.......163t...286t......76t............26600lbf..........16600lbf......10000lbf

Purely speculative numbers for the 779 and a prospective A350-1100. Neither have been designed in detail yet so it's impossible to reliably make assumptions for relative weights and other relevant numbers to calculate performance data. It's unclear as yet just how much weight will be excised from the 779 with new materials, etc. Similarly, since the A350-1100 hasn't even yet been proposed, let alone designed by Airbus, it's altogether impossible to make realistic assumptions of its weight by simply scaling up and extrapolating them from the existing A350-1000. It's a given the 777-9X will be heavier than a presumed A350-1100 but by how much? It's entirely possible the gap will be appreciably smaller than that outlined here. Such assumptions are virtually pointless until the relative designs reach a mutually mature stage and neither is near that; the 350-1100 is strictly vaporware at this stage and even the 779 hasn't yet begun detailed design. This is really jumping the gun to make this sort of analogy. Let's wait until we've some real numbers to play with.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-09-24 19:21:55 and read 11721 times.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 198):
Purely speculative numbers for the 779 and a prospective A350-1100.

I don't understand the purpose of your post, of cause it is speculative numbers as the data for the -9X is not official (but there is not lack of concurring leaks or even statements from airlines who has actually bought it like LH) and a 350-1100 is not even rumored to be in the works from Airbus. But the purpose of the OP is to invite to speculation of what a -1100 could look like and now you say we shall close the thread until B and A launches the birds and tells us the specs?  

I think you have not understand the purpose of Airliners.net . If you want 100% certainty go read the web pages and press releases from these two. I for one find this boring, the fun with Airliners.net is to apply logic and physics (and I can assure you I apply a bit more physics then you might be doing) to the problem described and try to come up with something better then "lets wait until they tell us".

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-09-24 20:06:17 and read 11675 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 199):
Quoting AvObserver (Reply 198):
Purely speculative numbers for the 779 and a prospective A350-1100.

I don't understand the purpose of your post, of cause it is speculative numbers as the data for the -9X is not official (but there is not lack of concurring leaks or even statements from airlines who has actually bought it like LH) and a 350-1100 is not even rumored to be in the works from Airbus. But the purpose of the OP is to invite to speculation of what a -1100 could look like and now you say we shall close the thread until B and A launches the birds and tells us the specs?

I think you have not understand the purpose of Airliners.net . If you want 100% certainty go read the web pages and press releases from these two. I for one find this boring, the fun with Airliners.net is to apply logic and physics (and I can assure you I apply a bit more physics then you might be doing) to the problem described and try to come up with something better then "lets wait until they tell us".

Well. at least here you are confirming it is sheer speculation you're engaging in. Fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of your post. It just seemed to me you were throwing out those numbers as if they were gospel. My apologies if that's not the case. I just find it a bit pointless to try to build comparisons based on almost no real information. I do think Airbus is quite capable of building an A350 variant to one up the 779X, if they choose to do so (and it's by no means certain they will anytime soon) but I think it's far better to at least wait for Airbus's proposal before we start comparing notes. The 12 ton weight discrepancy you cite is a mainly arbitrary differential until you get both airframers' designs on paper. If I'm a party pooper to point that out then I indeed have missed the point you made.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-24 20:13:48 and read 11678 times.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 198):
Let's wait until we've some real numbers to play with.

By that time, we will all be much older. I prefer Ferpe's very-educated thoughts. Although the technologies change the proportions of MTOW and range (given numbers) vs OEW don't change all of that much. Ferpe has shown to give an honest un-biased assessment of the data and absent of real data I can't think of anything better I would rather read.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: abba
Posted 2013-09-24 23:19:45 and read 11740 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 197):
I am sure that is a scenario which they will want to prevent.

They also have to take into consideration that even if the NEO pushes the NSA perhaps another decade into the future the NSA is not going to be pushed too far out. It will still be on the horizon.

Airbus also has to consider what they want to offer between a NSA and the 350s once the time of the 330 has run out. And could they do something in between the 350 and the 380 - in particular if the 380 is stretched (remember that air traffic i doubling every 15 years)?

The 77x is going to have less trust than the present version. If we turned it around and asked the question: How will a 360 twin look like if the starting point is the biggest possible engine? It will certainly be bigger than the proposed 77x? But by how much?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 200):
Well. at least here you are confirming it is sheer speculation you're engaging in.

I would rather say: highly educated guesses. And I think that Ferpe would be the very first to admit to that.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-09-25 02:48:44 and read 11624 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 202):
They also have to take into consideration that even if the NEO pushes the NSA perhaps another decade into the future the NSA is not going to be pushed too far out. It will still be on the horizon.

Airbus also has to consider what they want to offer between a NSA and the 350s once the time of the 330 has run out. And could they do something in between the 350 and the 380 - in particular if the 380 is stretched (remember that air traffic i doubling every 15 years)?

Agreed. And which is exactly my point. R&D will need new projects, even if they are interim products. Because a little bit further down the road new major challenges are awaiting them.

An A350-1100 could be a project "to fill the gap" until the next real big project comes along.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-07 01:26:41 and read 11088 times.

Quoting EmiratesEK231 (Reply 6):
Now, there's been a few dieheards who have tried to even second guess the words of JL, himself, and state the a -1100 was possible and not out of the realm of possibility, but for now I will go with what JL has said out of his own mouth.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
A salesman will "go with the wind".

Looks like the wind is already changing direction:

Quote:
"We might stretch it, we are not sure how big the market is", Airbus COO Customers John Leahy on A350 at ISTAT Europe.

http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau/status/387130101143306240

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-10-07 01:57:45 and read 10971 times.

Thank you
Nice catch
Not so surprising considering that the narrower A340 was stretch further (not with a great success indeed)

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-07 03:43:08 and read 10778 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 204):
Looks like the wind is already changing direction:

Quote:
"We might stretch it, we are not sure how big the market is", Airbus COO Customers John Leahy on A350 at ISTAT Europe.

http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau/sta...06240

Wow, this time we at A-net were not that speculative. Now even John Leahy is contemplating a possible stretched A350. Let's bring it on.   

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-10-07 17:45:54 and read 10410 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 206):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 204):
Looks like the wind is already changing direction:

Quote:
"We might stretch it, we are not sure how big the market is", Airbus COO Customers John Leahy on A350 at ISTAT Europe.

http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau/sta...06240

Wow, this time we at A-net were not that speculative. Now even John Leahy is contemplating a possible stretched A350. Let's bring it on.

Hold the phone a bit. Leahy has a long history of saying an awful lot and much of it invariably is blather, as with some of his Boeing counterparts. We all recall his some of his hot air sessions about the original A350 (pre-XWB), a largely warmed over A330. I'd think that while they may do it, it won't be very soon. As he said they need to see how big that market is - how many orders the 777-9X captures early on. If that turns out to be only a niche market, why bother, especially since an A350-1100 will surely also take a fair sized bite out of A380-800 orders. Don't take a Twitter quip from a sales-guy with a known bent for verbal bravado as a forgone conclusion; there are strategic ramnifications for Airbus to consider before it commits to a variant that could potentially undermine its own superjumbo significantly.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-10-07 18:11:29 and read 10367 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 206):
Wow, this time we at A-net were not that speculative. Now even John Leahy is contemplating a possible stretched A350.

It has of course been on Airbus radar all the time, but only Airbus knows how much they can strech the frame without taking too much structural penatly.
Or has a.net convinced him?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 207):
there are strategic ramnifications for Airbus to consider before it commits to a variant that could potentially undermine its own superjumbo significantly.

The 777-9 has already defined that space, and Airbus does not have much choice but follow. Better for Airbus to see A380 sales go to A350-1100 than to 777-9.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 00:36:02 and read 10120 times.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 207):
Hold the phone a bit. Leahy has a long history of saying an awful lot and much of it invariably is blather, as with some of his Boeing counterparts. We all recall his some of his hot air sessions about the original A350 (pre-XWB), a largely warmed over A330. I'd think that while they may do it, it won't be very soon. As he said they need to see how big that market is - how many orders the 777-9X captures early on. If that turns out to be only a niche market, why bother, especially since an A350-1100 will surely also take a fair sized bite out of A380-800 orders. Don't take a Twitter quip from a sales-guy with a known bent for verbal bravado as a forgone conclusion; there are strategic ramnifications for Airbus to consider before it commits to a variant that could potentially undermine its own superjumbo significantly.

Sure, nobody claims they will launch it tomorrow.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AF185
Posted 2013-10-08 01:36:32 and read 10007 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 208):
Or has a.net convinced him?

Well if a.net has the power to convince Airbus for a/c developments, then here is my message to John Leahy:
"Mr Leahy, for the sake of a/c diversity, please put in billion of dollars in development for a cost efficient three-holer a/c, even if it has to mean the third hole will be engine less "  

[Edited 2013-10-08 01:40:03]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 01:41:29 and read 10018 times.

Well, they are at least studying it:

Quote:
“We might stretch it, we are not sure how big the market is,” he told delegates at the ISTAT Europe conference in Barcelona/Spain. “We are studying it.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_10_07_2013_p0-624242.xml

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-10-08 02:48:29 and read 9872 times.

I think there is no reason to hurry a possible A 350-1100. The A 350 sells well as it is and it will be a headache to produce them as fast as they sell.
We have seen what a too fast ramp up of the production does to a grand air frame like the B 787, a problem Airbus will hopefully avoid with the A 350.
When the three currently planned versions of the A 350 are out of the door, Airbus will have a look. If the A 350-1000 sells like hot cakes, it should be not necessary to fight the B 777-9 even if it sells well too.
It could be that both air framers will avoid going head to head in every part of the market.
Both are in it for the money but not for world domination.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-10-08 03:01:04 and read 9819 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 212):
It could be that both air framers will avoid going head to head in every part of the market.


Thats my thinking too. An A350-1100 could end up as the A358. Boeing already occupied that segment with large 787 orders and demand had dried up. Airbus came too late with a product that was only almost as good. Could be the same for A350-1100 vs 777-9.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-10-08 03:05:55 and read 9796 times.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 207):
As he said they need to see how big that market is - how many orders the 777-9X captures early on. If that turns out to be only a niche market, why bother

That's exactly what happened with the 787 - Airbus messed around for years thinking that a 'warmed-over' A330 might be an adequate counter; and now the 787 is closing in on 1,000 orders, and has that market sector sewn up tight for years to come.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-10-08 03:12:37 and read 9758 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 214):
Quoting AvObserver (Reply 207):
As he said they need to see how big that market is - how many orders the 777-9X captures early on. If that turns out to be only a niche market, why bother

That's exactly what happened with the 787 - Airbus messed around for years thinking that a 'warmed-over' A330 might be an adequate counter; and now the 787 is closing in on 1,000 orders, and has that market sector sewn up tight for years to come.

I do not understand were that comes from.
The A 350, being a bigger and more expensive frame than the B 787, sells nearly exactly as many frames per day as the B 787.
If Airbus can avoid the problems hunting the B 787, they can make real money with the A 350. I think Airbus got it just right.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 03:18:35 and read 9756 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 213):
An A350-1100 could end up as the A358.

That's not the same market, an -1100 with 380 seats which can fly 90% of the 779 routes with a lower trip cost / fuel burn per seat might be very attractive. On the other hand, Airbus should be careful not to threaten the 777X too much, otherwise Boeing might re-think the plans for a new wide-body jet. IMO it's better to share the market instead of making it a 1-to-1 fight.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 214):
That's exactly what happened with the 787 - Airbus messed around for years thinking that a 'warmed-over' A330 might be an adequate counter; and now the 787 is closing in on 1,000 orders, and has that market sector sewn up tight for years to come.

The opposite is also true: Airbus has a large market segment between the 787 and the 777X for themselves. The A350-900 now has 499 orders, more than the 787-8 has   

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-10-08 03:46:29 and read 9659 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 216):
The A350-900 now has 499 orders, more than the 787-8 has

True enough, KarelXWB, but Boeing have around 400 orders for the B789 too - and it's already flying? Not sure about the B787-10, that's still 'in the balance' - but I'd say that Boeing is well ahead in the 'long thin twin' segment so far?

Can't help thinking that some people at Airbus - possibly even including Leahy - are telling the top guys that the days of the 'big four' are over, and they'd better develop a really-adequate counter to the 777-9 ASAP. But that others are clinging to the hope that the 'sacred cow,' the A380, may go on selling?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-10-08 04:53:25 and read 9481 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 214):
Airbus messed around for years thinking that a 'warmed-over' A330 might be an adequate counter; and now the 787 is closing in on 1,000 orders, and has that market sector sewn up tight for years to come.

As usual, when presenting this "overwhelming" evidence, you 'forget' to mention the hundreds of A330s that Airbus has sold that fall into the same segment as the 787.   

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-10-08 05:10:13 and read 9417 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 218):
you 'forget' to mention the hundreds of A330s that Airbus has sold



Have to ask why, if the A330 was indeed an adequate answer to the 787, scrimbl mate, Airbus bothered to develop the A350 at all?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 05:17:19 and read 9409 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 217):
and they'd better develop a really-adequate counter to the 777-9 ASAP

   They have to A350-1000 already. If Airbus takes the 350-seat market with the A350-1000 and Boeing goes after the 400-seat market with the 777-9, that's still an nice split of the 350-400 seat market between both manufactures.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 219):
Have to ask why, if the A330 was indeed an adequate answer to the 787, scrimbl mate, Airbus bothered to develop the A350 at all?

The A330 needs a replacement in the long run. For the short/mid term, Airbus sold over 800 A330 copies since the 787 launch and there are currently 1000 of them in service. This means, when Boeing delivers all 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft in backlog, the market share in the 250-300 seat market will be about 50:50.

[Edited 2013-10-08 05:19:51]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-10-08 05:31:55 and read 9343 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 220):
They have to A350-1000 already. If Airbus takes the 350-seat market with the A350-1000 and Boeing goes after the 400-seat market with the 777-9, that's still an nice split of the 350-400 seat market between both manufactures.

Have to agree that it COULD work out like that - everybody happy..........  

I think that Boeing will probably be hell-bent on developing the 777X to carry a LOT more than 400 passengers, though?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 05:44:02 and read 9299 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 221):
Have to agree that it COULD work out like that - everybody happy

Not could, it will because that's how this world works: Boeing and Airbus deliberately avoid 1-to-1 competition in this market segment.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 221):
I think that Boeing will probably be hell-bent on developing the 777X to carry a LOT more than 400 passengers, though?

The 777-9 reached the limits of stretching the 777 airframe, otherwise Boeing had stretched it beyond those 2.7 meters. Any larger twin will probably require a new clean-sheet program. Don't expect this to see before 2030 at least.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-08 06:41:43 and read 9167 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 208):
Or has a.net convinced him?

Of course "we" have convinced him. .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 209):
Sure, nobody claims they will launch it tomorrow.

Indeed, this could be an A350 which might have an EIS beyond 2020 or so.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 211):
Well, they are at least studying it:

Which, depending on the outcome of their studies, could mean we will see an A350-1100.   .

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 215):
I think Airbus got it just right.

  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 216):
The opposite is also true: Airbus has a large market segment between the 787 and the 777X for themselves. The A350-900 now has 499 orders, more than the 787-8 has  

So true.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 220):
The A330 needs a replacement in the long run. For the short/mid term, Airbus sold over 800 A330 copies since the 787 launch and there are currently 1000 of them in service. This means, when Boeing delivers all 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft in backlog, the market share in the 250-300 seat market will be about 50:50.

Agreed.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 222):
Boeing and Airbus deliberately avoid 1-to-1 competition in this market segment.

Yes, only with the A32X and B737 they are competing head-to-head. And both are quite successful in their efforts.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 222):
The 777-9 reached the limits of stretching the 777 airframe, otherwise Boeing had stretched it beyond those 2.7 meters. Any larger twin will probably require a new clean-sheet program. Don't expect this to see before 2030 at least.

Again agreed.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2013-10-08 08:28:01 and read 9016 times.

So, for the record, how many A330s sold before and after the 787 launch? Could someone handy at those things make a comparative graph of the respective backlogs, maybe even going back to the A330 launch?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-08 08:34:38 and read 9027 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 224):
So, for the record, how many A330s sold before and after the 787 launch? Could someone handy at those things make a comparative graph of the respective backlogs, maybe even going back to the A330 launch?

Airbus sold > 800 A330s since the 787 launch, so that would make around 450 copies before the 787.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ap305
Posted 2013-10-21 11:36:09 and read 7829 times.

Looks like the stretch is becoming more reality than fantasy

From wsj : Airbus Mulls an Extra Stretch for A350 Jetliner

Posted 2013-10-21 11:40:17 and read 7873 times.

The link is not posting for some reason

Posted 2013-10-21 11:43:23 and read 7861 times.



[Edited 2013-10-21 11:51:06]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-21 11:45:43 and read 7864 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 226):
From wsj : Airbus Mulls an Extra Stretch for A350 Jetliner

Key points:

> "It's in a pre-concept phase," Mr. Evrard said
> "We can certainly do it; it's a question of market and priorities"
> But the ability of suppliers to keep up with its plans is critical for the success of the A350 program
> Airbus "isn't in a hurry" to develop more versions of the plane as it has 756 A350s in its order backlog

Of course, "isn't in a hurry" is the political correct answer for "we'll wait for final 777X specs".

Airbus also claims the 777-9 will be 35 tonnes heavier than the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ap305
Posted 2013-10-21 11:46:12 and read 7857 times.

The WSJ article quotes Evrard as saying " It's in a pre-concept phase,"

Edit: Karel beat me to it...

[Edited 2013-10-21 11:47:12]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-10-21 11:48:13 and read 7853 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 228):
The head of Airbus US was interviewed very recently and he noted that Airbus does not even have an internal study of the A350-1100 in progress.

Airbus has certainly studied it. I can't provide the link to the WSJ article because it will fry the post, but here is what is said in that article:

"Developing a longer model than the 350-seat A350-1000 that Airbus is planning to bring into service in 2017 is possible, Didier Evrard, head of the A350 program, told journalists.

"It's in a pre-concept phase," Mr. Evrard said. "We can certainly do it; it's a question of market, of priorities, and we will continue to listen to our customers about what's best for them.""


mariner

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-10-21 11:51:46 and read 7843 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 231):
Airbus has certainly studied it.

My mistake. Allan McArtor said they don't have an internal proposal.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-10-21 11:57:01 and read 7787 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 232):
Allan McArtor said they don't have an internal proposal.

Yes, I read that too and I was scratching my head about it.

I doubt Leahy would have mentioned it unless he believed it was possible, that it had been studied.

mariner

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-21 12:11:35 and read 7732 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 230):
The WSJ article quotes Evrard as saying " It's in a pre-concept phase,"

Don't expect it to be launched before 2015/2016 though.

> Today's focus is on the current A350 family
> A market demand research will have to be done first
> Airbus will probably wait for 777X firm design (2015?)
> No delivery slots before 2020 (but that's not a bad thing, the 777X will be sold out too for the first years)
> Supply chain must be able to handle it, investments will have to be made
> Extra FAL capacity required
> Go sit with your customers around the table and ask what they really want, and than build it

etc

[Edited 2013-10-21 12:13:30]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-21 17:00:30 and read 7409 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
But when they DID react, they had little option but to aim the A350 at the 'mid-point' between the B787 and the B777.

The A350 was designed to replace the large A330-200/300 & A340-200/300/500/600 family, not to compete with the 787/777.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 31):
The 787-10 is MTOW limited because Boeing chose to stick with a 4 wheel main gear, Airbus is moving to a 6 wheel gear for the -1000 so should not be limited in the same way for the -1100

I am more inclined to think they could not go much higher with the MTOW, the 787-9 we see today is not the original 787-9, it is actually the 787-9HGW, the -10 shares the same weights.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 216):
That's not the same market, an -1100 with 380 seats which can fly 90% of the 779 routes with a lower trip cost / fuel burn per seat might be very attractive. On the other hand, Airbus should be careful not to threaten the 777X too much, otherwise Boeing might re-think the plans for a new wide-body jet. IMO it's better to share the market instead of making it a 1-to-1 fight.

I think if they do a -1100 it will be just an "Airbus" project, i.e. keeping the same engine as the -1000. Initially I would see the aircraft being like the original 777-300 as a regional workhorse, a bit like the 787-10 (however actually useful). Later in development they would need an engine to give it performance to drive it ULH like the GE90-115 did for the 77W. If they leave that do EIS around 5 years after the 777X it will leave Boeing boxed in with a less efficient airframe. What they will need to do is to reduce their price on the 777X to compete, which hurts the B bottom line. I do not think Airbus needs to sell a lot of A350-1100s, but I think they know they need to have it there.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 229):
Airbus also claims the 777-9 will be 35 tonnes heavier than the A350-1000.

Nothing new there, they were claiming 40t lighter than the 77W on 6000 nm trips, 20t due to the airframe, 20t less fuel.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Kengo
Posted 2013-10-21 17:51:42 and read 7359 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 229):
Airbus also claims the 777-9 will be 35 tonnes heavier than the A350-1000.

But isn't this expected considering the 779 is a bigger aircraft? I fail to see why Airbus emphasize the weight difference when it is clear that the 779 is bigger overall than their A351, thus weighing more and it is not like if the 777X is a clean new design.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-21 17:57:54 and read 7378 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 236):
But isn't this expected considering the 779 is a bigger aircraft?

No that much bigger, and when airlines typically fly around at 80% load factors for many airlines the A350-1000 will carry 80% load of a 777-9X with a lower cost.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2013-10-21 18:38:07 and read 7321 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 212):
I think there is no reason to hurry a possible A 350-1100. The A 350 sells well as it is and it will be a headache to produce them as fast as they sell.
We have seen what a too fast ramp up of the production does to a grand air frame like the B 787, a problem Airbus will hopefully avoid with the A 350.
When the three currently planned versions of the A 350 are out of the door, Airbus will have a look. If the A 350-1000 sells like hot cakes, it should be not necessary to fight the B 777-9 even if it sells well too.
It could be that both air framers will avoid going head to head in every part of the market.
Both are in it for the money but not for world domination.

A great voice of reason in here. So many of you are engaging in rash speculation irrespective of the need for cold logic. Reality says that Airbus will have its hands full for years to come with existing A350 variants and it should take the time to fully study the potential of the market the 777-9X will attempt to fill. How big will that market be? Nobody truly knows yet and while there's early indication of some promise in it, that's not enough for Airbus to commit now to the great expense of a complex stretch before they get out from under the overhead already incurred by the existing family. The -1000 is already formidably positioned as a 777-300ER killer which is undoubtedly a big part of the reason Boeing decided up-sizing the 777 was a wise move. But there's no guarantee yet there's a truly sizable market awaiting the 777-9X so for Airbus to do a knee-jerk reaction and commit to such a stretch before it can even fully evaluate the market potential would be crazy, particularly since it would also need to study how much damage the -1100 would do to A380 sales. Cold, hard logic dictates that Airbus will take enough time to fully study these scenarios and could well decide, if the 777-9X doesn't net a lot of early orders, that this is a market niche worth pursuing, especially if the 380 ends up taking a beating as well. A simple stretch -1100 might be more likely that doesn't directly challenge the 777-9X that could answer some higher capacity domestic traffic needs. A super stretch -1100 may come in time but not until Airbus has done a broad analysis of the market rationale for one. Airbus need nor chase Boeing into every market niche, particularly if a strong sales indicator isn't there. The money may well be better spent on improving the A380.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Nav20
Posted 2013-10-21 18:46:35 and read 7322 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
If they leave that do EIS around 5 years after the 777X it will leave Boeing boxed in with a less efficient airframe.

Not sure that the 777Xs will be 'less efficient'? Boeing are planning the next best thing to completely-new aeroplanes - thinner fuselage material (Al-Li) to provide more space inside, and CFRP wings?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-10-21 19:30:29 and read 7269 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 239):
Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
If they leave that do EIS around 5 years after the 777X it will leave Boeing boxed in with a less efficient airframe.

Not sure that the 777Xs will be 'less efficient'? Boeing are planning the next best thing to completely-new aeroplanes - thinner fuselage material (Al-Li) to provide more space inside, and CFRP wings?

You said it, the next best thing, not the best.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Nav20
Posted 2013-10-21 19:58:36 and read 7241 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 240):
You said it, the next best thing, not the best.

Remains to be seen whether a 'double-stretch' of the A359 will turn out to be 'the best' either?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-21 20:48:10 and read 7212 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 239):

It is not going to be close to the next best thing, it has many hangovers from being a 20 year old design. If they want to make it better, it will no longer be a 777, it will need to be recertified as a all new type, which is not impossible, but adds years and billions to the program cost. You either have something quick to market with lower costs, or something longer to market with higher costs (original A350 vs A350XWB). I see the 777X as having a very expensive engine as they drive for higher thermal efficency, I do not see it selling in the volumes of the GE90 or GEnx, hearing Boeing has already asked for two thrust increases to cover weight and drag increases, and they are still 2 years away from a firm design.

The original A350 would never have been competitive with the 787 ULH, however the 767-300ER with winglets and the A330 are very competitive with the 787 short to medium haul, depending on how they are configured.

The A350 has many systems that are more efficient, and you will recall that the 787 achieved around half of its efficiency gains from systems, the engines were the other half. The A350 engines already are significantly more efficient than the GE90, which means lower fuel volume required, and less structure to carry that fuel. The 787 and A350 have many aerodynamic advantages over the A330 and 777, the reason they can fly such long ranges at much lower fuel burns, and with less drag, they need less takeoff thrust.

These aircraft are being pitched at ULH operations, where additional weight means more fuel (unlike the 737Max and A320neo), Airbus is saying around 20t less than a 77W on a 6000 nm trip, I assume it is around 15t less for a 779X, over a year that is millions of dollars of extra fuel. If the -1100 costs an additional 5t (high end) of fuel for the same sector length, it is still a significant advantage.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 241):

As far as I am aware, with the panel approach, the -800 to -1100 fuselage will only be 3 panels long. It is not a stretch in the A340/787/777 sense. As far as I was aware, the panel approach was always more efficent as a idealised beam making the fuselage, where the 787 barrel is more efficent for pressure loads.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-10-21 21:57:52 and read 7116 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 232):
My mistake. Allan McArtor said they don't have an internal proposal.

He's clearly reading the wrong memo's as he went on to say that Airbus will keep the A330 in poduction with new winglets and a new engine..

Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
I think if they do a -1100 it will be just an "Airbus" project, i.e. keeping the same engine as the -1000

Well, the TWXB-79 and -84 are the same engine, part of the reason for the redesign of the -93 to the TXWB-97 was to give growth margin; Boeing thinks it can lift an extra 40t with 102K lbs so how much extra thrust would an A350-1100 need to retain its range? I'd say that RR could produce a TXWB-100 that would be the same basic engine as the TXWB-97.

Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
If they leave that do EIS around 5 years after the 777X it will leave Boeing boxed in with a less efficient airframe. What they will need to do is to reduce their price on the 777X to compete

An EIS of 2025? No I'd say they aim for an EIS not later than 2022, production and ramp up issues should be resolved by then and after the expected Emirates order 777X will be sold out past that date.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 241):
Remains to be seen whether a 'double-stretch' of the A359 will turn out to be 'the best' either?

As opposed to the double stretched 777X-9?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-21 23:14:22 and read 7012 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 243):
Well, the TWXB-79 and -84 are the same engine, part of the reason for the redesign of the -93 to the TXWB-97 was to give growth margin; Boeing thinks it can lift an extra 40t with 102K lbs so how much extra thrust would an A350-1100 need to retain its range? I'd say that RR could produce a TXWB-100 that would be the same basic engine as the TXWB-97.

The increase in fuselage length from -900 to -1000 was around 360 kg/m, assuming a similar extension of 7.0m (around 80 m overall), they would be looking at around 2.4t for the additional fuselage. From the -900 to -1000 they increased the weight by 40t, and range by about 350 nm, if they wanted to make use of the additional fuselage with real payload, they will need to increase the thrust above what the -1000 has on ULH missions.

Assuming an additional 8 LD3s, 10lb/cu.ft, 100 kg each, 6.3t, another 40 pax with baggage, 4t, plus the 2.4t of fuselage, increase of 12.7t, call it 13. Probably cost around 5t of fuel to carry that payload 6000 nm. So the aircraft would need to be around 18t heavier to go around the same range.

As a medium haul people mover, even the -97 engines would be too much, ULH they would need around 100k I would think.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-10-22 01:24:49 and read 6796 times.

Evrard said the MLG

Quote:
The current studies are primarily technical. Evrard points out that the landing gear for the -1000 is already different from the -900, and has upward weight potential in the tens of tons
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_10_22_2013_p03-01-628768.xml

What about the TrentXWB-97 ?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ap305
Posted 2013-10-22 01:45:17 and read 6732 times.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 245):
What about the TrentXWB-97 ?

Does the a350 have the clearance for a larger fan?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-10-22 01:58:11 and read 6694 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 246):
Does the a350 have the clearance for a larger fan?

Yes but it won't need one..

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-22 02:20:10 and read 6664 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 235):
I am more inclined to think they could not go much higher with the MTOW, the 787-9 we see today is not the original 787-9, it is actually the 787-9HGW, the -10 shares the same weights.

An 787-10HGW will also be significantly heavier than the A350-900 (bigger wing, stronger wingbox).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 243):
Boeing thinks it can lift an extra 40t with 102K lbs

Yes but the 777X will have a bigger wing too, hence only 102K lbs thrust. An -1100 with the same wing will need a more powerful engine.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 243):
I'd say that RR could produce a TXWB-100 that would be the same basic engine as the TXWB-97.

I'm sure they can, question is: will RR commit to another engine?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 243):
how much extra thrust would an A350-1100 need to retain its range?

Looking at the 787-9 and 787-10, we know:

> B789: range 8000-8500nm, 71,000 lbf thrust
> B78J: range 7000nm, 76,000 lbf thrust

Both have the same wing.

If the A350-1100 needs to maintain range with the same wing, it will probably need a much more powerful engine.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-22 03:02:34 and read 6575 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 248):
Looking at the 787-9 and 787-10, we know:

> B789: range 8000-8500nm, 71,000 lbf thrust
> B78J: range 7000nm, 76,000 lbf thrust

Both have the same wing.

If the A350-1100 needs to maintain range with the same wing, it will probably need a much more powerful engine.

The wing loading of the A350 is fairly low compared to the 787, even if you were to increase the MTOW up by 18t (326t) on the -1100, it would have a wing loading close to the 787-8, still much lower than the 787-9/10.

The wing area of the 777-X has a proposed wing area of 1.3% more than the A350-1000 with 36t difference in MTOW. At 326t, an A350-1100 would still have around a 4% lower wing loading than the 777-9X.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-22 03:08:30 and read 6520 times.

Interesting numbers, thanks zeke.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-10-22 03:49:50 and read 6446 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 248):
If the A350-1100 needs to maintain range with the same wing, it will probably need a much more powerful engine.

I see a simple stretch being executed first - just as happened with the 773A and now the 787-10 (the 77W came quite late). The 35J has abundant range so there's plenty there to trade for a bit of payload. It could conceivably make life difficult for the 779X (other than for ME carriers) as it would do the "90% of the routes at far less cost" thing which is being so strongly touted for the 787-10.

Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-22 04:37:50 and read 6467 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 249):
The wing area of the 777-X has a proposed wing area of 1.3% more than the A350-1000 with 36t difference in MTOW. At 326t, an A350-1100 would still have around a 4% lower wing loading than the 777-9X.

I never realised that the difference in wing area between the A350-1000 and the B777-9 would be that small. That makes these numbers interesting indeed.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-10-22 05:05:47 and read 6406 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 252):
I never realised that the difference in wing area between the A350-1000 and the B777-9 would be that small. That makes these numbers interesting indeed.

The A350-1000 has about 30 sq.m more wing area than the 77W, and that has a 351t MTOW.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-10-22 05:12:52 and read 6384 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 251):
It could conceivably make life difficult for the 779X (other than for ME carriers)

I don't think that Airbus should bother chasing the ME carriers, let Boeing have them at the huge discounts they will offer for launch orders, its going to be irrelevent after the Dubai airshow anyway as they will commit wholesale to the 779. What Airbus needs to do is produce a -1100 which works for the rest of the world, i.e shorter range, slightly smaller lower seat mile costs and in a true family of aircraft.

If Boeing sell 100 units to ME carriers (& BA possibly) at Dubai thats going to be close to 3 years production so other carriers will be unable to get their hands on one until 2025! Thats a long time into the future for smaller players to take a punt on an new aircraft.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 248):
Yes but the 777X will have a bigger wing too, hence only 102K lbs thrust. An -1100 with the same wing will need a more powerful engine.

No, it really won't, Airbus traditionally build larger wings as standard and require less thrust and the 777-300 is already a porker when compared to the A350, the 777X models are still going to be "plus sized model" models, if you know what I mean..

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-22 05:24:55 and read 6326 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 254):
No, it really won't, Airbus traditionally build larger wings as standard and require less thrust and the 777-300 is already a porker when compared to the A350, the 777X models are still going to be "plus sized model" models, if you know what I mean..

I have to admit, I have been fooled by the large wing span of 71 meters and the marketing claims "it's gonna be a very big wing". Clearly the 777X wing won't be as big as I thought.

Thanks.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Nav20
Posted 2013-10-22 05:28:50 and read 6315 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 243):
As opposed to the double stretched 777X-9?

As I've said, BoeingVista, with new Al-Li fuselages and composite wings, the two 777X proposals appear to qualify as 'new designs' rather than stretches?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-22 05:34:11 and read 6292 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 256):
As I've said, BoeingVista, with new Al-Li fuselages and composite wings, the two 777X proposals appear to qualify as 'new designs' rather than stretches?

It's a major update of the existing design but not as new as a clean-sheet program.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-22 05:41:42 and read 6249 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 256):
As I've said, BoeingVista, with new Al-Li fuselages and composite wings, the two 777X proposals appear to qualify as 'new designs' rather than stretches?

No, they are major upgrades of an older design including a fuselage stretch, the second one we have seen on the B777-program. It s no new design which means it has areas where it is not improved over what would be done if it was a totalle new design.  .

A totally real new design would also mean a complete new certification as well, and no doubt Boeing would then have opted for a CFRP-fuselage. Making the program Billions of Dollars more expensive and more time-consuming to develop. And that is not going to happen as we see the first customers lining up for the B777-X (LH and more to follow.....).

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Nav20
Posted 2013-10-22 06:17:37 and read 6181 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 258):
No, they are major upgrades of an older design including a fuselage stretch
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 258):
A totally real new design would also mean a complete new certification as well

Thanks, EPA001. So it looks as if Boeing can have their cake and eat it too? A de facto new model that doesn't need separate certification?

If so, very well done, in my opinion..........

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-22 06:38:51 and read 6135 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 259):
If so, very well done, in my opinion..........

If properly executed, it could very well be a well done program for Boeing. But until that time many years will pass.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 259):
A de facto new model that doesn't need separate certification?

Well, all new parts will require a certification, but quite some certifications of the B777 will be grandfathered to the B777-X program. That is why it is still called the B777, no matter which variant of the family Boeing is talking about.  .

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-10-22 06:53:40 and read 6099 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 256):
As I've said, BoeingVista, with new Al-Li fuselages and composite wings, the two 777X proposals appear to qualify as 'new designs' rather than stretches?

Did Boeing say that they where using Al-Li for the fuse on the 777X

I only recall them saying they where considering Al-Li

It is not that simple to swap Al-Li for conventional aluminium in an excisting design because the properties of the alloy are quite different, specially regarding fatigue. So possibly the fuselage has to be redesigned or modified if the alloy is to be changed.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-10-22 08:06:48 and read 5944 times.

For 6 rows of 9 persons each at a pitch of 33", the stretch for the A 350-1000 to the A350-1100 would be about 5 m.
Bringing the passenger capacity to about 400, no need to go to ten in a row.
That would bring the bird to a length of about 79 m. So an increase to much the B 777-9X would stay inside the 80 m box.
One should not forget either that the A 350 has more cabin length at the same fuselage length compared to the B 777. The same fuselage length will fit more rows of seats in the A 350.
That could also mean 3 rows more of LD3 bringing the freight capacity to about 50 LD3.
According to the newest article in the Aviation Week the landing gear of the A 350-1000 can stand a MTOW increase of several tens of tons. Perhaps Airbus had planed the A 350-1100 all along.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_10_22_2013_p03-01-628768.xml

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-22 08:36:30 and read 5868 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 262):
Perhaps Airbus had planed the A 350-1100 all along.

Well, I don not think they planned it all along. But they were taking the possibility into account when designing the A350-1000. We know from the A380 they have had stretches in mind all along, and the proportions of the A380 clearly give that away. But especially the MLG seems to be designed on the A350-1000 with future growth in mind.  .

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: abba
Posted 2013-10-22 08:56:54 and read 5812 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 262):
According to the newest article in the Aviation Week the landing gear of the A 350-1000 can stand a MTOW increase of several tens of tons.


In other words: Don't believe in what they say but in what they do..  

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2013-10-22 09:32:52 and read 5696 times.

IMO these plans are currently coming to the surface, because some potential blue chip A350 customers shall be supported in their feeling, that they won't need the 777X, because the A350 will anything they'd ever need.

It does not need to be more than "plans" currently. The airlines shall just know, that 777X investments might be challenged by better (= more efficient) aircraft operated by competing airlines.

E.g. (purely fictional) Air France operating 97% of LH's 779X routes with A35011's for clearly lower costs, could make LH look dumb once again (they played that role also with the A346, and LX with the A343 and the 77W again).

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 262):
Perhaps Airbus had planed the A 350-1100 all along.

They certainly have. All aircrafts are designed to grow in size, MTOW and range considerably over their lifetime.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Finn350
Posted 2013-10-22 09:40:18 and read 5684 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 262):
According to the newest article in the Aviation Week the landing gear of the A 350-1000 can stand a MTOW increase of several tens of tons. Perhaps Airbus had planed the A 350-1100 all along.

Interesting. The big question is does the A350-1100 need a completely new wing or can Airbus extend the current one enough? In any case, Airbus will have one clear advantage over Boeing if they decide to launch A350-1100: all 4 models (A350-800/900/1000/1100) are from the same aircraft family with a very high degree of commonality. Boeing will have two families with differing architectures (all-electric composite 787 vs. conventional 777) with low degree of commonality.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-10-22 09:48:30 and read 5635 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 262):
That would bring the bird to a length of about 79 m.

Trick is, can they stretch her that length? The A350-900 sits about as high off the ground as the 777-200LR so it stands to reason the A350-1000 will have similar ground clearance to the rear as the 777-300ER does.

Assuming Boeing could not stretch the 777 to 79m for the 777-9 due to clearance issues on rotation, can we be confident Airbus could stretch the A350 to 79m for the A350-1100?

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-10-22 10:09:54 and read 5523 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 267):
Assuming Boeing could not stretch the 777 to 79m for the 777-9 due to clearance issues on rotation, can we be confident Airbus could stretch the A350 to 79m for the A350-1100?

Doesn't that assume both have the MLG fulcrum at the same point in terms of the overall fuselage length. I have no idea if they are or one is quite a bit further back than the other. A meter or two difference in that poistion may be enough to prevent a tailstrike with the added length.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-10-22 10:46:33 and read 5422 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 268):
Doesn't that assume both have the MLG fulcrum at the same point in terms of the overall fuselage length. I have no idea if they are or one is quite a bit further back than the other. A meter or two difference in that poistion may be enough to prevent a tailstrike with the added length.

The 77W also has an engine of considerably larger diameter, but I'm not sure quite how, or if, that figures in this equation....

Rgds

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-10-22 11:08:47 and read 5382 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 253):
The A350-1000 has about 30 sq.m more wing area than the 77W

You are comparing Airbus rules wingarea (-1000) to a Wimpress rules wingarea (77W), when both are measure with the same rules they differ 461 to 454 m2. The wingloading of the 77W is still very high at 774 vs 668 kg/m2 (both measured with Airbus rules).

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: ap305
Posted 2013-10-22 12:40:28 and read 5202 times.

From Bloomberg: Rolls-Royce Starts Engine Work to Replace Trents on Future Jets

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...on-future-jets.html?cmpid=msnmoney


The article says"First half of the next decade". I suspect the timing could suit a a350-1100 quite well.

[Edited 2013-10-22 12:42:43]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-22 14:09:23 and read 5022 times.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 271):
From Bloomberg: Rolls-Royce Starts Engine Work to Replace Trents on Future Jets

Well, this comes as no surprise after the RR-proposal for the B777-X program did not make it against GE's offering. The new technology features they had in mind for that engine will no doubt land in this successor of the highly successful Trent engines. RR will not sit still but will do all what is necessary to remain (at least of) the best large airliner engine maker for sure.  .

Quoting ap305 (Reply 271):
The article says"First half of the next decade". I suspect the timing could suit a a350-1100 quite well.

It very well could be, but the smaller versions could also land on updates on the A380 and on the standard A350's as well.  . So in ten years time or so the stakes are upped again.

[Edited 2013-10-22 14:17:07]

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-10-22 17:59:52 and read 4739 times.

These statements by Airbus and RR are clearly designed to inform any potential customers out there for the 779X that Boeing wont have the 400 seat segment to itself. They are basically saying "we can do it too" and it will be with a lighter clean sheet platform that will have lower costs, be more future proof than the 777X and will be part of an extended family of aircraft rather than a one trick pony such as the 777X.

Its a good argument.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-10-22 19:26:06 and read 4644 times.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 256):
As I've said, BoeingVista, with new Al-Li fuselages and composite wings, the two 777X proposals appear to qualify as 'new designs' rather than stretches?

Nope.. Its about as much of a new design as the A350MK1.. The phrase warmed over was applied to it by a certain feral industry consultant.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 267):
Trick is, can they stretch her that length? The A350-900 sits about as high off the ground as the 777-200LR so it stands to reason the A350-1000 will have similar ground clearance to the rear as the 777-300ER does.

Not really, if you look at the two aircraft the A350's main gear is much futher rearward so the pivot point is different.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 273):
These statements by Airbus and RR are clearly designed to inform any potential customers out there for the 779X that Boeing wont have the 400 seat segment to itself. They are basically saying "we can do it too" and it will be with a lighter clean sheet platform that will have lower costs, be more future proof than the 777X and will be part of an extended family of aircraft rather than a one trick pony such as the 777X.

Its a good argument.

Yes, they are saying to airlines take your time with this decision and after the expected initial ME order rush the timescale for 777X decisions gets pushed out even further as there will be no medium term availibility. This is designed to weaken Boeings bargaining position and to crimp its margins.

Topic: RE: Timeline For The A350-1100?
Username: iowaman
Posted 2013-10-22 19:37:24 and read 4633 times.

Due to length, lets roll this to part two here: Timeline For The A350-1100? Part 2 (by iowaman Oct 22 2013 in Civil Aviation)

This thread will be archived. Any posts after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes.

[Edited 2013-10-22 19:39:43]


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/