Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can Airbus Send The A350 Back To Redesign?  
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 561 posts, RR: 8
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14782 times:

This is not intended to bash the A350 but to ponder a serious business question based on a hypothetical situation. If EK were to go 787 and QR were not to firm up orders or even go Boeing and given the tough losses it has had, the A350 would become a hard plane to sell. They'd have 49 firm and 50 or so smaller carriers but no flagship name. Is tinkering with the design their only option or has an OEM ever done a complete redesign after selling a lot of planes? What are their options?

Mind you, I don't think this will happen and I suspect the committments will firm up and they will definitely build. Losing QR would be catastrophic and I am sure Boeing is working hard to do just that.


The dude abides
198 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I assume Airbus will be improving and fine-tuning the A350 until it enters commercial service and then fine-tune even more to work out the final bugs and hiccups... as is usual with all new aircraft.

I'm sure even Boeing will have a few snags and bugs and things with their 787 leading to an aircraft or two being delayed into service.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14686 times:

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
They'd have 49 firm and 50 or so smaller carriers but no flagship name


Mr. Comet,

You might want to check your figures first, before coming to the conclusion that lead to this rather 'funny' question.

Airbus has 164 firm Commitments, of wich 49 have been firmed up to orders. Customers include TAP, TAM, Finnair and Qatar aswell as the worlds leading aircraft lessor ILFC.


Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
This is not intended to bash the A350 but to ponder a serious business question based on a hypothetical situation. If EK were to go 787 and QR were not to firm up orders or even go Boeing and given the tough losses it has had, the A350 would become a hard plane to sell

To date, little over 500 aircraft have been sold to the worlds airlines of both the A350 and 787. The market is estimated at 2000 to 3000 frames in the next
2 decades, even without EK onboard, that leaves plenty of potential. 12 companys, so far have chosen the A350 above the 787. You can bet your bank account that these people made their homework good. In the very unlikely event that the current ratio 1/2 Airbus vs Boeing continues (merely due to earlier offering and delivery of the 787), a 33% market share would represent 700 to 1000 airframes.

No, Airbus will not send the A350 back to the drawingboard.

Airbus lost the battle at QF, Boeing won, altough the question remains at what cost. The topics mushrooming at the forum about a possible demise of the A380, A350, A330/340 (still waiting for someone to link the A320 to the QF order) are funny at best, ignorant at worst. Airbus would have given away their planes to QF for free if the future of the A350 and all their other aircraft familys depended on it. Seriously!  Yeah sure



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14673 times:

Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
They'd have 49 firm



Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
of wich 49 have been firmed up to orders

What were you correcting?



-AJR-
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14665 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Airbus has 164 firm Commitments, of wich 49 have been firmed up to orders.

LOL! Right. Airbus has sold 49 planes. Options may or may not happen. That's why you can't count them as anything.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14663 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 3):
What were you correcting?



Quoting MrComet (Thread starter):
50 or so smaller carriers but no flagship name.



Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Airbus has 164 firm Commitments,



Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Customers include TAP, TAM, Finnair and Qatar aswell as the worlds leading aircraft lessor ILFC.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14654 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
Options may or may not happen.

LOL, Options  Yeah sure
How about commitments?
So what was Qantas order yesterday? 115 options of wich 45 options, 20 of these other options and 50 of that other sort of options?



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14559 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
LOL, Options
How about commitments?
So what was Qantas order yesterday? 115 options of wich 45 options, 20 of these other options and 50 of that other sort of options?

I don't know what you have been reading but, 45 firm, 70 options. Not 115 options.

You only count firm orders...



-AJR-
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14548 times:

The Qantas deal was unusual in that Geoff Dixon spelled out in detail the factors that caused Qantas to select the 787:-

"The Boeing 787 is ideal for operating to Asia, as well the USA and Europe, and with 300 seats, will enable both Qantas and Jetstar to closely target markets without compromising efficiency," he said.

"Its new technology engines, cutting-edge airframe and increased seat count also offer a significant reduction in costs per ASK compared to the current Boeing 767."

"Mr Dixon said Qantas' current order was a mix of B787-8 and later model B787-9 aircraft.

"When the B787-9 model is ready for service in 2011, it will represent an even greater engineering breakthrough, flying further than the B787-8 but with capacity for 50 additional passengers," he said.

"Mr Dixon said the B787's lighter fuselage, which was constructed from composite material, allowed the aircraft to:

* fly further with a full payload;
* burn less fuel;
* fly faster than any other aircraft of its size; and
* reduce maintenance costs.

"The composite fuselage also allows increased window size and a lower cabin altitude pressure that reduces the effects of jetlag."

"Mr Dixon said the Boeing 787 had been developed out of the Boeing investment in its Sonic Cruiser project, which had resulted in the development of groundbreaking technology like the use of composite materials that could be suitably manufactured for commercial aircraft.

"The B787 has a 'double bubble' design that increases width at shoulder height to ensure the most spacious cabin feel for customers as well as providing more freight capacity.

"In addition to the 787-8 and 787-9 models, Boeing is studying an extension of the 787 family. Boeing is also continuing to look for ways of enhancing further the B787's range performance."


http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn.../details?ArticleID=2005/dec05/3369

Clearly, Qantas made a comprehensive step-by-step technical/marketing comparison of the 787 and the A350. And the 787 came out on top by every criterion.

The A350 will not go as far or as fast. It will burn more fuel. It will weigh more. It will carry less freight. It will cost more to maintain. It will offer passengers less space, smaller windows, and less attractive surroundings, and they will suffer from more jetlag. And it will offer far less scope for future development, particularly in the area of increased range.

In a word, the A350 is uncompetitive.

In my view Airbus would be mad to commit $5B. to develop it. A 'clean sheet' design, incorporating new technology to match that of Boeing, is their only option.

[Edited 2005-12-15 09:37:43]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14513 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
In my view Airbus would be mad to commit $5B. to develop it. A 'clean sheet' design, incorporating new technology to match that of Boeing, is their only option.

Too bad they tied up 15bil in the A380 which they won't see returns on for a looong time imo.

The planes they have sold were mostly at a 40% discount and now they will have to wait till the A380 get into service and proves itself to sell at sticker. But I guess it doesn't matter how long you tie up large sums of money in a project as long as a country is willing to finance.



-AJR-
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14509 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):


Manni, I for one found your post number 2 to be very well argued and 'intelligent'. Well done!

[quote=NAV20,reply=8]The A350 will not go as far or as fast. It will burn more fuel. It will weigh more. It will offer passengers less space, smaller windows, and less attractive surroundings, and they will suffer from more jetlag. And it will offer far less scope for future development, particularly in the area of increased range.

In a word, the A350 is uncompetitive.

Great, hope the airlines are listening to NAV20... he knows best!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
smaller windows

AHHHHH, OH NO, smaller windows!!!!!!!!!!



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2697 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14505 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
LOL, Options
How about commitments?
So what was Qantas order yesterday? 115 options of wich 45 options, 20 of these other options and 50 of that other sort of options?

Your argument is laughable at best. Nothing but wishfull thinking on the Qantas order.

Commitments are not orders. Simply put, it's nothing but a bit of paper that says "Airline Y intends to by X ammount of aircraft. Pending"

Boeing have stated they've received comittments for well over 700 787s. Yet these are not mentioned in any order books. Why?
Because they are not orders. A commitment can be anything from the piece of paper I mention above to a purchase of delivery slots. Its a very imprecise term.

Swing it how you like, but this is the cold truth.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14478 times:

Manni....You are missing my point entirely. I asked you to accept the premise for arguments sake. If QR and EK heaped 150 orders on Boeing Airbus would be stuck in a difficult financial situation. Do you redesign from scratch which I think a lot of Airbus supporters would advocate or do you build something you know is losing most of the battles and hope that as you finalize you suddenly get increased performance. Can you redesign from scratch with so many orders? Are they already committed to this thing as is? Do you renegotiate and risk losing existing orders?

[Edited 2005-12-15 09:47:11]


The dude abides
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14457 times:

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 10):
Great, hope the airlines are listening to NAV20...

More a case of me listening to them, Toulouse. All I did was summarise what Dixon said.

In any case, so far (not counting Qantas), the airlines have lodged 253 'firm orders' for the 787; against 49 for the A350.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14456 times:

People on this forum won't be able to get over the:

"If QR and EK ordered 150 787 instead of A350's."



-AJR-
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14440 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Airbus has 164 firm Commitments



Quoting GARPD (Reply 11):
Boeing have stated they've received commitments for well over 700 787s.

Manni if you want to talk commitments because you got kinda hung up on them...



-AJR-
User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14434 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Airbus has 164 firm Commitments, of wich 49 have been firmed up to orders.



Quoting GARPD (Reply 11):
Commitments are not orders. Simply put, it's nothing but a bit of paper that says "Airline Y intends to by X ammount of aircraft. Pending"



Quoting GARPD (Reply 11):
Swing it how you like, but this is the cold truth.

And look who is "swinging it" here


"We have 164 firm orders for the A350 so far and we will increase this significantly again by year-end," Thomas Enders said late on Tuesday in comments embargoed for Wednesday."

So what is the TRUTH? - Airbus lists 49 FIRM A350 orders yet we keep hearing this....Do you really think they were able to firm up 115 "commitments" in 15 days?

I wouldn't have a problem with his statement if he had added "and committments"

- n1786b


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14417 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 7):
I don't know what you have been reading but, 45 firm, 70 options. Not 115 options.



Quoting GARPD (Reply 11):
Your argument is laughable at best.


You're both obviously missing the point I was making. Cfalk, called Airbus' orders for the A350, 49 firm orders and the rest options. I disagree, they're firm commitments not options. In order to illustrate this I used Qantas order to point out how ridiculous it is to clasify commitments under the same label as options.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 11):

Boeing have stated they've received comittments for well over 700 787s.

If these commitments were anywhere near as secure as those of Qantas yesterday, or those of Finnair last week, on the Airbus side, you can be sure, that we would have read about them by now, including the names of those who ordered. Unless we have a unidentified order for 350 frames.  Yeah sure



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14391 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 15):
Boeing have stated they've received commitments for well over 700 787s.

Manni if you want to talk commitments because you got kinda hung up on them...

OK, let's talk commitments. I'll name those 164 of Airbus, if you can name those 700 for Boeing first...  Yeah sure

Quoting MrComet (Reply 12):
Manni....You are missing my point entirely. I asked you to accept the premise for arguments sake



There's to many if's in your argument.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14357 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 18):
OK, let's talk commitments. I'll name those 164 of Airbus, if you can name those 700 for Boeing first...

And we both know I can't. Why we shouldn't use commitments as a gage. I'm expecting to see some firm orders come from Airbus over the next few days as promised. I don't think the A350 will be a bad product at all, its just inferior to the 787 in many cases. But it has a lower development cost meaning they will be able to sell a good amount at a cheaper price then the 787 and it will be a successful plane for Airbus. But I think current orders and the obvious fact is, the 787 had more time and money put into it which will pay off in the long run. The 787 is going to be a superior product.



-AJR-
User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14312 times:

Well, back on subject....

This weeks FI has the following:

"The next key point in the A350’s development is what Airbus calls “Milestone 5” in the first quarter of 2006, which is the design freeze."

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...oost+Airbus+A350+cruise+speed.html

Redesigning the A350 won't happen - tweaking will.

- n1786b


User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14272 times:

A design freeze is far from permanent though.


-AJR-
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14267 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 19):
And we both know I can't.

Indeed, therefore you shouldn't compare the 700 of Boeing with the 164 of Airbus.

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 19):
The 787 is going to be a superior product.

Superior, for some airlines, inferior to others. Why on earth would an airline order the A350 if it is inferior to the 787 and has a higher listprice?

The 787 might, at the moment, fit in better for a larger group of airlines than the A350. But those who ordered the A350 obviously found the A350 to be the better fit.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14254 times:

True, but each airline has certain operating conditions, I mean't in general.


-AJR-
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14213 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 23):
True, but each airline has certain operating conditions, I mean't in general.

As you said, each airline has their certain operation conditions. Therefore you can't generalise. The only conclusion you might draw is that, at the moment the majority of airlines who have placed orders for either the A350 or the 787 found the 787 to be the better fit. The minority, the A350, but they'll certainly not buy it if they tought it's inferior.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
25 Toulouse : NAV20, point taken, BUT, you summarised what Dixon said about 1 airline, and not airlines in plural. Ok, 253 firm orders for the 787 (congratulations
26 AJRfromSYR : If I never saw firm order numbers I'd still say the 787 is the better plane in general, and confused how you can contest this. The A350 was a catch-u
27 Keesje : Ah we forget the biggest one again. Let me help: Dixon said there were several factors that persuaded the Qantas board to go with the 787 instead of
28 AJRfromSYR : 'There was nothing in the price between the two manufacturers,'' Qantas Chief Financial Officer Peter Gregg said in an interview today. Source: Bloom
29 Manni : 164 commitments stands for roughly 25 billion dollars, and would buy 200 787's instead. Again, who on earth would fork out that kind of money to a pl
30 AJRfromSYR : You keep talking commitments, lets leave it at firm orders. 49. And for those Airlines they felt the A350 was better, bound to happen. If you have two
31 AJRfromSYR : Not to mention fleet commonality, price, etc
32 Manni : Make up your mind. It will be a sweep when so much money is involved... 767-400 vs A330 comes to mind.
33 Post contains images GARPD : Because airbus can sell ice to eskimos!
34 AJRfromSYR : That's funny because I was under the impression that CO and DL wanted a DC10/MD11 replacement and asked Boeing. I'm also pretty sure that they sold 3
35 Ruscoe : Problem now for the 350 is that it is hard to envisage a lot more development. It is already playing catch up with the current 787 and it is at the st
36 Manni : The 767-400 got sweeped by the A330. It ended up being built for DL and CO, but the cancellation of the KQ order, the 767-400 worldtour (no need to d
37 Post contains links Leelaw : Keesje, Dixon also made this remark: "The best wine came from the Airbus side," Dixon joked, "Unfortunately, (the Airbus offering) never made the gra
38 AJRfromSYR : How could it have been swept if they are in service for DL and CO, I'm confused. But this proves the point. The A330 was a better plane, and only CO/
39 Post contains images Manni : Very well, finally... Now add 787 and A350 where A330 and 764 are written.
40 Toulouse : Are you employed by both Airbus and Boeing? If not, how can you make such an assumption that the 787 is a better plane in general to the 350?! Neithe
41 AJRfromSYR : Well maybe we were agreeing the whole time. A330 is a better plane, but not exclusively. I believe the 787 is a better plane, but not exclusively. We
42 Manni : Not exclusively? I take it as being better for some but not all. Yes, agreed.
43 Post contains images Lumberton : I suspect that "point" occurred when they got the phone call 5 minutes before the public announcement that QF selected Boeing. Don't kid yourself, Ai
44 AJRfromSYR : We will have to wait and see, but my statements were regarding the propaganda coming from both camps. And don't think I believe the A350 was conceive
45 Abba : Oh come one. I think what you wrote is a prime example of wishful reading at best. From what you quote, QF is not comparing the 787 to the 350 but th
46 AJRfromSYR : I didn't hear about this, so I checked the Airbus site with no joy. Got something for me to read? While reading the Airbus info on the A350 it says "
47 Zvezda : Anything short of a signed order (e.g. LOI, MOU) is not a firm commitment. It is barely a commitment at all. Options are not any sort of commitment o
48 MidnightMike : Boeing & Airbus both wanted the deal very badly, both were involved with the deal to the very end. It was due to Airbus's counteroffer that caused Qa
49 Toulouse : Glad to hear you don't think the 350 will be a bad plane... I'm sure the engineers here at Airbus a sighing a sigh of relief now! But being serious,
50 MidnightMike : Airbus is talking about from a technical point of view, the "will" is used correctly..
51 AJRfromSYR : True but it's like saying, "passangers will be able to run around naked and do coke off the arm rests." You can do a lot on a plane, if it's allowed
52 MidnightMike : Be careful, sure if you compare the 767-400 to the A330, it is a clean sweep for Airbus, BUT, if you compare the 767 to the A330, that would make it
53 Joni : I agree, there's no need to do so since the plane is already on track to success. We'll have to look back after both 787 and A350 have been inservice
54 MidnightMike : Well, if you take what was written to a literal point of view, then yes, you would be correct. Besides, by the time the A350 starts to fly, Cell Phon
55 Keesje : I think airbus will freeze the A358/9 designs after the 787-9 design has passed the point of no return. The 787-9 has undergone significant changes re
56 Leelaw : Actually, the OEM can have some wiggle room in the option setting as well, depending on how the contract is structured. Often, the option holder only
57 Sabenapilot : Oh, dear! I just got back from my flight (Yes, some people commenting on this site actually DO work in aviation iso talk about it from early morning t
58 Post contains links Keesje : "The economics of the 787 outweighed any disadvantages of having multiple-model fleets," Jetstar CEO Alan Joyce said. "The price we got for the aircr
59 Post contains images NorCal : Didn't read that little part? Or the part about Airbus' "wine" not making the grade? Or all the other parts about how much Qantas liked the technical
60 Manni : And the 767 has had how many existing customers before Airbus was even thinking about the A330? How many years more is the 767 around? How many new c
61 NorCal : Well when you make the biggest commitement to the program to date you get a good price. Ever heard of a Costco or Sam's club? You save when you buy i
62 Post contains images NumberTwelve : Did Dixon also say, that the 380 will never fly? This is what you wrote before the 380's 1st flight. So much about your comments
63 Fokker70NG : I'm amazed there are still people thinking that Airbus has ever done anything good. I thought everybody would know by now that Airbus aircraft are far
64 Post contains images Manni : Oh yes, Airbus did do something good. Airbus made Boeing look good.
65 HS748 : Where does it say that the comparisons are with the A350? Those improvements will be over current types, not the A350.
66 WINGS : Sabenapilot, what a wonderful post. Welcome to my Respected Users List. Regards, Wings
67 Leelaw : If Airbus had won what Dixon described last week as a very close competition, would you be characterizing their winning bid as a "strategic deal?"
68 DL021 : It was more than price, and you know it. You are defending the "honor" of the Airbus product to what end? The thing has been adjudged inferior in thi
69 MidnightMike : The only thing that counts is final numbers, the 767 line has outsold the A330, by a 2-1 margin. To compare the entire line of the A330 to a single m
70 Fokker70NG : So you are saying comparing an entire line which was launched in 1978 (767) to a line which was launched in 1987 (A330) is fair? Taking that into con
71 Manni : That would only be valid if both models had been around for the same amount of time. Now dont be stubborn, and admit, that you can not compare the sa
72 Dougloid : You seem to suggest some sort of dark motive and conspiracy theory here, that Boeing gave away the ranch and Airbus was in the game but couldn't/woul
73 BoomBoom : As I recall the first order was to ANA for 50 787s. That's what I call starting off with a bang! Well, yes. At least the first version. (Which versio
74 MidnightMike : No, it is not fair, which is pretty much the point I was trying to make.
75 Keesje : conspiracy? I concluded Boeing can compete only on price? You aren't putting words in my mouth, aren't you Dougloid? I just quote Dixon & Joyce. If y
76 MidnightMike : Sure I can, in fact I just did, as to the A330, if the A330 is much younger & better as you suggested, then the A330 should have been able to catch u
77 NorCal : Not only price but a lot of other things that you conveniently leave out.
78 GARPD : You MIS-quoted Dixon and Joyce and posted a conclusion that is entirely factless. This is what Dougloid has picked up on.
79 Leelaw : You quote, but then you spin. Other members aren't objecting to what "they" say, they're objecting to your spin on what "they" say.
80 Post contains images FlyAUA : To address the initial question... the A350 design has not yet reached "milestone 5" (a.k.a. the design freeze), and because of this, it would be sill
81 MTY2GVA : Numbers talk if I'm an airline and I go shopping I would buy the most economic (operational-wise ), durable, and reliable airplane that suits my range
82 WINGS : To be fair we would have to include the A300/A310 and the A330-200 vs all of the B767 line. If we take these into consideration than the numbers turn
83 RedFlyer : Let's get back on topic, folks... I'm curious to know, if Airbus is going to "freeze" the design of the 350 in Q1 2006, why will it not enter service
84 WINGS : RedFlyer, you bring up some very interesting points. I too have always been confused as to why the A350 will require so much time to develop. Some su
85 DTWorBust : I hope that Airbus gets the 350 back on track, they will have to to compete with the 787 - they'll get something out there in time to stay in the game
86 Leelaw : Excellent Question. Perhaps Airbus doesn't have the necessary production infrastructure available to accommodate A350 production earlier?
87 Keesje : . Production of the A330 is being ramped up to meet high demand 2006-2010. . The later the A350, the better it can be adjusted to the changing market
88 Ken777 : Airbus doesn't need to go back & start with a clean sheet of paper, nor would they want to financially commit to doing that. The 350 is a significant
89 StuckInCA : You would have massacred anyone who acted this way had this deal gone to Airbus. If it helps you sleep better at night to think that Boeing only won
90 Post contains images FlyAUA : I think the answer to this question is simply resources. I doubt that much of the design needs yet to be done, however there are probably a variety o
91 PlaneDane : FlyAUA, Let's not view this all as senseless hatred. There is a difference between hatred and subjective criticism of a product or product line, I th
92 11Bravo : I actually think Airbus has accomplished exactly what they set out to do with the A350; chip away at B787 sales, capture some part of that market, and
93 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : AJRfromSYR.....Abba accuses other of just trying to start an A vs. B war by posting no useful information, yet Abba does the exact same thing, spewin
94 Morvious : Very clear thinking but............ You can't compare these two aircrafts. If the B767 was better then the A330 sold today, the line was still runnin
95 Post contains images FlyAUA : PlaneDane, no problem. I know that some of the remarks have been criticism, but I've just noticed a downhill trend lately and it's sad to have to sif
96 BoomBoom : You know I was just responding to Toulouse's ridiculous assertion that the 787 got off to a slow start. If you want to start comparing big bang order
97 Toulouse : Brillinat! Thanks for cheering up my evening! I believe Fokker70NG replied what i had inteded replying with to MidnightMike. Yes BoomBoom, my mistake
98 BoomBoom : Ok, but why are you even quoting it? It appears your are trying to portray it as some advantage that Airbus will have over Boeing.
99 11Bravo : You're right, it’s all about performance and value. I'll also agree that the whole window thing is a minor factor. If all things were equal, which
100 Toulouse : Thanks BoomBoom for okaying that! The above is simply your interpretation. If you read my post a bit closer you'd see I was simply posting some thing
101 Leelaw : I'd take it a step further and say it's a critical consideration. IIRC, Airbus, at least early-on, seriously questioned whether a composite hull woul
102 Sabenapilot : Vey good post indeed! At least somebody here on a.net who -I suppose from your name has a preference for Boeing- actually understands that Airbus (an
103 A319XFW : After reading through the many posts here, I had in my mind what I was wanting to write, until I got to your post. I think you said it all and yours
104 BlueSky1976 : Ahhh what a lovely thread... gotta straighten out some things here again, I see... 764ER was NEVER meant as a niche market plane. Boeing offered it to
105 BoomBoom : That looks pretty childish to me...particularly since you were the first to start 'okaying' things.
106 Ken777 : I chose my name after getting to sit in AA's Flagship Suite on a LHR-ORD flight - best seat I've sat in. My other preference is upper deck with the s
107 Toulouse : Excellent post Bluesky1976. I made no such assertion! Ok, I give up, will no longer post in this thread as really, looking at your responses, well the
108 Post contains images Glideslope : LOL.
109 MrComet : This is rather depressing. I don't know that I could invest $5 billion plus to build a product designed to get sales when the Boeing line gets too lo
110 Milan320 : I second that. Funny, I was just thinking that, but you took the words out of my mouth. Some of these people should actually get out and do some spor
111 Scbriml : Says Boeing. Meanwhile, back at Airbus, they say the 787 will cost more to maintain. Of couse, as you well know NAV20, with neither plane having even
112 Gigneil : What the hell are you even talking about? I keep reading this shit about the A330 vs the 767-400 with no possible parallel drawn to the current situa
113 EnviroTO : Orders are orders and firm commitments that are not orders are options. If we look at the AC order for 14 787s plus 46 options we can be fairly certai
114 UA772IAD : Of course EK and QRs orders are "on the fence", but realistically, who have they chosen in the past? Airbus. They will not bring the 350 back for a co
115 BlueSky1976 : Let me play a little armchair Airbus Director of Future Aircraft Development program. Here's what products I'd study (in order of development): - 180
116 Post contains links Abba : I thought that was comon knowledge. So here you go (sorry as I have a life outside of a.net I haven't had time with the PC for a while): http://www.f
117 GARPD : I wonder what Airbus will come up with to combat the higher rate of decay/corrosion that will result from this higher humidity in the metal construct
118 AJRfromSYR : Perfect, thanks for the link.
119 474218 : Has Airbus bent any metal (cut any carbon fiber) for the A350? Has the design been frozen? The first delivery date is still over 5 years away. There w
120 RedFlyer : If this is true then Boeing could take advantage of Airbus' stretched resources and launch Y1 by 2010, which is when Airbus will be maxed out. With t
121 Lumberton : I can understand EK being "on the fence", but QR has already chosen. I am curious as to why they haven't firmed up their "up to 60", but I have no do
122 Post contains links NAV20 : As I specifically pointed out in my comment (see Post 8), Bluesky1976 and Scbriml, what is interesting about this case is that, for once, we have a d
123 UA772IAD : Whoa! I'm not claiming to be an expert, or even half as smart as the Airbus people (yet, at least- after all, I'm only a Freshmen in College), but fr
124 Post contains images Ikramerica : This thread is funny as it does not address the question. The question was: "IF THE A350 LOSES OUT ON KEY ORDERS, SHOULD IT BE RETHOUGHT?" That's not
125 Post contains images Abba : By then Airbus should have finished the A400M (anyone know when ?) and have some free engineering resources You are still COMPLETELY misreading the t
126 Post contains images NAV20 : First of all, Abba, there's no need to shout.   Secondly, the competition was clearly a 'head to head' comparison of the 787 and the A350; with all
127 UA772IAD : Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but I still disagree. From checking the "About Emirates" section of their www, i found: 29 A330-200s, in Dec '03 the firs
128 Abba : Well - he says that pretty clearly in the press release didn't he? The 767 (and to some extent the 747s) that QF is now flying! So what Dixson is tal
129 BlueSky1976 : Care to explain why you didn't mention Delta in the mix, which picked 764 and went bankrupt? US btw is out of the bankruptcy for now... NW will come
130 Post contains images NAV20 : Thanks for the first chuckle of the day, Abba. When it comes to QF's next RFP (probably within the next few months, for replacement of QF's ageing 74
131 Abba : I think that your sportsfans mentality do not allow you to understand how a serious business (and I consider QF, Airbus, and Boeing all to be such) w
132 BoomBoom : Now there's an understatement for ya... Abba, you're the biggest Airbus 'sportsfan' there is and also the biggest hypocrite.
133 Abba : I am no fan of Airbus. Funny how this fan mentality has its own logic to it. Just because I do not support B why should I support A? Only that there
134 GARPD : But you blow their trumpet, swallow their PR and dislike any Airbus negativity (regardless of source) like the biggest of them do on these fora.
135 Joni : I think it's obvious what he was referring to: he is saying that Qantas is buying new planes because they will allow the mentioned benefits over the
136 GARPD : I don't think so. It's clear to me, Dixon meant versus the competion for the order. IE the A350.
137 Joni : Why don't you read the release with thought and consider who it's addressed to. Airliners.net is of course very interested in the manufacturer and ty
138 Post contains images FlyAUA : That's not what I was saying... I was not implying that the one is better than the other, I was implying that both aircraft have almost identical spe
139 Post contains images NAV20 : I don't know why you assume that people in Australia are obsessed with sport, Abba. Some of us have quite extensive business experience, including de
140 GARPD : It is also reasonable to assume his press release was also intended for the industry and shareholders.
141 Joni : Well, if you look at the text, it doesn't mention the A350 anywhere. Shareholders would also be less interested in the type selected than the benefit
142 GARPD : What that has to do with this subject I do not know. Perhaps an attempt to strengthen the argument for your point of view? It doesn't have to. It was
143 Joni : Let's put it this way: if Airbus had won the deal, Dixon's press release would have been essentially identical and the same benefits would have been
144 GARPD : Can you show me how to jump into alternate dimensions? You seem to be able to.
145 Post contains links Joni : Well I don't know if this really qualifies as jumping to alternate dimensions, but have a look at Finnair's press release on their A350 order: http:/
146 DL021 : We have a saying...."and if a frog had wings it might not bump its ass when it jumps" The issue here is that the Airbus would have had to possess tho
147 Joni : That is quite not the issue. Look at Finnair's recent press release, where they explicitly compare the A350 to MD-11 in terms of fuel consumption.
148 DL021 : Did they compare it to the 787? Was there a desire on the part of Finnair to purchase a larger capacity airplane to replace the MD? Did they need it
149 GARPD : Thats talking about their current fleet. A different statement to that of Dixon. Apples and Oranges.
150 CV990 : Hi! Why should they need to compare with the 787???? Did other airlines that ordered the 787 compared with the A350 too? Some maybe did, some maybe no
151 Joni : Well the issue here is specifically, if Dixon was talking of Qantas' present fleet or was he comparing the 787 to A350. And the reason I quoted the F
152 GARPD : Ideed we were, but I still see no evidence to support the motion that he was talking about the existing fleet. In the Finnair release a current fleet
153 Post contains links Joni : This isn't the case. Quoting from the release: "[787s] will cater for international capacity growth and new routes, as well as replacing the Qantas G
154 BoomBoom : Do you have a source for this?
155 Toulouse : Exactly!
156 Post contains links and images LifelinerOne : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au.../0,5744,17591854%255E23349,00.html Err, Not equal? Cheers!
157 Dougloid : Seems to put paid to what Keesje was suggesting as the reason the deal went to Boeing.
158 Jacobin777 : you make no sense....what was the 787 up against then? The 767? A330's? A340's? Surely, it doesn't have to be stated that the 787 was pitted up again
159 11Bravo : You are missing several important items in that simple comparison. I think if you add ZFW, OEW, and a payload/range curve, you might end up with a ve
160 Dougloid : You're completely wrong about that, Abba. In sports: the consistent top performers have a well organized plan based on good research, they deploy the
161 Joni : Check out reply #153.
162 Abba : "Its [787] new technology engines, cutting-edge airframe and increased seat count also offer a significant reduction in costs per ASK compared to the
163 FlyAUA : Yes I am aware of the fact that the 787 is lighter when it's empty. It's probably true that the A350 can carry less payload by looking at the numbers
164 11Bravo : I didn't make a range argument ??? That may be a factor. I'm sure then we can look forward to A350 orders from several large established airlines in
165 Post contains images FlyAUA : Sorry about that. I only just noticed now that you said the ranges were similar and only used the ZFW argument... My eyes are seeing things I take it
166 BoomBoom : 2 months? Try 12 months.
167 FlyAUA : I'm afraid you're wrong, check the facts with Airbus.
168 Glacote : One point: that Boeing (hypothetically at this stage) sold for less than the A350 does _not_ imply that they expect razor thin margins. The whole poin
169 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : Here are the facts for you: The "authorisation to offer" the A350 for sale to the airlines came on December 10 2004. Air Europa signed a MOU for 10 +
170 DL021 : The real issue with trying to keep up with the A350 orders/commitments is that Airbus seems to be merging commitments and orders in their public commu
171 Sabenapilot : Contrary to the 787, the A350 design is not frozen yet, so Airbus can pritty much change everything without it having to be sent back anywhere, somet
172 Dougloid : I'm a little more sanguine than you are, perhaps because of two reasons. We've got a good reservoir of experience in this country when it comes to bu
173 Dougloid : There used to be a picture over a lot of desks at Douglas with Clint Eastwood and his .44 magnum and the legend was "Just one more engineering change
174 Dougloid : sorry, double post. xxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX[Edited 2005-12-17 23:22:50]
175 DL021 : Yeah, but how will that impact the commitments they have secured using the current numbers? What happens if they change the arithmatic for the existi
176 BoomBoom : That won't get them anywhere if what they really need is a new "clean sheet" design.
177 Post contains images FlyAUA : Thank you very much... hence not the "authority to SELL"! And since you airbus haters love to only count everything that was "firm", committments I'm
178 Confuscius : Thank you very much... hence not the "authority to SELL"! And since you airbus haters love to only count everything that was "firm", committments I'm
179 BoomBoom : FlyAUA, not everyone on this site is as gullible as you are. If you want to swallow Airbus PR hook, line and sinker, be my guest. But don't try to pas
180 Post contains links Joni : I ran across this article when doing a bit of research for another thread here; http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft04/FRH0412/FR0412d.htm In
181 GBan : As far as I understand the English language "reduce maintenance cost" implies that Dixon is talking about future aircraft (cost) compared to current
182 Post contains images NAV20 : Gban, we'll be arguing like Jesuits about how many angels can balance on the point of a pin next. On the limited information available, I'd interpret
183 Joni : Check out reply #153.
184 BoomBoom : This discussion is getting silly. If it makes you feel better to think that Dixon wasn't talking about the A350, so be it.[Edited 2005-12-19 16:18:26]
185 Post contains images GBan : Honestly I have no opinion at this point in time whether A350 or B787 will be the better performer in the 4 areas mentioned. I'm confident we will kn
186 BoomBoom : No--does it make you feel bad that QF chose the 787?
187 Post contains images GBan : I am interested in aviation and I follow some discussions on A.Net. But I hope and I'm quite confident that I am never going to feel good or bad base
188 Vegas005 : The 350 is a paper airplane....years behind the 787 and a joke among those of us in the industry. Of course it needs a redesign..in fact..it needs a d
189 Post contains images FlyAUA : It's not compromise, those are the facts, and that's what I've been trying to tell BoomBoom the whole time, but he/she decides to ignore the facts an
190 Pavlin : Good point the same goes to 787
191 BoomBoom : So they do have a BIG order from a blue chip compay? Which one is that?
192 Post contains images BR076 : Better use some sarcasm tags
193 787engineer : Yes, the A350 is a few years behind the 787. . . doesn't make it any more of a paper airplane than the 787 was a few years ago. In fact a few years a
194 Post contains links Gigneil : http://www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18402&category= You really don't know anything, do you? I've read every post you made in this thread
195 PlaneDane : Qatar signed a Letter of Intent and nothing more since, Gigneil.
196 BoomBoom : I didn't know that, thanks for educating me. It seems a lot of others didn't know it either as you were the first one to jump down my throat about it
197 Gigneil : An LOI is a binding commitment. A firm order. Boeing even counts LOIs as orders. N
198 Atmx2000 : The only thing that Boeing lists on their web site as an order is a signed order contract. When including commitments in statements regarding sales,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could Airbus Offer The A350 To The Majors? posted Tue May 10 2005 22:48:18 by RockyRacoon
Airbus:Gov. Influence Comes Back To Haunt Airbus posted Fri Oct 13 2006 15:27:00 by Halibut
Why Did Airbus Make The A350 Wider? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 02:22:34 by 787KQ
WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note posted Fri Jul 14 2006 11:58:55 by Leelaw
Where Will Airbus Build The A350? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 20:57:57 by Kaitak744
Can Lew-Fox Rebuild AN Back To Its Former Glory? posted Mon Dec 10 2001 12:07:42 by United Airline
Can Airbus Afford Not To Redesign The A350? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:46:37 by BoomBoom
German Govt. To Buy Into Airbus Via The Back Door? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 15:17:47 by NAV20
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
Airbus To Present The A350 At The End Of The Year posted Mon Oct 18 2004 16:38:49 by Pilotcoex