Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Much Has Underestimating The 787 Cost Airbus?  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12256 times:

Regarding the 787, I understand that 2 years ago Airbus thought that the A330 was good enough to continue selling against this new design.

Then Airbus offered an enhanced A330 with modified 787 engines at the end of 2004, calling it the A350. Since when the A350 has been through several incarnations.

Redesigning several times must cost a lot more than opting for a more ambitious design in the first place. I wonder how much money was wasted by Airbus' failure to recognise the need to aim much higher to start with.

And I wonder how many of the orders that went to the 787 might have gone to the A350 if a better design had been offered at an earlier time.

Anyone care to comment?

136 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12235 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
And I wonder how many of the orders that went to the 787 might have gone to the A350 if a better design had been offered at an earlier time.

I think you are coming to conclusions based on very little evidence, only conjecure on your part.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12203 times:

I don't think the problem was under-estimating the 787, Art. It was under-estimating the potential of ETOPS, and continuing to concentrate resources on the A380.

The variants of the 787, with their different ranges/passenger loads, have already killed off the A300 and stand a good chance of doing the same to the A330.

But, IMO, Airbus' assumption that the four-engined A340 would somehow be able to hold its own against the Triple Seven in the longhaul market will cost Airbus even more market share in the next few years.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12138 times:

NW and KE are orders that could've been salvaged had the A350 been launched earlier.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
But, IMO, Airbus' assumption that the four-engined A340 would somehow be able to hold its own against the Triple Seven in the longhaul market will cost Airbus even more market share in the next few years

Talk of the A340E shows they've made no such assumption.


User currently offlineCrazyHorse From Austria, joined Nov 2005, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12085 times:

I think Airbus has not underestimating the B787, Airbus has overratet the A340 in all versions and maybe the growth of the fuel costs in the last few years.
I think high fuel costs are a good argument for an economical aircraft like the B787 in all versions. And here Airbus try to hit back with the A350, which is a newer and economical version of the A330 with some new ideas und technologys.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12085 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
Talk of the A340E shows they've made no such assumption.

I think the operative word in that observation is 'talk', RJ.

Boeing is physically bringing attractive new models to the market, and selling them in numbers. So far, all Airbus is doing about new models (or, strictly speaking, variants on existing models) is 'talking' about them.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAirA380 From Bangladesh, joined Mar 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12074 times:

Ultimately a330 and a343/342 will be replaced with a359/a358...and there would no need keep line of a330/a343...hence a345 & a346 won't be able to keep a340 line viable in economic terms so, it has to close. Having said that airbus is also thinking of extending a350 to compete with future 787-10 and 772.

A340E just won't happen!!!



I'm flying without wings!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12060 times:

Talking is all part of the development stage.

I believe the decision about the A340E is due soon.

Quoting AirA380 (Reply 6):
hence a345 & a346 won't be able to keep a340 line viable in economic terms so, it has to close.

If they close the A340 line, they will also be closing the A350 line. Catch my drift?

[Edited 2006-03-26 18:02:06]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 971 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12035 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
Talk of the A340E shows they've made no such assumption.

No, no. NAV20 is referring to the assumptions Airbus made in the late-90s when developing the A340NG.

The fact that an Enhanced A340 is necessary to compete with the B777 proves his point.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
It was under-estimating the potential of ETOPS, and continuing to concentrate resources on the A380.

Good point.

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
And I wonder how many of the orders that went to the 787 might have gone to the A350 if a better design had been offered at an earlier time.

In my opinion, Airbus worst decision has been developing a B787 competitor in short order.

There is no good reason why Airbus must introduce a Boeing counterpart by 2010. In the 8 months Airbus went from brushing off the B787, to offering the A330-Lite, to offering a re-engined A330, to offering the A350, I seriously doubt all options and trade studies were fully considered.

Plain and simple: Airbus cannot fully match the B787 economics. Perhaps not the end of the world, but it does not bode well for the long-term.

Say what you will about the A330-200 "killing" the B767, but Boeing sold way more B767 than Airbus sold A332 and a handful of B787 orders will surpass the A332. In hindsight, who won?

Even if Airbus goes through some rough years where the A330 sells very poorly, the consistent precedent in this industry is for later models to sell very well. In some cases, like the B777, the later model still wins the greatest market share.

Airbus should be waiting until the have the technology not to simply "match" Boeing, but provide a tangible advantage over the B787. That could easily be 2015-2020, but this market is predicted at 2,500-3,000 aircraft over 20 years! Perhaps a $1-2 billion A330 upgrade to keep the product attractive to existing customers near term is sensible, but Airbus is going all-in with $5.5 billion dollars.

As it stands, here's my predicted headline in 2015: "Airbus seeks buyers for A350 Enhanced."


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11940 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
No, no. NAV20 is referring to the assumptions Airbus made in the late-90s when developing the A340NG.

I initailly read it as that. I was moreso suggesting that the assumption has since been dropped. And future market share may not be lost just yet.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
Airbus should be waiting until the have the technology not to simply "match" Boeing, but provide a tangible advantage over the B787. That could easily be 2015-2020, but this market is predicted at 2,500-3,000 aircraft over 20 years! Perhaps a $1-2 billion A330 upgrade to keep the product attractive to existing customers near term is sensible, but Airbus is going all-in with $5.5 billion dollars.

The flipside of that is, demand for this size market isn't so constant, it's coming in waves. Becasue the 767 did so well and is now approaching retirement age, we're approaching a peak now. The key is customer count, unchallenged the 787 will have won a lot of customers by 2015-2020. Airbus would have to make another significant improvement over the 787 to pursuade airlines to deviate form their 787 fleet, should they wish to expand. I could see it becoming more of an L1011 to the DC-10, as supposed to a 707 over the Comet.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11904 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
If they close the A340 line, they will also be closing the A350 line. Catch my drift?

Not quite. They need it for the A330. And they are building a new line for the A350, correct?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11859 times:

IMO Boeing was doing the 787 for much longer. I think the Sonic Cruiser was a smokescreen to develop composite materials, and new engines. Airbus didn't take the design seriously, and Boeing got a large head start. Airbus has come up with a counter to the 787, the A350, but it is years behind, and would be even farther behind if they had to design a composite fuselage.

Sonic Cruiser composite fuselage test section


This was either a plan by boeing from the beggining, or, they had all this $ spent on developing a plane that was never going to fly, and seen a potential advantage that could be gained over Airbus.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11846 times:

Atxm why would you say 'not quite' and then ask if you're right or not?  Silly

http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx...uced+assembled+A330+A340&FORM=QBRE


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 11782 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
IMO Boeing was doing the 787 for much longer. I think the Sonic Cruiser was a smokescreen to develop composite materials, and new engines. Airbus didn't take the design seriously, and Boeing got a large head start. Airbus has come up with a counter to the 787, the A350, but it is years behind, and would be even farther behind if they had to design a composite fuselage.

Ooh! A conspiracy theory. I like it.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 11743 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):

I believe the decision about the A340E is due soon.

Airbus' resources financially are pretty strained. Boeing's defense division allows them an unfair advantage, which is a constant stream of government money. Boeing spent a lot on 787. They spent well, a decent amount on 747-8, and they'll be spending a lot on 737RS. 772LR cost some money too.

Airbus is spending a lot right now on A400M - how big of a market it will find, i'm not sure. They just sunk a HUGE amount into A380, which has nearly doubled the number of deliveries they initially believed they'd need to turn profitable. I think they'll probably sell the 400 odd some planes they have to sell to break even on it, but I read Jack Welch, GE CEO talking about meeting with Airbus' chairman in the 90s, who said they'd do A380, and a large part of that was prestige, he was sick of airbus being a niche player, as he saw it. Even if airbus sold more jets, they believed they didn't have the same prestige. So maybe making money was secondary on A380, I don't know.

Airbus is spending increasingly more on A350, and they'll have to spend a lot on A320NG as well. They're tapped out pretty well.

Airbus could have saved a lot of money if they had done two things:

A: Ditched the A340 and gone for a long range, improved A330 to cover the market held by A345 and A346. They underestimated ETOPS, they underestimated how important fuel costs are.

B: Taken 787 seriously. They were complacent and indecisive again, something that has become a trademark of airbus mismanagement. They had every possible advantage coming into this, and they're succesfully pissing it all away. If they had early on decided to fight Boeing for this huge market, to develop a new jet, highly composite in construction (composites being something airbus pioneered) using bleedless engines, and a new cross-section, they could have won, game, set, match. As it stands, they're bringing a less sophisticated, less advanced, less modern aircraft to market - it will cost just as much as 787 (if you look how inexpensive 787 is, it gives A330 a run for the money in low purchase price), and won't be as impressive. If they spend the billions on A346E, they may get a jet as good in terms of efficience as 773ER, only 10 years later, and it still will be Airbus' narrow old fuselage. That narrow design is why A346 is disproportionally heavy. They'll always have that issue. It will be like A350. They'll wait too long to make up their mind, end up half-assing it, and bringing an inferior product to market. By the time A346E comes out, Boeing will be working on Y3, you know they'll leak proposed specs, pictures, etc. and airlines will wait on Y3 before they buy A346E, which after all, is no better than 773ER, just 10 years late to the party.

Where has the Airbus who brought us A300 and A320 gone? The brilliant and innovative Airbus. Now all we have is conservative, sluggish, indecisive Airbus. Old Airbus would have beat Boeing to the punch on 787, gone one further, developed new technologies. New Airbus changes their mind 7 times, and still tries to pawn off an updated A330 on us.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 11714 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
NW and KE are orders that could've been salvaged had the A350 been launched earlier.

IIRC, the plane was being offered to customers long before NW and KE finalized their decision. Air Europa ordered 10 (10 options,too?) in 2004.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11695 times:

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 4):
I think Airbus has not underestimating the B787, Airbus has overratet the A340 in all versions and maybe the growth of the fuel costs in the last few years.
I think high fuel costs are a good argument for an economical aircraft like the B787 in all versions. And here Airbus try to hit back with the A350, which is a newer and economical version of the A330 with some new ideas und technologys.

Airbus believed that their A330 (a damn good plane by the way) would have held its own against the B787...they did underestimate the B787....their original pattern of comments (as mentioned by the threadstarter) is proof positive..


they got much more serious I think when they lost the NW..even though it might not have had anything to do with the fact they lost that order...

not to mention, Airbus was focused too much on the A380 and missed the middle market.....that is where Boeing spent most of its time, effort, energy, and money...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11643 times:

Still argueing about paperplanes? Sigh....

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11643 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
Where has the Airbus who brought us A300 and A320 gone? The brilliant and innovative Airbus. Now all we have is conservative, sluggish, indecisive Airbus. Old Airbus would have beat Boeing to the punch on 787, gone one further, developed new technologies. New Airbus changes their mind 7 times, and still tries to pawn off an updated A330 on us.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
Jack Welch, GE CEO talking about meeting with Airbus' chairman in the 90s, who said they'd do A380, and a large part of that was prestige, he was sick of airbus being a niche player, as he saw it.

Are Airbus the Nebuchadnezzar of our time?


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11575 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
Airbus could have saved a lot of money if they had done two things:

A: Ditched the A340 and gone for a long range, improved A330 to cover the market held by A345 and A346.

B: .....They had every possible advantage coming into this, and they're succesfully pissing it all away. If they had early on decided to fight Boeing for this huge market, to develop a new jet, highly composite in construction (composites being something airbus pioneered) using bleedless engines, and a new cross-section, they could have won, game, set, match.

How would either of those things saved them money? The very reason the A345/6 and A350 are reality, is to significantly reduce expendature.

People are forgetting there are two sides of the clean sheet/derivative argument.

Airbus have a good understanding of the A330 airframe, there ability to predict a derivative's performance is increased. Also the A330 is currently the best aircraft in it's field. The 787 has been heavily influenced form it. I wonder how differently a clean sheet design would have been.

The reduced R&D costs mean there is less to get back, financing can be more felixable.

It's also technical a less risky project, Boeing is taking a big leap with the 787. Which is good but there is no denying that the bigger the advance the more potential prolems there could be. Now i know Boeing have done their homework, but you can't plan for everything. I'm not saying that any of these things will happen, i can't see into the future, but the potential for it is definately increased.

Just remember for every failed 764 and Md-11 there is a succesful 737NG and MD-80.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11466 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Redesigning several times must cost a lot more than opting for a more ambitious design in the first place. I wonder how much money was wasted by Airbus' failure to recognise the need to aim much higher to start with.

I don't think this is quite the issue as much as the time to market issues are important. You really have two choices in the Airline industry. You can be first to market with inferior technology or second to market with better technology and less orders. The headless horseman that Airbus is dealign with right now is that the 787 was first to market, and at least on paper is a better design.

There are drawbacks with each approach. The L-1011 has better technology then the DC-10 or the 747SP. But the technology problems with the engines made the plane a complete disaster for the early adopters, and gave the DC-10 the overall market.

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
And I wonder how many of the orders that went to the 787 might have gone to the A350 if a better design had been offered at an earlier time.

Even after the A350 (in it's fourth iteration) was introduced, the 787 was still outselling the A350. What's far worse is that the "blue chip airlines" that is carriers that have a long established track record of surviving and doing well and ordering followup planes are almost all ordering the 787. The fact that the battle for the 787/350 is being fought at places like EK which should be Airbus strongholds reflects a rather lobsidded battle.

Boeing has also been very carefull to offer the 777/787 as a family. The 777 is clearly a better plane right now then the 340. On paper then 787 is a better plane then the 350. This means Boeing gets to charge more for the plane, and still walks away with the order.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
I don't think the problem was under-estimating the 787, Art. It was under-estimating the potential of ETOPS, and continuing to concentrate resources on the A380.

I agree on both points. After 9/11, SARS and the dotcom bust Airbus should have slowed or shelved the A380 program to focus on the 757/767/300 market.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 4):
Airbus has overratet the A340 in all versions and maybe the growth of the fuel costs in the last few years.

A couple of years ago when I first joined the boards, there were constant rumours of unhappyness with the first generation A340s, and more reports of problems (wings being too heavy, etc) on the next generation 340s. These problems seem to have been confirmed by the sales problems of the 340. Airbus needs to fix these stats, or push more money into the 350 and make a more effective competitor for the 777.

Thankfully for Airbus, they have the time to do so, given the dominence of the 320 over the 737. If Boeing gets the 737RS to market without Airbus having a effective response, they will really be in trouble across their entire product line.


Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Boeing is physically bringing attractive new models to the market, and selling them in numbers. So far, all Airbus is doing about new models (or, strictly speaking, variants on existing models) is 'talking' about them.

To be fair, I believe that the A350 is being developed and is on a production roadmap. Airbus does need to decide if they are going to respond the the 340/330 sales problems with the 350, or a combination of a 350/340NG.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):

Airbus' resources financially are pretty strained. Boeing's defense division allows them an unfair advantage, which is a constant stream of government money.

Not really on both counts. Airbus has more then enough cash coming in fronm the 320. (paradoxically the 380 deliveries are going to start costing them more money if the European governments enforce their lauch aide conditions). Airbus also gets a similar percentage of revenue via EADS for the military side versus the civilian side as Boeign does. Also remember that EADS has a bit of competition in Europe via BAe, but it is nothing like Boeing's battles with LockMart over here.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
Airbus is spending a lot right now on A400M - how big of a market it will find, i'm not sure. They just sunk a HUGE amount into A380, which has nearly doubled the number of deliveries they initially believed they'd need to turn profitable. I think they'll probably sell the 400 odd some planes they have to sell to break even on it, but I read Jack Welch, GE CEO talking about meeting with Airbus' chairman in the 90s, who said they'd do A380, and a large part of that was prestige, he was sick of airbus being a niche player, as he saw it. Even if airbus sold more jets, they believed they didn't have the same prestige. So maybe making money was secondary on A380, I don't know.

The A400 appears to be a pretty good product. The C-130 is old and vulnerable. The A380 is not going to be a cashflow positive program for a long time, and it will take even longer to get back to cost of capital break even or the 20% margins Airbus wants to have on that program.

If you read the original justification and what Airbus itself was saying when they launched the A380. The needed to do the A380 so they would not be percieved as a niche player compared to Boeing. They needed to provide a heavy lift for Asia and the mega hubs (Japan and BA in particular). Natural growth on routes + hubs would require the A380.

The first argument is interesting. Are there any airlines that would not buy Airbus before 1999 that will now simply because they launched a big plane? The A380 was supposed to be the technical powerhouse, and expose Boeing as being too conservitive and less technologically advanced. Boeing stole a lot of that thunder with the 787 which is compared to the A380 all the time, denying Airbus a clear P.R lead.

The A380 has been good press for Blair, Chirac and Schroeder internally in Europe, and that may be the only thing that matters.

Certainly the Asian market has not turned out the way Airbus forecast for the A380. Neither of the two huge Japanese carriers have purchased it, neither of the two huge American carriers at NRT have purchased it (UA and NW) and outside of a few orders from China and a few orders from SQ, it's adoption outside of Japan hasn't been great.

The last argument about the growth of Hubs is pretty much negated by the fact that the growth in hubs has actually been in smaller aircraft (huge numbers of commuter planes, huge numbers of A320/737NG, less of 757/767/A330/A340, and very few VLA).


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11408 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 19):
How would either of those things saved them money? The very reason the A345/6 and A350 are reality, is to significantly reduce expendature.

Companies that are unwilling to mortgage their futures to provide for their futures are not going to have strong futures...

If Airbus is trying to force a 35 year old fuselage on customers solely to save cost, that is their mistake. And it seems as if that is what they are doing.

Boeing, on the other hand, has given up on forcing out-dated fuselages on it's customers (748i excepted). 777 was a new idea, Sonic Cruiser was too, 787 is a new fuselage, and the 737RS will be as well. One can even say that Boeing was so worried about providing a "new" cross-section for the 787, it might be 3-6 inches too narrow now that people want to put 9Y in it, but it does show they weren't afraid to offer something new.

If Airbus were smart, they'd have seen this and offered a new plane in the size range from A332-A346 using a fuselage cross section between the 787 as proposed and the 777. Rather than try to save money by using the limitations of the GEnx sized engine (which can't go to a 346 twin thrust range), they would have been smarter to leverage the GEnx and Trent 1000 into a new engine family. Maybe it means 2012 EIS, and $3bilion more money, but it also means a plane that competes with the 788/9/10 AND the 772/3.

It would provide for their future, rather than trying solely to leverage their past like the 350 and 340E are doing.

Time will tell.

[Edited 2006-03-27 00:11:05]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11364 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
If Airbus were smart, they'd have seen this and offered a new plane in the size range from A332-A346 using a fuselage cross section between the 787 as proposed and the 777. Rather than try to save money by using the limitations of the GEnx sized engine (which can't go to a 346 twin thrust range), they would have been smarter to leverage the GEnx and Trent 1000 into a new engine family. Maybe it means 2012 EIS, and $3bilion more money, but it also means a plane that competes with the 788/9/10 AND the 772/3.

I agree.

It seems to me that Airbus have reluctantly ratcheted up what they are prepared to invest in an A330 successor as more and more feedback told them that their iterations of the A350 were inadequate, resulting in a far larger investment than they originally hoped to make. I suspect that the $5 billion or so they are now prepared to spend on development will still not get an aircraft that competes effectively with the 787. Furthermore they still have the problem of the A340 being non-competitive with the 777 and that will cost some more $billions to address adequately.

Airbus could end up spending just as much trying to narrow the gap on the 787/777 with the A350 and an improved A340 as they would have spent on a clean sheet A350 to match or surpass the competition.

Airbus should have thought this one through far better than they appear to have done.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11341 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 22):

Airbus should have thought this one through far better than they appear to have done.

Art, judging from the comments of Airbus' CEO, Thomas Enders, it doesn't seem as if they are discontent with the A350, in fact, they believe its superiour to the 787...which is fine, but as I said, the truth of the pudding will be in the eating...

"Q. What are you doing to counter Boeing's 787 Dreamliner launch?

A. The 787 is certainly a good plane. But we are putting a better plane against it with the A350"

NYT:March 26, 2006



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11300 times:

I'm impressed so many people know better than Airbus.  Wink

25 Halibut : Not airbus , just the polititions meddling in on airbus's decisions . Halibut
26 Art : All companies, for all their knowledge of their industry, make mistakes from time to time. Aircraft builders are no exception. Outsiders can sometime
27 Atmx2000 : I disagree with this idea. Airlines that find the 787's 9Y acceptable are not looking for 9Y but rather the lowest CASM. Those 3-6 extra inches would
28 CWFan : So you guys think that the 340E won't happen? It seems that absent a major 777 overhaul, the 340E will be competitive with the T7. My question: 340E c
29 Post contains images Mariner : cheers mariner
30 Jacobin777 : actually not, it would be abent of a few teaks rather than a 777 overhaul....don't forget, the A340E will compete basically with a modern-day 777, no
31 BoeingBus : I don't think Airbus underestimated Boeing, in any way. Engineers at Airbus can figure out the 787 w/o having to read A.Net member's critiques. I thin
32 Airbazar : You mean, A340? The A380 and A350 are not and should not be mutually exclusive. Even Boeing is developing an A380 competitor model in the 748. In my
33 NAV20 : On all the evidence, Airbazar, the A380 has absorbed virtually the whole of Airbus' design/development resources since 2,000. Just as important, it s
34 Khobar : Firstly, I don't think it's accurate for anyone to imply that the A350 is grossly inferior to the 787. That's not what you were doing, I know, but yo
35 Khobar : A350 is more expensive than 787 at least at list, no?
36 SLCUT2777 : Couldn't be better said! I really look at the last couple of years and see Boeing just stealing the momentum away from AirBus that they worked so har
37 Zvezda : That's a non sequitor. There is nothing inherently wrong with an 8 abreast design. It's the smallest cross-section that allows for side-by-side LD3s.
38 Post contains images Jacobin777 : First of all, welcome to A.net. well..for EK, its only the A359 versus the potential B787-10...for which EK's Clark has mentioned.... " The A350-900
39 WingedMigrator : Just what is so wrong with a 2-4-2 cross section?
40 Khobar : Be careful with making comments like that in as much as you have to remember how things can change very quickly. For example, Airbus completed what a
41 Ikramerica : And it really doesn't matter at all to a carrier like QF or someone else who already flies 330s. They can buy the 787 and still add some A330s short
42 NAV20 : The economics of the 'A330 as a stopgap' idea must look pretty bad, too. Airbus would have to commit to buying them back once the A350s were delivered
43 Zvezda : You think airlines will suddenly start ordering WhaleJets just because it passed its evac test?!?!? Airlines will be deciding whether to buy WhaleJet
44 Atmx2000 : I don't think it was a side effect. I don't think the walls have yielded much more than a couple of inches of the 12" advantage the 787 has over the
45 JayinKitsap : Excellent post, Airbus has found that the sleeping giant finally woke up and the tables have turned. A decade ago the Phil C era at Boeing was worrie
46 PlaneHunter : Placing with other carriers, of course. Did you also wonder what would happen to all those B737 classics after the B737NG's introduction? PH
47 Khobar : Yes, I do. CASM, purchase price, risk, etc. are not entirely unknown at this time if Airbus is being up front with the airlines, and I'm talking abou
48 SparkingWave : No cancellations, but no significant new orders in 2005, and the order book still remains at less than 200. This also speaks volumes. If the price of
49 DAYflyer : A realistic assesment from where I sit. The same mistake that General Motors made with Toyota...price vs qaulity...qaulity won out. No, last year the
50 Khobar : I think this has to do more with the size of the market than anything else. Boeing projected the market was not large enough to justify a direct comp
51 Post contains images AirA380 : a358 is approximately equal to 787-9in terms of seating capacity. a332 is similar to a358 in dimension and weights 120t(empty weight). With increase u
52 Kangar : Strictly speaking, this is all the 747 did. This is a sign that the airlines are unconvinced by Boeing's claims for the 748i, and is a probable indic
53 Keesje : I think some folks try to convince the world Airbus is desperately reacting on the B787. In reality Airbus is pushing out hundreds of 250 seat A330's
54 Post contains images Scbriml : Firstly, I believe there's zero evidence to support the suggestion that Airbus is "buying back" TAP's A330s or Finnair's A340s. If you know different
55 Atmx2000 : Where is your data from? And are you aware that Boeing made the HGW 787-9 the standard version, and that version has higher range than the 787-8. The
56 Zvezda : No, claimed ranges are about the same. Actual ranges remain to be seen, but Boeing have nearly always exceeded estimates and Airbus have usually fall
57 Trex8 : Boeing sold 13 777s in 2003, the world obviously was about to end for them back then! I' m sure the A340 is on its way out but 15 sales is not the en
58 Post contains links Khobar : A350-800 MTOW = 245.0t Empty weight = 124.1t Typical seating = 253 in 3-class Range (w/max. pax) = 16,300km Max fuel cap. = 139,100l List price = $15
59 Trex8 : if you look at the seating plans which have been made available (Boeings from their website, see detailed tech specs in CA section, and widebodyphotog
60 LAXDESI : I just paid for air freight at a rate of $3,100 per ton from India to JFK. A 9 ton advantage at a rate of $3,100/ton translates to $27,000 per day. A
61 Zvezda : No, both Airbus and Boeing use standard pitches for C and F of about 39 and 60 inches respectively that made sense 10 years ago, but no longer do. I
62 Trex8 : but is all that OEW difference translatable into payload, and is the volume there even if the weight is available??[Edited 2006-03-27 18:43:19]
63 Atmx2000 : As it should if you keep both aircraft in 8 abreast econonmy, as the A359 is longer. But if you shift the 787-9 to 9 abreast, the comparison becomes
64 Trex8 : you are correct thats whats on most of their website plans but there are none of the A350 on their website (that I can find anyway!) on those diagram
65 LH477 : I think several things have led to the current situation with Airbus: 1. Lazy Chair Syndrome. They got the top, they got comfortable, and they got laz
66 LAXDESI : Why hasn't Airbus announced an all new composite design to take on the 773/748 category? If resources are a constraint, why not partner with the Japan
67 SparkingWave : The size of the market so far seems too small for even one player, much less two. I'm talking about new orders. Airlines do indeed care about oil pri
68 Atmx2000 : The advantage is only 7t. The max struct payload for the 787-9 is 55t versus 46t for the A358, so there is a 9t advantage there. Since the 787-9 is l
69 Mptpa : I agree with Oroka. The soniccruisr was a technology demonstrator in disguise. It was NEVER intended for production but rather to try out future produ
70 Atmx2000 : That assumes Japanese companies have available technical resources and that they don't have contractual obligations to Boeing. Chinese don't have to
71 Zvezda : Yes and, at standard cargo densities, yes. That looks like a typo. I wish Airbus would announce an all-new composite design to take on the B777-300ER
72 LAXDESI : That still gives the 789 a $55 million dollar advantage over its life- a gap too large for A350 to overcome by offering it a lower price, a possibilt
73 Post contains images Joost : First, excellent post, like many here - I was quite surprised by the posts in this thread, I expected a war after reading the title However, on this
74 Atmx2000 : This has to be offset by whatever operation cost there is due to higher drag from the wider cross section.
75 Jacobin777 : exactly, there are some great battles to be left...the war has just begun... however, I see most of the United States carriers going Boeing.. UA-all
76 Trex8 : if I could scan that pic I would but its 60 for J and 32 for Y, I have tried searching the archives but he has so many posts in so many threads I can
77 LAXDESI : Perhaps offset by the advantages of a clean sheet design-bleedless engine etc. On another note, looking at the wikepedia entry on A350, it seems that
78 RJ111 : How did you work out the payload of each plane without seeing the MZFW LAXDESI?
79 AirFrnt : I don't think Airbus got lazy. I have respect for them, but I think they have squandered a huge asset by aggressivly pushing the A380 before the A340
80 PlaneHunter : I'm sure you meant 767. That will change significantly in the next 20 years. And you shouldn't forget that the B747-400 wasn't really attractive for
81 Post contains images HB88 : Are you sure about this? Go and ask anyone out there in the Real World about new airliners and my guess is 90% of them wont have a clue about either
82 Atmx2000 : I don't know about that. But it should be said that the greater cross section of the 787-9 offers advantages on the interior like the ability to seat
83 Khobar : As I said previously, the A330 is an excellent *stop gap*. Or maybe they won't. Why? It's only the A340 that has an issue because it has a more effic
84 AirFrnt : The US market still is (imho) ahead of the adoption curve that the rest of the international carriers are going to see. As soon as the LCC's invade i
85 DAYflyer : So far it has cost them about 400 orders for the A-330 or A-350. The 787 order count stands at 386 I think.
86 Astuteman : Why would that be the case when the planes are the same size, same MTOW and use the same (near enough) engines? (genuine question)
87 Atmx2000 : I doubt the penalty is 10%. The weight difference is only 6% and the 787 has a greater cross section. Of course depending on design philosophy, other
88 LAXDESI : Quoting Zvezda (Reply 56): Also, the B787-9 uses about 10% less fuel than the A350-800 to carry the same payload the same range. Why would that be the
89 RJ111 : If they are carrying the same payload the A350 will weigh more as it has the slightly higher OEW, thus will burn more. Also the A350 will have to carr
90 LAXDESI : I come up with A358 7.6% heavier than B789. Adding bleedless engines and other minor innovations make it entirely possible for B789 to be 10% more fu
91 LAXDESI : Can someone please explain to me why we are comparing 789 to 358 and not to 359?
92 Atmx2000 : You are using the old OEW for the original 787-9, not the current HGW version.
93 LAXDESI : Thanks for the clarification. Do you have a source for the specs on HGW version?
94 Jacobin777 : put it to proof, as I've given an example (QF) where the A330 wasn't used, at least as deciding factor between the 787 and A350, as an "excellent sto
95 SparkingWave : Stop gap planes don't make good business sense, not in the long-term. As I pointed out with the 777 in 2005, they already have. We can agree to disag
96 Philb : Until either the A350 is pulled (very unlikely) or until the end of both programmes, years down the line, it will be impossible to say. Prima Facie, A
97 Post contains links Atmx2000 : There is no official Boeing document yet. But here is the last chart that widebodyphotog prepared with current and proposed 787 family members. http:
98 AirFrnt : Amazingly enough, I have done exactly that. The few that actually know Boeing and Airbus get confused who has which plane. They heard about the 7e7 o
99 Zvezda : The cause of the difference in fuel consumption is the (less than 10%) difference in OEW. The reason why the difference in fuel consumption is greate
100 Astuteman : Thanks. Makes sense. A
101 FlyDreamliner : Why don't they? $$$$$ The A320 makes them a ton of money, which is good, because they've sure spent a lot developing the A380, which despite it's gre
102 RJ111 : You have absolutely no idea how much an A340 costs to build and how much Airbus are selling it for. So please stop asserting this unfounded argument
103 Astuteman : I suspect the majority of those in the backlog will have been sold profitably. As for this year/next year, if any are sold you might well be right. A
104 Dougloid : I may be going out on a limb here but I have to say that the A340 is one of the best looking airplanes I've ever seen.
105 Dougloid : Nothing new there. Nathan Bedford Forrest always said that victory belongs to them who "git thar fustest with the mostest". Another way of expressing
106 Post contains images BoeingBus : Too bad airlines don't buy for looks... You would see A340 everywhere! I think the A340 days are numbered. Unfortunate but true... Fuel is not droppi
107 Atmx2000 : But there are more factors to consider, like drag and cruise speed. We don't have a range payload curve that will allow us to determine what the actu
108 Zvezda : Yes, of course, it is more complicated. I was trying to keep the explanation simple since the concept is not by excluding lessor factors. Here's anot
109 LAXDESI : The cruise speed is higher for 789 by 3.6%--an additional financial advantage as for the same distance it has less depreciation cost(or more seat mil
110 LAXDESI : Since both aircrafts have a similar MTOW, wouldn't the 789, a lighter aircraft, burn less fuel for any given range/payload combination. Am I not unde
111 Zvezda : All other things being equal, yes. However, it is never the case with competing aircraft that all other things are equal. In the case of the A350-800
112 Khobar : Unless I misread the info, I thought there were several airlines who ordered A330's to fill their immediate needs and A350's to fill their longer-ter
113 Post contains links Trex8 : this is the best I could do about the A350 layout, you can't get the pdf file anymore but you can get the html, though you can't see any graphics! but
114 Post contains images SparkingWave : Yes! I totally forgot. Here it is... Fun to debate w/you... SparkingWave ~~~
115 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I should have been more clear....most (actually all) of the carriers you mentioned above were going Airbus anyway (the QR was maybe one-but given the
116 Jseesue : This is not the real question. Rather, the real question for Airbus is, what is the ultimate cost of choosing to follow their own irrational hubris (
117 Cloudy : There is something that will keep Airbus in competition despite the admitted inferiority of the A340 and the alleged inferiority of the A350. That is
118 Post contains links and images Keesje : I have the feeling little Leahy will make a few slam dunks in the coming weeks, silencing the seattle support crew for a while, before they fall back
119 Jet-lagged : Or opportunity money lost. Say they get 1/3 share instead of 1/2 share of 1500 airplanes. 500 intead of 750 means 250 fewer planes. At 100,000,000 US
120 Art : Keesje, you give URL's to order/production lists for 2 aircraft (A330 and B767), one of which (767) is no longer in production. What's your point? Th
121 Post contains links Keesje : Art, the real thing is the 767 is still in production & offered by Boeing. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ll+open+for+business%E2%80%99.html
122 Post contains links SparkingWave : Here's a new development. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. With the blessing of EK, the 787 has not only become a formidable competitor to t
123 Art : My mistake. I thought airliner production had / was about to finish.
124 Trex8 : well its as good as finished but unlike Airbus who has given a date for the A300, Boeing hasn't given a date when they will stop 767 production.Probab
125 Post contains images Jush : Ho much? 20 bucks nothing more anthin' else? Regards jush
126 NorCal : Haha, finally somebody answered the question
127 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I don't think we've disagreed too much.......order here, and order there, but that's aboaut it.... the A300 and A310 were available for purchase/prod
128 Post contains images Dougloid : Could it be rats deserting a sinking ship?
129 Post contains images Khobar : There's no such thing as airlines who were going to go with A or B as a given - they'd never get a deal that way. Besides, it would spoil a lot of fu
130 BoeingBus : All Airbus has to do is upsize the A380 and then find customers. But this is not good news for the A350 and possibly the A380. Airbus just needs a 'C
131 Post contains images Keesje : No, they are just the best equipment for the job, aren't they? What a bull. six years before EIS of the 787 Boeing was still selling Sonic Cruisers.
132 LAXDESI : I remember seeing figures of about $110 million for production cost of A358/9 series and less for 788/9 series(I can not find the source). Figures fo
133 Post contains images Zvezda : Yes, exactly.
134 Khobar : Heh heh heh, thanks. Likewise - always good to stoke the ol' brain cells from time to time.
135 Dougloid : But Keesje. They don't exist except in Italy.
136 Art : Any guess as to what those costs would be up to now - $100/$200/$500 million?
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...
How Much Does An ERJ-145 Cost? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 16:16:25 by Hido28
How Much Longer Will The DL 732s Be In Service? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 04:29:30 by AviationAddict
How Boeing Can Sell The 787 So Cheap posted Mon Dec 19 2005 22:48:24 by BoomBoom
How Much Do Boeing's Paper Aeroplanes Cost? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 21:07:50 by Cedarjet
How LCC's Do It (the Low-cost Part) posted Wed Mar 24 2004 14:10:10 by UTA_flyingHIGH
How Much Has PHL Changed? posted Sun Feb 15 2004 23:44:27 by Ushermittwoch
How Much Longer For The Peter Max Colors? posted Sun Dec 28 2003 22:16:20 by Thrust
How Much More Does It Really Cost? posted Tue Nov 11 2003 02:44:03 by AirxLiban
How Much Do All The Seats On A Typical 744 Weigh? posted Mon Sep 2 2002 04:15:31 by Bobcat
How Much Faster Is The 777 Vs. A340? posted Sun Jun 23 2002 08:17:59 by LanPeru
How Much Has NW Saved In Cutting Domestic IFE? posted Mon Sep 1 2008 14:37:24 by Soxfan
How Much Longer Will The A330 Line Stay Open? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 15:20:39 by Irishpower
How Much Bigger Is The A350X Than The A330? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 20:32:04 by 8herveg
How Much Does An ERJ-145 Cost? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 16:16:25 by Hido28
How Much Longer Will The DL 732s Be In Service? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 04:29:30 by AviationAddict
How Boeing Can Sell The 787 So Cheap posted Mon Dec 19 2005 22:48:24 by BoomBoom