Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ: Airbus Under Pressure To Update 340  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13312 times:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060116/transport_airbus.html?.v=2

113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13277 times:

Now I'm confused, will A350 overlap some A340 territory? If so, which airlines are pressuring Airbus, the article does not mention any. All I can figure is that those carriers that choose 777 over A340 made the claim regarding better economics.

Can someone inform me to the best of their knowledge which planes over;ap which ever regarding A33x, A34x and A35x.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2966 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13250 times:

Maybe they're advocating an updated version with new engines and avionics as an interim before the A350 hits the skies.


A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4115 posts, RR: 90
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13190 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Hi Lehpron

We need a link to the WSJ article, which is subscriber only, for the full report. I read it on Dow Jones newswire earlier today. Your comment on those carriers which chose it due to better economics is valid. It quotes Mr Milton, Mr Clark and even AF are mentioned as increasing their 777 fleet too.

It also quotes M Forgeard and Mr Leahy as stating that they need to address the issue of the 777 Series sales success in 2005. To M Forgeard, 2005 777 sales "is an issue of concern" to Airbus. Mr Leahy is quoted as saying they intend to invest in an upgrade of the A345 & A346.

That is a very brief summation. That said, the article also states that Airbus will announce a record year for both sales and deliveries.

As the reports I have read are subscriber only, I'll wait for someone to post a link directly as I'm not at work and do not wish to quote the article out of context nor breach copyright.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13154 times:

No arguments regarding the need to upgrade the A340 but interesting that the article thinks it pertinent to mention that Airbus also only sold 15 A330-300s last year too. The A330-300 competes somewhere between the 777-200 (of which Boeing sold none last year) and the 777-200ER (of which Boeing sold 13). The article is missing the point that Boeing's great sales success of the 777 last year was driven almost entirely by the 777-300ER and 777-200LR (and F). THAT is where Airbus need to lift their game. Sales of the A330-300 in this context are irrelevant.

Indeed, I have no desire to start another petty squabble and the numbers are statistically insignificant but, for what it's worth, in the 777-200 / 777-200ER / A330-300 / A340-300 segment Airbus actually "won"!

(But would you rather be Boeing sitting on 100+ 777LR sales last year or Airbus with a tiny advantage in the B market race that barely reaches 30 units? Exactly.)


User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2966 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13108 times:

Just what was the final breakdown of 777-300ER vs A340-600 sales in 2005?


A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13088 times:

Quoting Cricket (Reply 5):
Just what was the final breakdown of 777-300ER vs A340-600 sales in 2005?

88 777-300ERs. We'll get the A346 numbers (if there are any) tomorrow but they will be tiny.


User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2603 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13062 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Indeed, I have no desire to start another petty squabble and the numbers are statistically insignificant but, for what it's worth, in the 777-200 / 777-200ER / A330-300 / A340-300 segment Airbus actually "won"!

If you do not want to start a squabble, stop twisting the numbwers to suit your own agenda. This is quite a warped way of looking at the orders.

The 777 family got more orders than the A330/A340. Just like the A320 got more than the 737.

Deal with it.

[Edited 2006-01-16 12:34:17]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12979 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
(But would you rather be Boeing sitting on 100+ 777LR sales last year or Airbus with a tiny advantage in the B market race that barely reaches 30 units? Exactly.)

The A330-300 is a sub B market plane, so Boeing won the ~300 pax B market, even if you include the A359's current booked orders as of November. And if you include the A359, you might have to include the 3 firm Lcal 789 orders (it is C market, but with 9 abreast seating, the payload increase brings the range closer to B market range with seating close to 300pax 3 class).

[Edited 2006-01-16 13:06:07]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12976 times:

Quoting GARPD (Reply 7):
stop twisting the numbwers to suit your own agenda.

I assure you, I have no agenda. I'm just trying to understand last year's sales in detail. The 777-300ER is eating the A346 alive. In the so-called B Market neither manufacturer is selling much but Airbus seem to be holding their own. It's only a small part of the picture but it seems worthy of note. And if you re-read my post you'll see that I'm simply trying to put into context the WSJ's inclusion of the A330-300 in the debate.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 7):
The 777 family got more orders than the A330/A340.

Absolutely. Hence I wrote

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Boeing's great sales success of the 777 last year

and

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
would you rather be Boeing sitting on 100+ 777LR sales last year or Airbus with a tiny advantage in the B market race that barely reaches 30 units? Exactly.

Then, five minutes before your intemperate post, I wrote that Boeing had sold "88 777-300ERs" but that corresponding A346 sales would be "tiny ... if there are any".

Quoting GARPD (Reply 7):
Deal with it.

I think I've "dealt with it" rather clearly. Perhaps you're the one seeing slights where none are intended.

Have a good day.  wave 


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12931 times:

Why continue with a four-engined design? There are only a handful of routes in the world where four engines are an advantage, and for all the others, two engines are more economical, so why push a design based on the theories behind old engine technology?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12927 times:

Isn't it absolutely incredible how fast things can change. It was not that long ago that A346 and A345 were piling up orders and entering service a couple of years nearly before 777ER/LR was to enter service.

Most doubted, myself included that the 777 could match let alone catch the A345/6. Many had issues regarding ETOPS but in a way 2005 sums it up with the market showing you cannot beat the economics of the big twin.

This couldn't be summed up better than by CX who are an extremely loyal Rolls Royce customer who prefers 4 engines for long haul and are (were??) an operator of A346 turn around and say "we don't care if it only has two engines and they are General Electric and not Rolls Royce we just can't look past the reliability and economics of the Big Boeing twin.

This is not intended to flame but you have to take your hat off to Boeing for the 773ER and 772LR and GE for the fabulous GE90-115B.

The big problem for Airbus is something in the large, long range twin engine Airliner. A350 will be great but so will 787. I don't know how A will develop a twin with the sheer capacity and range provided by 777 and its engines in the 110K+ range.

I think a billion dollars invested in A345/6 would be a waste and that would be better spent on A350. As for A340 V 777 with SQ and QF likely to order 777s in 2006 will be interesting also.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5231 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12886 times:

Quoting GARPD (Reply 7):
If you do not want to start a squabble, stop twisting the numbwers to suit your own agenda. This is quite a warped way of looking at the orders.

Actually it is angry knee-jerk reactions such as yours that start the squabbles in the first place. The poster was clearly stating that in the 777-200/-200ER/A330-300/A340-300 segment that Airbus received the greatest share of orders, which, by the way, is true. However, stating this fact does not mean that one is automatically denying the fact that the 777 had a stellar year. In fact, nowhere does he state that Airbus sold more A340's than Boeing sold 777's. Clearly, Boeing was the overall winner in this market segment and nowhere do I see any denial of this.

Responses such as this from the same group of Boeing zealots and Airbus zealots serve as constant reminders of why I stopped doing any meaningful posting on this site long ago. Nowadays it seems that even a post regarding the allocation of departure gates at airport XYZ can turn into an all-out A vs. B pissing match akin to those undertaken by pre-schoolers. This site is supposed to be a site celebrating a mutual hobby not a boxing ring. Seriously guys, grow up!



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3473 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12880 times:

I think it would not make sense to develop a A340 successor right now, because you would only get another 777, and most carriers have already ordered planes in this segment right now.

But maybe A can come with a completely new airplane in this size in, lets say, 10 years, with completely new engines.

Problem is, what will A do the next 10 years until it is time to come with a A340 successor? The current situation isn't good for A, the 777 certainly is the better plane. So could A modify the A340 so that it is more economical? If so, they need an upgrade, and they need it FAST.


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12879 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 11):
Isn't it absolutely incredible how fast things can change.

Absolutely. And nowhere faster than in engines. The Trent 500 is still a 'young' engine and, apart from some teething troubles entering service, I've never heard anyone suggest that it is a 'bad' engine or a failure. Yet already there are plans to phase it out in favour of a 'Trent 1500' or a GEnx. The Trent 900 and GP7200 aren't even in service yet but there are suggestions that they'll have to be replaced if the A380 is to remain competetive. Engine technology seems to be racing ahead.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 11):
you have to take your hat off to Boeing for the 773ER and 772LR and GE for the fabulous GE90-115B.

Can't argue with that. It's my belief that the 777-300ER is on its way to becoming a "classic".


User currently offlineAerosol From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12855 times:

I do not think there should be an updated version. The low sales volumes are due to the high oil prices.

A high oil price will be the death of the 345/6 as there advantage in lower purchasing price will be eroded.

As above mentioned the four engines philosophy is slowly chaniging in to a more cost orientated approach.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12839 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13):
So could A modify the A340 so that it is more economical? If so, they need an upgrade, and they need it FAST.

I don't think there is a fast upgrade option that will compensate for the weight penalty of four engines and the higher fuel consumption of the T500s.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 12):
The poster was clearly stating that in the 777-200/-200ER/A330-300/A340-300 segment that Airbus received the greatest share of orders, which, by the way, is true.

Why group the A and B market together and not include the C market?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12810 times:

Quoting GARPD (Reply 7):
If you do not want to start a squabble, stop twisting the numbwers to suit your own agenda. This is quite a warped way of looking at the orders.

In the context of PM's whole post, there was no twisting of facts. Quoting him out of context was less than fair. PM's last paragraph made very clear that Boeing's victory was much more significant than the narrow Airbus victory that he pointed out.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12794 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 4):
Indeed, I have no desire to start another petty squabble and the numbers are statistically insignificant but, for what it's worth, in the 777-200 / 777-200ER / A330-300 / A340-300 segment Airbus actually "won"!

Yes, but you have to look at the fact that in many cases, Boeing didn't really lose 777-200ER sales to Airbus, but to other products within their own line. The two best examples I can think of are QF (which went with the 787-8 instead of the 777-200ER or 777-200LR) and AC (which went with a ton of 777-200LRs, and will probably use many of them on non-ULR routes.)



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12768 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 16):
Why group the A and B market together and not include the C market?

Well, we can all play with the numbers any way we want. Why not just count all twin-aisle sales? But it is sometimes revealing to break down sales by segment and by model. We could just lump all 737s together, for example, but that would be to mask the great success of the 737-800 and the comparative failure of the 737-600. Each small nugget of information adds to our understanding.

If I was trying to make any point in reply #4 above (and sometimes you wonder if it's worth it  Yeah sure ), it was simply that Boeing is thrashing Airbus in the 777-200LR / 777-300ER / A345 / A346 segment but that Airbus still seem more or less competetive in the segment I indicated. I'm not taking sides (though some may convince themselves that I am) but merely trying to see the trees rather than the wood.

Lumping the A, B and C markets will show you the 'wood' - and very interesting it is too. But I think it's also interesting, for example, that the 777-200 has stopped selling whereas the A330-300 hasn't. You need to see the 'trees' to get that kind of detail.


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12738 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 18):
Yes, but you have to look at the fact that in many cases, Boeing didn't really lose 777-200ER sales to Airbus, but to other products within their own line.

Yes, that's probably also true.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12707 times:

Quoting Aerosol (Reply 15):
I do not think there should be an updated version.

If I were Airbus, I would be much more interested in stretching the A350 than in updating the A340. Of course, the problem with stretching the A350 in the short term is the availability of suitable engines. So, for the short term, it might be wise for Airbus to do a low-cost update to the A340 as Boeing did with the JumboJet. A $1B investment would probably require Airbus to sell about 100 additional A340s -- assuming the marginal unit profit is at least $10M.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12667 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
Lumping the A, B and C markets will show you the 'wood' - and very interesting it is too. But I think it's also interesting, for example, that the 777-200 has stopped selling whereas the A330-300 hasn't. You need to see the 'trees' to get that kind of detail.

But lumping 300 pax A & B markets and calling them B market sales is not correct. The A333 is winning the A market sales. The 772ER is winning the B market orders for the near future (ignore A359 and 789 sales which are about 5 years out). And the 772LR is winning the C market orders for the near future.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12667 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21):
So, for the short term, it might be wise for Airbus to do a low-cost update to the A340 as Boeing did with the JumboJet. A $1B investment would probably require Airbus to sell about 100 additional A340s -- assuming the marginal unit profit is at least $10M.

This is the point of the A345/6E although the price tag is quoted as more than $1B and most of the risk is on RR.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12629 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 23):
This is the point of the A345/6E although the price tag is quoted as more than $1B and most of the risk is on RR.

Well, most of the risk is built into the A350 program, as they were going to apply fuselage weight reductions taken from that program. But of course that means that the aircraft won't be delivered for quite some time.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 Glareskin : Good summary. The main reason is of course the astronomically high fuel prices from the last period. Let's just wait and see. And even if this turns
26 Post contains images PM : True enough and if I did that I apologise. It wasn't deliberate 'spin' but the A330-300 is more capable than the 777-200 (and less so than the 777-20
27 Keesje : I think w'll see a few years of the new A350-900 disqualifying the so far best selling B777-200ER. The 777-200LR will likely remain a niche aircraft,
28 Trex8 : don't worry, Tony Blair will be more than happy to give RR more launch aid for more Trent derivatives, seeing that every UK government since the 70s
29 Post contains images Tifoso : I think some of the 772LR sales would have been 772ER sales instead if the LR were not on offer. For example, Air India will most likely be using the
30 PM : Or, strictly speaking, A346 vs B773ER. I can't argue. That's the trouble with these one-for-one comparisons. I'm guilty of them myself but where do y
31 N79969 : If anything, the writer was being a bit generous by including the A330-300. If he /she had chosen the corresponding A340-300/200, the picture would h
32 PM : My reading of the article is that he/she is including these versions: "The three versions of the Airbus A340 won only 15 orders in the 11 months to N
33 N79969 : Fair enough. But considering that they are built on the same line, I think it means that they have abandoned any hope that anyone will ever order ano
34 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : First, the WSJ article (if you subscribe): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1137...147400.html?mod=todays_us_page_one An interesting quote: Basically,
35 OldAeroGuy : It's doubtful that fuselage weight reductions, even with Al-Li, will close the 13 tonne OEW gap between the A346 and the 773ER. RR is being asked to
36 OyKIE : One problem with the Trent 500 is that they are thirsty.
37 Incitatus : Indeed. Just like the statement you just made masks the relative superiority of the 777-200LR.
38 WhiteHatter : no, the problem is that there are four of them and four engines tend to be heavier than two. There are certain weight penalties which engines carry,
39 Tifoso : Do you have any sources of information to make such a confident claim?
40 HikesWithEyes : Correct you are. Instead of engines that resemble and perform like hair dryers, they will develop some that resemble and perform like leafblowers.
41 Trex8 : the airlines putting pressure on Airbus may be doing it so its not a sellers market and they are only mouthing off to get better bargaining position w
42 PM : I think they did a couple of years ago. It isn't offered any more, is it? Being delivered, yes. Being ordered...? ANA ordered 3 in December 2001. Tha
43 Trex8 : actually A343 sales for 05 were 3 for Air Mauiritius and 3 for Finnair. there will be a constant trickle of small orders from airlines, mostly just t
44 Astuteman : Personal view this, PM, but I think the few years between the T500,T900, and the introduction of the T1000 have made a massive difference in emphasis
45 PM : Good point. They were desinged in - and for - another era. Time was, an engine would be in production largely unchanged for a decade or more. No long
46 Post contains images Lightsaber : I agree that "defending territory" is too simplistic (pardon my typing laziness). Let me put it another way, I perceive that either manufacturer coul
47 Boeing767-300 : Weight is partly the issue but the main problem here for Airbus is that the GE90-115B is a lot more efficient than the Trent. The GE never had teethi
48 Jacobin777 : spoken like a true Leahy henchman (almost quoting him to a tee).....but you fail to mention that the 359 will probably have to go up against the 787-
49 Trex8 : but is that engine related? the FI article last year quoting A346 customers seem to show the problems are mostly not engine related, or at least the
50 Jacobin777 : not sure regarding the galleys, but at the end of the day, Airbus is bringing up reliability issues, which is a bit hypocritical, given that the 777'
51 Gigneil : 4 engines are not the A340's problem. Structural efficiency is the A340's problem. If Airbus could launch a 4x GEnx or Trent 1700 A340-600 that's near
52 Glareskin : So Leahy only has to wait till GE or RR solved his problem? Pretty easy!
53 Kappel : You are a gentleman sir. I don't know if I could have reacted so calmly to such an unprovoked and useless attack. Also interesting that the person in
54 11Bravo : It's not the performance of the engines that's at issue. It's the weight of the "extra" engines that is in large part responsible for the structural
55 OldAeroGuy : I really get it. But the questions are: Can RR improve the engines by 6% to 7% with no weight increase from a technical standpoint? Does RR want to i
56 TheSonntag : And if the answer is yes, the question would be: Why couldn't they get so much efficiency in the first place? These engines are still a rather new de
57 N79969 : And can it all be done for a $1 billion of Airbus money plus whatever RR wants to spend? In a timely manner? If they manage to do all that, it could
58 Atmx2000 : Does anyone have weight figures for the 777LR pylons and engine interfaces that would be replicated for a quad? I doubt GE is interested in pursuing
59 Atmx2000 : We're talking 6-8 years between EIS for various models using the newer engines and the Trent 500 (2002). And the time difference is greater if you st
60 Astuteman : This is not necessarily the case. The added weight of the engines can be offset by a reduction in the weight of the wing as the engine weight counter
61 Post contains links SunriseValley : My thoughts are that the max.payload/OEW are more relevant. For the types you list the range varies from 44.06% for the -200LR (the best) down to 34.
62 Glom : " target=_blank>http://theaviationspecialist.com/mas...a.gif Where do these come images come from? wbp keeps posting them and they're great. I'm wonde
63 Kangar : The long and short of it is that Airbus are in an unhappy scenario with respect to the market for airplanes sized roughly from the A346 up to that of
64 Jacobin777 : I have to agree......will be amazing if they can pull it off..that being said, they only way they can probably beat the 777-300ER/200LR is a with a c
65 Atmx2000 : But payload/OEW is less. And I am shocked that I never realized that the OEW of the 773ER was actually less than that of the A345.
66 Post contains images Atmx2000 : They are his creation. I haven't seen that particular image posted here before. I wonder if he has abandoned us at A.net and is posting elsewhere.
67 Zvezda : That the A340-500 weighs so much more than the much larger B777-300ER is remarkable.
68 N79969 : Those differences in weight are huge. Even if they get engine efficiency up, they would still have to shave a lot of weight. One must assume that Air
69 474218 : I have read the article six times and never saw the words overlap, or airlines pressuring Airbus. Did I miss something?
70 Post contains images Astuteman : Basically what I said. - because it has to carry more fuel. BTW, is that 145t figure for the 772LR correct? That's awesome. You're absolutely right,
71 Atmx2000 : These are the fuel consumption disadvantages that the A340NG has: engines with higher thrust specific fuel consumption higher cruise thrust at specif
72 Atmx2000 : Not exactly. The max structural payload is independent of the fuel carried. You can't carry payload more than the structural payload even if OEW+payl
73 Glacote : What is striving in the WSJ article is that IIRC some analyst expects a 54%/46% divide in market share by aricrafts but as much as 70%/30% in value. W
74 Wingman : The 70/30 ratio is the estimated split in aircraft value at list price. Boeing sold many more widebodies this year than Airbus. But don't forget that
75 SunriseValley : Widebodyphotog did up a some Mission comparison analysis tables back in August under the Singapore Airlines request for prop. thread.He had a 8300nm m
76 Gigneil : Well... no. Unless they hit it out of the ballpark and shave 10% off the fuel burn of the Trent 500. That's just not true. The GE90-115B is massively
77 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I was trying to do a laymans description and not go too much into details..but thanks for the good work.. AF will be interesting..they do what's best
78 Atmx2000 : Zeke pulled out the certified weights from FAA documents for the 777LR and A340NG engines. When you include the weights for engine mounts and other a
79 RayChuang : Why bother. All Airbus needs to do is get ETOPS 240 to 330 certification for the A350-800 and A350-900 and save a lot of hassles.
80 Post contains images Molykote : Structural efficiency is always a plus but how does cantilevering several thousand pounds tens of meters outboard help it? (btw I get the whole conce
81 Abba : Stupid comment indeed to an intelligent and ballanced post! Abba
82 N79969 : I think Lufthansa will definitely go with the A350 after making some sincere sounding remarks about considering the B787 seriously. Fait accompli and
83 Post contains images Jacobin777 :
84 11Bravo : Trent 556, Dry Weight: 10,403 lbs GE90-115B, Dry Weight 18,260 lbs A340-600, Total Dry Engine Weight: 41,612 lbs B773-300ER, Total Dry Engine Weight:
85 Anxebla : Wow! What an interesting thread!! But the key issue today could be if Are just the quads the most suitable for the bigger aircraft type A380/B747-8
86 Molykote : I believe that this is the case. Not necessarily indefinitely but currently.
87 Abba : Could that be indicative of different design philosophies? The 340 has much more wing that the 777. It spans 63.7 while the 777 only spans 60.93. The
88 Kappel : Absolutely. I also believe that the horizontal stabilizer on the a345/6 is also bigger, add more weight. In the FI aricle they said that even the a34
89 Abba : I tend to agree. However they might as well take a go directly at the 777 with a clean sheet. The 777 is so old now that there must be some gains to
90 Atmx2000 : Airbus won't be able to deliver a clean sheet competitor for at least 6 years, and probably not for 8 years. By that time the 777 will be 17-19 years
91 Johnny : Aircraft A345 772LR A346 773ER Payload 58.8 64.0 71.3 69.9 OEW 173.2 145.1 179.7 167.8 Ratio 0.339 0.441 0.397 0.417 Sorry,guys.Do not want to destroy
92 Astuteman : Just out of interest, how do you think Airbus went from the A330 wing to the "heavy" A340NG wing?
93 Atmx2000 : I calculated the OEW for the HGW variants from the numbers on Airbus's website. In Widebodyphotog's weight table OEWs for the A345, A345HGW, A346, an
94 Abba : It might have an impact well before the EIS - at least two or perhaps three years before. Abba
95 N79969 : Airbus has quite a bit of work ahead of them: A350 A320-replacement A400 A380-900 and now possibly a A340 replacement. They are going to have to make
96 Kappel : The same way, I know. That's why I said it.
97 OldAeroGuy : You're comparing the 773 with the A346 rather than the 773ER. Wing areas of the A346 and 773ER are about the same, but the 773ER span is 64.8m compar
98 OyKIE : According to Humbert at the press conference today, Airbus had discussed the bad sales of the A340 and said that Airbus did not want to rush any concl
99 Post contains images Johnny : @atmx2000 no, that is incorrect.The B777-300ER is not a stretched version of the B777-200LR. It is a derivative of the B777-300,which itself was a der
100 OldAeroGuy : So, was Leahy's announcement of the A346E a bit premature?
101 OyKIE : May seem so. At least according to Humbert. They were looking into the A340 and the slow sales. But still had enough backlog to keep the production o
102 Post contains links Scbriml : I don't know if Boeing said they'd beat Airbus on orders in 2005 at the Paris show or not, but they certainly said it before the show: http://quote.b
103 Post contains images OyKIE : I knew they said they expected this, but not that they stated it that firm. Wow. Then it is not that funny that Leahy stated this. But still he was f
104 N79969 : You are right and Boeing was wrong. But does their statement or, more correctly salesmanship, actually cause harm or mislead anyone? Is a shareholder
105 N328KF : Yep, and while Boeing stock is down today, it's down along with the rest of the market, and therefore does not seem to have taken a major hit. The sh
106 AvObserver : "Then it is not that funny that Leahy stated this. But still he was fast about talking down Boeings number, but maybe that is his job. He knows how t
107 Post contains images Scbriml : I guess some shareholders might have reason to grumble, but personally, looking at the larger picture (the year Boeing had) I think that would be ver
108 Post contains images Lehpron : I said what I got out tf the article, never implied the word overlap was there, that was my confusion due to the number of threads regarding Airbus a
109 Zvezda : It would be more correct to say that the B777-200LR is an application to the B777-200ER of the changes between the B777-300 and the B777-300ER.
110 Abba : I would be very hesitant in concluding anything based on the share prize as far as day to day changes are concerned. My guess is that many of the peo
111 Glom : Wasn't the case that they started with the 777-200, then they IGWed it to allow the 772ER and the 773, then they IGWed it again to allow the 772LR an
112 Zvezda : Yes, but B777-300 -> B777-300ER came before B777-200ER -> B777-200LR. The latter was just an application of the changes from the former.
113 Atmx2000 : Indeed. I did not mean to imply that the 772LR was stretched into 773ER. Just that it seems to be so in that the 773ER shows the benefits of stretch
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...
KQ Under Pressure To End KL Ties To Start MIA posted Tue Jan 25 2005 22:07:51 by MAH4546
WSJ: Airbus To Boost A320 Series Production posted Mon Nov 20 2006 06:46:56 by PanAm_DC10
When Is Airbus Going To Update Their Website? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 05:40:44 by Dougloid
Airbus Sees End To A380 Cancellations posted Fri Nov 24 2006 08:22:39 by UAEflyer
Political Pressure To Block Open Sky Maroc-EEC... posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:37:28 by Beaucaire
Airwise.com Says Airbus Not Committed To 350 Yet posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:33:09 by SSTsomeday
Airbus Dropped Program To Add Winglets To A320s posted Fri Oct 6 2006 21:15:02 by Terryb99
WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note posted Fri Jul 14 2006 11:58:55 by Leelaw
Enders: Airbus Will Continue To Be Succesfull posted Wed Jul 12 2006 14:15:42 by Manni
Airbus-No Fullstop To Problems Yet? Co-CEO Pickle? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 05:33:22 by Halibut