Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Has $3.5 Million Per Year Advantage Over A350  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Quote:
Boeing said Friday it hoped to win a $3 billion contract to deliver 22 new long-haul planes to Russia's flag carrier Aeroflot, even if its rival Airbus has offered a discount.

The tender pits Boeing's latest B-787 jets against Airbus A-350 aircraft, and Russian media have speculated that Airbus offered Aeroflot a $100 million discount to win the contract.

Senior Airbus officials have called their bid "unique," but declined to say if they really offered a discount.

Boeing's calculations showed the 787's economical consumption of fuel and other cost-effective factors meant Aeroflot would eventually be saving about $3.5 million per year on each of the B-787.

"This $100 million discount will go away in about 15 months of operation ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060303/bs_nm/airlines_russia_boeing_dc_1

111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYoungFlyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11670 times:

Wow, very interesting. If these facts by Boeing are in fact true. I think Airbus will have to dish out so massive discounts for airlines to buy the A350. Can these numbers be true though? Is the 787 that good?
Dan

[Edited 2006-03-04 23:00:00]


"An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind" -Gandhi
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11654 times:

Quoting YoungFlyer (Reply 1):
Wow, very interesting. If these facts by Boeing are in fact are true.

Right on! $10.000 a day per aircraft , that´s fantastic for an aircraft that is a little smaller and has the same engines!

Fantastic!

[Edited 2006-03-04 23:00:59]

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11565 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Right on! $10.000 a day per aircraft , that´s fantastic for an aircraft that is a little smaller and has the same engines!

Gee, Keesje did you forget that it is a lot lighter, too. Even the 787-9 will be lighter than the smaller A358.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11531 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Right on! $10.000 a day per aircraft , that´s fantastic for an aircraft that is a little smaller and has the same engines!

Fantastic!

Fantastic as in completely beyond belief (because it's nothing more than PR) is absolutely right!


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11463 times:

"The second factor is, maybe they (Airbus) realized the first offer was not good enough, or they just basically confirmed the value of the 787," he said with a smile."

I don't accept Boeing's (or Airbus's) figures at face value but I find it interesting that Airbus felt the need to offer a "unique" discount in this competition. If they need to do this on a regular basis, a lot of the A350's perceived profit potential (and credibility) will vanish. Bad enough they've talked about doing this with the A340 series but if they must with an airplane they tout in ads as "the world's most advanced twin-engine aircraft"  Yeah sure , then the A350 could end up being less of a cash-cow than they've hoped. I'm surprised after the Airbus furor over Boeing's 747-8I vs. A380 figures that Toulouse isn't putting up more of a fuss over these claims, except, perhaps that they may now realize it makes them look rather like a child having a tantrum.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5767 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11438 times:

They have a habit of looking like a child having a tantrum.

I, being an avid Boeing fan, have always hoped that the 787 would blow the A350 out of the water... but 3.5 mil a year?
I raise an eyebrow.
I mean, really. Granted, Airbus builds a plane that burns... what did they say, 9% more fuel than the Boeing copmetitor? Talking about the 346 vs. 773ER... you know, where Leahy came out and started offering cash rebates a few weeks back... (wow, and I thought Chevy was desperate)

But seriously, that aside, would they even bother to build a plane that costs 3.5 million more to operate per year?

The question in my mind is something like... is "all else equal"? Those figure only mean something if all else is equal... HOW did Boeing juggle the numbers to be able to make that statement?

And, given Boeing's track record (Every single product they've come out with lately burns less fuel than promised... all five versions of the 777, the 764, the 737NG, etc.) then maybe it's even better than they promise???

I don't know folks, this is shady...


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11370 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 7):
Granted, Airbus builds a plane that burns... what did they say, 9% more fuel than the Boeing copmetitor? Talking about the 346 vs. 773ER

Air France, another major Airbus customer but also a big 777 buyer, is one of few carriers that has flown both A340s and 777s on the same routes. Chief Financial Officer Philippe Calavia said a first-generation A340-300 from the 1990s burns about 15% to 20% more fuel per seat than a 777 of the same vintage. "It's more costly to maintain four engines than two," he said, adding that Air France expects "to further increase the proportion of 777s in our fleet." (WSJ 1/16/206)

I wonder if the 15-20% advantage holds true in the later vintages?


User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11292 times:

Is it my imagination or are these puff-pieces coming out almost weekly now?

It's a long way to go before either the 787 or A350 go into service and just personally, I am more interested in Boeings ability to get the 787 technology exactly as promised and deliver according to schedule. Up until then it's smoke and mirrors.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 6):
I'm surprised after the Airbus furor over Boeing's 747-8I vs. A380 figures that Toulouse isn't putting up more of a fuss over these claims, except, perhaps that they may now realize it makes them look rather like a child having a tantrum.

As for the childish tantrum bit - sheesh. Airbus is a COMPANY. I know people here are fond of making it 'personal', but it gets a bit lame after a while...

I think the reason that Airbus isn't having a tantrum is there is always the possibility is that these claims are in the same bit-bucket as Boeings bogus A380 vs 748 claims.

My take on this is that right now Boeing perceive a commercial threat in the long-range market (where they are traditionally the strongest and obtain the biggest margins) from the A380 and the new variants of the A340. Don't laugh, it'll be interesting if Airbus 'get it right' with the 340-600+. There is also the fact that the A350 is morphing from the much criticised (at least on a.net) pimped up A330 to something a little more interesting.

I think that if Airbus make some ground to reverse the apparent deal-losses of last year and given the expected slowdown in civil a/c orders which is expected in 06/07, Boeing could well have some problems if the 748 fizzes (and it's not exactly setting the world on fire right now...) in terms of losing market share to Airbus in the long-range/VLA market.

They have to keep the pressure on, however they do it and I think there are going to be some carriers who will want to wait and see if the 787 can be produced and delivered according to schedule and indeed if the aircraft can be certified and operated safely given the new technologies inherent in the design.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11259 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The media speculated on a $100 million discount on a 3 billion deal were 10-20% discounts are normal,

How do you know it's not $100 million on top of the normal discount?

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 10):
I think there are going to be some carriers who will want to wait and see if the 787 can be produced and delivered according to schedule and indeed if the aircraft can be certified and operated safely given the new technologies inherent in the design.

The same can be said of the A380, except that we already know it's behind schedule.


User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11259 times:

I think all PR has to be taken with a grain of salt, and if it is indeed 3.5 million a year per aircraft... who in their right mind will order the Airbus? Airbus will seriously need to give the plane away for anyone to take it if those numbers are true. Does anybody actually believe that to be the case?

Some airlines are dumb and make mistakes in their fleet planning, but this is beyond ridiculous...


User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11142 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 12):
who in their right mind will order the Airbus?

Nobody in their right mind has/will, but look for a handful of carriers to buy the Airbus simply because Airbus is all they buy.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11119 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 12):
I think all PR has to be taken with a grain of salt, and if it is indeed 3.5 million a year per aircraft... who in their right mind will order the Airbus? Airbus will seriously need to give the plane away for anyone to take it if those numbers are true. Does anybody actually believe that to be the case?

I think this all depends on the configuration that the 787 and A350 are being offered in. If Boeing is selling a 9 abreast 788 with OEW at least 10% less than the A358 in abreast despite similar capacity, then combined with the much lower list price of the 788 in relation to the A358, the operating and acquisition costs would be substantially lower. If Airbus can get a 9 abreast format acceptable to airlines in the A350 by 2011, then maybe Boeing's claims are off base. But even if they do make 9 abreast acceptable, airlines would have to fill even more seats on the A358.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11066 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 10):
I think there are going to be some carriers who will want to wait and see if the 787 can be produced and delivered according to schedule and indeed if the aircraft can be certified and operated safely given the new technologies inherent in the design.

The same can be said of the A380, except that we already know it's behind schedule.

True enough, but in my view, there are certain technologies specific to all-CFRP aircraft (as opposed to the A380) which really need to be completely ironed out before the 787 becomes a safe and reliable aircraft to operate. I'm thinking mainly of things like vulnerability to ramp-rash or airframe static dissipation in high EM environments.

In any case, although it's an extremely unfashionable thing to say on a.net, I don't think the 6 mo delay in the EIS for the A380 will matter much in the long run no matter what the anti-A380 camp might wish for.

cheers

[...although for the life of me I don't really get the whole spittle-flecked vitriolic hysteria you routinely see on a.net in relation to the 380 and/or Airbus. Anyone reading posts here would think the Airbus EC personally went around and kicked a.netters dogs.]


User currently offlineTigerotor77W From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11040 times:

I agree with Atmx2000... a great deal of cost effectiveness is placed on the layout of the plane, so there's no need to jump to start conclusions immediately.

There is not one piece of data that cannot be distorted into something to make a company look good. As much as Boeing has been delivering in the past, they clearly need to continue exceeding those expectations with the 787 and 747-8I especially -- because there exists a viable product in a very, very hot market. Simply "holding on," as they have done with the 737NG, won't be enough for this size-class...


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11026 times:

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 15):
I'm thinking mainly of things like vulnerability to ramp-rash or airframe static dissipation in high EM environments.

Did you see the video where they took a hammer and a chisel and pounded away at a composite piece on the 787? They didn't even dent it, it was pretty impressive, though some other issues probably still remain like the static dissipation.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10917 times:

3.5 million a year doesnt sound so bad, sounds normal. Lets do the quick math calc. with any other input requested in case of error.

$10,000 a day translates to 20 passengers paying $500 each, I dont know how good that assumption is.

20 passengers translates to about lets say 250 lbs total per pass., including baggage and fuel, so 20 x 250 = 5000 lbs, which to me doesnt sound so bad.

Lesson is, weight matters a whole hell of a lot, please feel free to correct my logic as required.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10898 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 12):
I think all PR has to be taken with a grain of salt...

A grain? More like a bucket in this case, methinks.

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 12):
... and if it is indeed 3.5 million a year per aircraft... who in their right mind will order the Airbus?

On the basis of the Boeing 787/A350 comparison, I don't think any airline would ever be stupid enough to order the A350. I guess those dumb folks at Airbus will just have to wait forever to get their first A350 order.


User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10688 times:

ummmm Hello neither airplanes have flown.......Once they fly then these comparisons will be a little more plausable....Up until then they are nothing more than a sales brochure speaking...

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10688 times:

Also, do not forget the credibility issues that Airbus has put itself under as of late. They seem to over promise for the sales, and lack when time comes to deliver. This has been consistent with the existing aircraft, and takes them a few iterations before geting it right. on the other hand, Boeing has been very conservative in their promises, and in service numbers have been better than promised. So naturally, the airlines take this into consideration mainly when a new model comes out.

No Boeing has to deliver on their promises with 787, which I think they will given their conservative nature and design philosophy.

We have to wait and see in 2007/2008 after aircraft do into commercial service (real life scenario not the conceptual numbers).


User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10620 times:

We all must be carefull of this lobbying , coming from Chicago.
It's really more realistic to wait both these planes will fly , and can be able to compare their fuel consumption in real , not in words before they fly.


User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10479 times:

I'll take Boeing's "numbers" over Airbus any day of the week. Airbus has completely misread the market, and has nothing to offer. Period. I could only imaging if Airbus had stock holders.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10479 times:

Neither of them are flying so far as I´m concerned they could promise to run them on strawberries and fly to the moon.

User currently offlineJet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

So many comments that we have to wait until both aircraft are flying to be able to make any relevant comparisions, and that all information from either side is simply unreliable sales-speak hooey.

And yet many airlines have already been able to make their own decisions and have placed orders worth over US$500billion worth of planes, spelled out in contractual agreements including performance requirements, from both manufacturers.

Seems to me that if you are in the right position today you can get plenty of quality information of future aircraft performance.

Or do we not like what the airlines are concluding?


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8818 times:

@ BoomBoom

Again and again your fantastic B787...
We all have to wait and see if both Boeing 787 and Airbus 350 are as good as promised.

Do not believe it marketing miracles more than two years prior first delivery...

Boeings statements are getting boring - normally i would assume they are very concerned about the A350 capabilities.Or would they otherwise talk about the advantages of their B787 nearly every week..?

[Edited 2006-03-05 10:17:52]

25 A380Heavy : Reading through this thread I just had to have my two penneth or two cents for my friends across the pond. Does anybody here honestly believe that the
26 Trent900 : Considering Airbus hasn't had a design freeze on the A350 yet where does Boeing get these figures from? And not to mention the current problem with B
27 BestWestern : Boom Boom - care to provide a link to this quote. You have made up anti airbus quotes before, and I just want to be sure that this is accurate.
28 KC135TopBoom : Where to begin????? Both Airbus and Boeing will have generally accurate numbers on performance for both the B-787 and A-350 by now. This is not the da
29 Jeffrito : Do contracts for new models such as these include performance guarantees of some sort?
30 Rpaillard : Just finish to read "Boeing 787 Dreamliner - Flying redefined". While I'm far from an expert, I'm not sure that this design is that conservative! On
31 KC135TopBoom : Yes, they do usually include performance guarantees. Remember the AA purchase of the MD-11 from MD? The MD-11 never met the range and fuel comsumptio
32 Jeffrito : It would be bad policy--and a real surprise in the case of these two companies--if the PR (or any statements by officials) contradicted actual facts.
33 Fokker70NG : This is without a doubt the famous PR bullshit. Of course they could be right, if you operate an A350 and a 787 side-by-side but you let the A350 fly
34 Beaucaire : The cost of ownership budget certainly looks appealing for the 787 -on paper that is . Because you have to consider unexpected issues with fiber-relat
35 KC135TopBoom : ?????????? That statement makes no sense at all. Airplanes sitting on the ground are not making revenue. In fact, they are costing money with parking
36 Deputydawghere : Thanks for sharing your opinion my friend. I agree with you, the A vs B thing does become tiresome. How about a celebration of the products both Boei
37 Hb88 : Absolutely. In fact, I have to go to Germany this Friday for the day for work and I'm flying LHR-Hamburg on a BA 757. In all these years, this is the
38 Deputydawghere : The 757 is nice, but my two favorites of Boeing are the 747 and 777. My two favorites of Airbus are the A380, of course, and the A340-642, what a bea
39 Post contains images Fokker70NG : No need for this heated A vs. B type reply. I didn't mention anything bad about Boeing, nor Airbus, it could well have been the Airbus PR department,
40 KC135TopBoom : For me, the B-757-200 is my favorite twin jet. Other than that, my favorite Boeings are the B-707 and B-747. My favorite Airbus is the A-340-500. Eve
41 Hb88 : Sometimes I think the 380 is one fugly aircraft, but from certain angles and in some liveries it is a beauty and one of my favourites. I have to agre
42 STT757 : Boeing has a track record for exceeding expectations expecialy with their 777 line of aircraft, they had to twice upgrade their performance figures f
43 Tifoso : Playing the waiting game will not help airlines that want to ensure they have the aircraft as soon as possible. Computer models and simulations today
44 Kangar : The 773ER is one sweet piece of engineering, no doubt.
45 Deputydawghere : I agree, the A340-500 is another good looking plane, but there's someting about the 600 that just hit me from the moment I saw her; beautiful girl.
46 Post contains links BoomBoom : Oh really? Care to provide a link to the anti-Airbus quotes I've made up? As for the quote in this thread, it's from the Wall Street Journal, January
47 RichardPrice : Pretty much all of your posts are anti Airbus rhetoric which gets a bit tiresome after a while, but as a WSJ subscriber I can confirm that the articl
48 LAXDESI : If the 787 turns out to have a $3.5 million operating advantage over A350, then A350 has to be cheaper by at least $35 million(assuming a cost of capi
49 Deputydawghere : We're not all anti Airbus. Even though I like Boeing better, I think Airbus puts out a fine product. I get tired of people who are so damn defensive
50 SSTsomeday : If there is resentment or bias in this thread and others against Airbus, it may have to do with the historical beginnings of Airbus, the years of sta
51 Post contains images Stitch : Absolutely? No. But both Airbus and Boeing are professionals and they have decades of data to draw upon. All things being equal, I would expect the A
52 JAAlbert : I know a great way how Boeing can rise above the oft-stated claim here on A.netters that its figures are just smoke & mirrors or PR cotton candy -- ha
53 SSTsomeday : Someone in another thread stated that Boeing's recent predictions on performance have usually been correct or even better upon the introduction of th
54 A380Heavy : I am not suggesting for one minute that Airbus and Boeing do not know what they are doing and am fully aware that these aren't the days of designing t
55 Madairdrie : Like so many people have mentioned I get tried of all this A vrs B stuff! No matter where it comes from, they both make fantastic aircraft and I hope
56 MD-90 : True. The A380 is easier to visualize having problems, I think, due to its sheer size. Raytheon is using the same fuselage technology as the 787 for
57 A319XFW : So in that case, no employee from A or B should contribute to any A or B discussing thread and the same goes for airline employees when it comes to t
58 Post contains links BestWestern : With pleasure BoomBoom. You have such a bad memory. RE: Airbus Says 2005 Orders Similar To Boeing (by BestWestern Jan 6 2006 in Civil Aviation) Post
59 Post contains links BoomBoom : And you BestWestern have a very selective memory--just picking and choosing the parts of the thread that support your allegations. What I said was Ai
60 Glacote : The A380 uses conventional technology for structural parts, has been flying for nearly one year and has better-than-expected performance. The B787 is
61 RichardPrice : The A380s centre wing box is composite isnt it? Thats a huge difference in itself.
62 BoomBoom : As claimed by Airbus, but not independantly verified by anyone. This would not be the first time Airbus has misled us. As far as we know the A380 is
63 SSTsomeday : agreed agreed me too!
64 Art : Anyone know what "other cost-effective factors" would have been included in the calculation? Depreciation? Who knows the rates of depreciation for 2
65 Jacobin777 : according to Charles Champion (#2 man for the A380 programme), its 2.5% overweight
66 Glacote : Source?
67 Jacobin777 : i have an aviation analyst interview with him...he discusses the various phases of the flight program....its short, but interesting... this is a Janu
68 Abba : You never know. The journalist does nothing to be more than just a mindless microphone holder quoting only second hand information about Airbus from
69 Stitch : Well 1.5% of 259,000 lbs (the OEW of the 787-9) is 3,885 lbs. If the A380 was 1.5% over her 612,000 lb OEW, that would be 9,180 lbs. But since Mr. Ch
70 BoomBoom : Things don't add up here. How could they have informed their customers in 2003 when the efforts to reduce the A380's weight were still taking place i
71 Shenzhen : I believe the "only" 1 percent overweight number used by Airbus was MTOW, not OEW. Therefore, as percentages go, the number would be much higher if u
72 Jacobin777 : we really don't know what kind of "weight reducing efforts" were in place in 2004....not to mention, nothing was given about their targets...it could
73 TrevD : Source please. I've not seen any updated performance data from A380 flight testing and my Airbus rep still saying they are not prepared to guarantee
74 Andessmf : What!!!!! That is absolutely insane!!! There is no way that airliners will take that 2.5% laying down. That is a lot of weight (and money) being carr
75 Jacobin777 : I gave the quoted above from an interview with Charles Champion, believe in what you want.... .......and just because the weight is/was above the tar
76 Abba : Agreed. Funny. While most employees of A and B will be happy to change employer if and when a better offer is given by the other (their contracts per
77 Andessmf : Is he still referring to other aviation programs? Believe me, I've done 1000s of jobs (mostly small) as engineer, and I will and so will others, use
78 Kangar : Hi KC135TopBoom, Quick one for you -where did you find out about the A380 wing breaking at a point other than what was expected? I seem to recall som
79 Post contains images Astuteman : And yet that is exactly what Airbus will be accused of when they (inevitably) refute this argument and come up with another, and yet your concern wou
80 Post contains links and images Shenzhen : Here you go
81 Post contains images Johnny : A359 316 seats B787 287 seats That sound realistic without squeezing 9 abreast into the 787. B777-200ER 302 seats That sound NOT realistic to me in co
82 Shenzhen : Since the A340-300's cabin area is approx 12 percent less then the 777-200ER, and the A350-9 has but a 5 foot longer cabin...... "at least assume the
83 Rpaillard : This is the kind of PR I'm against, as stated on reply 30.
84 Post contains links BestWestern : The opposite. You misquoted Airbus by adding a section into the quote that doesnt exist in the original. RE: Airbus Says 2005 Orders Similar To Boein
85 Boeing7E7 : And costs $50 million less.
86 Post contains links EI321 : Where do you get that price? 787-8 List Price 142m - 150.5m source: boeing web site Average A358 List Price 162.5m source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.
87 Boeing7E7 : From your article: Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, which will enter service in 2008, has a 2005 listed price range of from $125 million to $135 million. The
88 Post contains images Johnny : Haha, here are really funny guys in this discussion... Some of you should either work for Boeings marketing division or as a comedian... Come on guys,
89 Stitch : While the Airbus slide Shenzhen provided just shows passenger counts, according to widebodyphotog's information, an A350-900 does have an MTOW over 10
90 Cruiser : They operate 4 x A310, 2 x A330, and 3 x 737. Not surprising they stayed with airbus for longhaul. With such a small fleet, it probably was not worth
91 Flying-Tiger : Sorry Cruiser, but that's bollocks. Re-Training a couple of pilots is not really an issue, especially not with such a small fleet. Juts assume 4 sets
92 Post contains images Johnny : @Cruiser "Don't kid yourself, this is where Airbus makes a lot of money; on the smaller orders." Yes,they do.And they do well with that strategy. But
93 Cruiser : It is worth mentioning. Retraining the A330 crews would be no big deal because the A350 shares a common cockpit (from all indications). Note however,
94 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I would assume so.... yah...did research for a decade, I know how "projects" tend to be...... but I can't believe I'm actually defending the A380....
95 Post contains links EI321 : Im not skewing anything, The boeing prices I quotes came straight from here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ ......I cant find comparable on
96 Post contains links BoomBoom : I didn't add this section, I was just quoting another post in another forum: http://avitop.com/AspNetForums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1850 [Edited 2006-03
97 EI321 : Not true. List prices: A358 $153.5M 788 $170.5M A359 $170.5M 789 $145M 772ER $179.5M
98 Abba : The 350 is indeed to share cockpit with another Airbus product. Not the 330 though - but the 380. There have just been a long discussion here on this
99 Zeke : The differences course is going be a small event, like 734->738. My understanding you could fly it with a 330 rating.
100 ContnlEliteCMH : I have only ever witnessed this sort of skepticism, with this sort of verbiage, to originate with non-engineers. When I went through engineering scho
101 AvObserver : None of us here, EVEN you, yet know for whether or not these claims are, in fact, bogus. You dismiss the 747-derivative as non-competitive, or even o
102 Post contains links Glacote : I read this interview. Keyword is "original targets" here - before design froze IIUC. http://www.aviationindustrygroup.com/index.cfm?format=1173 I ag
103 Post contains images Jacobin777 : " target=_blank>http://www.aviationindustrygroup.com...=1173 ..thats what I've been saying...so at least we agree......
104 Atmx2000 : ATW reported that Russian airlines costs are going up faster than revenues. If that is due to fuel, they might scrutinize efficiency claims even more
105 NA : Absolutely right. With the 747-8I Boeing does three profitable things while investing only a moderate amount of money. A. Keep some customers on its
106 Planemaker : Very few will recall that when Boeing announced the 7E7 that they had not yet decided on going all-composite or the Al-Li route. When they finally di
107 Post contains images Stitch : I would think the absolute value would be the better comparison, since it shows exactly how much "extra" there is, but one does need to take into acc
108 OldAeroGuy : But neither of these items have a large influence on airplane operating economics. Airbus have been very quiet on flight test verified A380 fuel mile
109 Post contains links Slz396 : I'm going back to this thread because important new facts have emerged, bringing insight in this discussion. Aeroflot's deputy CEO Mr. Koshlyakov said
110 Atmx2000 : They have said this earlier, but they are the only ones saying it. Depending on how of much a stake they end up with in A350 manufacturing they may h
111 WINGS : I believe that Qantas also stated the very same thing. Regards, Wings
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...
Croatia Airlines Over 1 Million Pax Per Year posted Fri Nov 17 2000 11:10:13 by 9A-CRO
100 Million Passengers Per Year posted Sat Nov 5 2005 04:19:41 by Floorrunner
787 Has Wiring Issues? posted Fri Sep 8 2006 21:02:48 by RedFlyer
Airbus-Forgeard & Humbert Fighting Over A350! posted Thu May 18 2006 21:13:40 by Halibut
Austrian Airlines Rants Over A350 "Economics" posted Fri May 5 2006 23:49:52 by Singapore_Air
Boeing's Military Advantage Over Airbus? posted Sun Apr 30 2006 06:08:02 by Irobertson
Airbus In Pickle Over A350-2 Redesign Or Not 2-II posted Thu Apr 20 2006 16:53:38 by Halibut
Airbus In Pickle Over A350-2 Redesign Or Not 2? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 13:53:01 by Halibut
Has WN's Brown Color Changed Over The Years? posted Mon Jul 11 2005 20:50:20 by Ssides
US Has 'strong Case' Against EU Over Airbus posted Fri Jun 10 2005 03:41:21 by AeroPiggot