NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, RR: 25 Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10550 times:
Gee when the 787 came out I remember all the derision that Airbus and its supporters heaped on the aircraft. Words like "Chinese Copy" or "Dreaming in Seattle" turned out to be Airbus' biggest nightmare.
I wonder what other mistakes they've made (something that also has an "8" in it).
David31998 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 72 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10487 times:
The earlier plans for the A350 left a plane that did not compete well with the 787. Can the new A350 equal or exceed the 787 in fuel efficiency and other technological advances? Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market. Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1498 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10334 times:
Quoting David31998 (Reply 1): Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market
Why not?
I had the exact same 'argument" with a friend yesterday.
Boeing has lept forward in the development in the mid-size market. Airbus now has the ability to sit back, take a look at what the market wants, re-evaluate, and perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?
This is the way that competing businesses work.
I laugh at how many people here say that one side or the other is failing, has lost the touch, etc.
Airbus made a good decision to re-vamp the "350" since their customers were asking them to, and they obviously realize what they were offering wasn't going to be sufficient.
BoeingBus From United States, joined May 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10244 times:
Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 2): perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?
I doubt there is that much new technology available in the next 3-6 years to actually leapfrog the Boeing 787. It's going to be difficult for Airbus to match the 787 performance.
What Airbus is doing is replacing the A346 and hijaking the 773ER from its crown. But the problem I see with this is that the large the plane the less market there is for it... So by simply growing the A350 w/o properly addressing the larger market 220-300 seat planes could be very risky.
It's fine to publicy admit failure but you need to adress the much larger 220 to 300 longhaul plane to replace the A330, 332, 333, 762, 763, 764, 772, MD11, DC10s, etc... than just simply building a larger 350 variant.
CF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10230 times:
This topic is asking for a A VS B war..... but I quite frankly cant wait for the next 10 years to unfold. People make it sound like Airbus is packing its bags and they are doomed forever. I think everyone makes mistakes... especially in this business . Just another thing .....if your developing a machine that costs 200+ million per unit, I would rather make a mistake now then when its in developmental process.
On a side note, I would love to see an a.net user name with the US flag beside it.... beginning a thread... in which the title reads "Airbus will pose harsh challenge to 787 Design" ... or pherhaps "Airbus improves A350 design 1000:1" or even "Boeing fights to secure more 787 orders" (due to the possible ... more profitable A350<<< would be located inside the thread)
.... feel free to think of some others. We should all stop trying to plan the future. Last time I was in history class, we were reading about how many said it was impossible for man to sustain controlled and powered flight  . They did didnt they? The more bazar things do indeed happen so lets let it all play out as the years approachÂ
Jet-lagged From Japan, joined Mar 2002, 709 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10230 times:
Quoting David31998 (Reply 1): Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?
For (1) above . . . it certainly could be. Airbus has access to the same universe of suppliers and engineers that Boeing does, and could duplicate the composites, engines, internal environment, etc. For (2) I'm a little less optimistic, but if the A350/A370 is introduced 5 years later, then it probably would, at least in some areas.
From Boeing's perspective, they should work to accelerate the launch of the 787 as much as possible, so that they capture so much of the market so fast, the cost of conversion to the new A350/A370 will make it uneconomical for many customers, no matter how good Airbus can improve it in the next 3 to 5 years, and so Airbus will have to wait until the 787s are being retired to make a big return to the market.
That would encourage Boeing to:
- open a second production line
- continue their movement into after sales support for business and customer retention
Boeing is sitting pretty now:
- ~350 orders from a number of serious airlines
- figure 50% more for options conversation (175)
- it is reasonable to expect 300 orders from other U.S. carriers
- they can find another 200 frames from other carriers not yet signing up
That totals 1025 frames. I think these numbers will apply no matter what Airbus counters with, if Boeing doesn't mess things up from here on.
For us aviation fanatics, the good news is that Airbus will need to, and will, introduce a very interesting plane if they go the new route.
David31998 From United States, joined Sep 2005, 72 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10209 times:
Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 2): Boeing has lept forward in the development in the mid-size market. Airbus now has the ability to sit back, take a look at what the market wants, re-evaluate, and perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?
This is the way that competing businesses work.
I laugh at how many people here say that one side or the other is failing, has lost the touch, etc.
I am not saying anyone is failing. Airbus is doing well, but they have a significant challenge trying to compete with the 787. The time between development of the 787 and 350 is very small and therefore, technological advances will be negligible. Boeing anticipated a quick response by Airbus and they are pushing the the limits of their manufacturing ability and tech know-how. The question is can the new 350 measure up to the 787?
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4574 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10191 times:
Quoting David31998 (Reply 1): The earlier plans for the A350 left a plane that did not compete well with the 787. Can the new A350 equal or exceed the 787 in fuel efficiency and other technological advances? Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market. Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?
I don't think that is the question. I think Airbus has shifted goals to countering the older portion of Boeing's product line, the 777. There will be overlap with the 540K lbs MTOW 787-10 if/when that gets launched, but I suspect right from the start Airbus wants to create a higher MTOW aircraft that will allow 8000-9000nm range in the 300pax category. They will have to use something other than the 787 engines, unless they go the quad route again. The resulting aircraft won't be a leader on CASM compared to the 787-10, but it will have capability in terms of payload-range. But Boeing is likely to come out with a higher MTOW 787-10 at some point, and that will likely be a better performer than the 300 pax version of the revised A350 for most missions.
They may offer something in the 250pax space, but it will probably be a weak offering in relation to the 787-9 as it probably will be relatively heavy.
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4): What Airbus is doing is replacing the A346 and hijaking the 773ER from its crown. But the problem I see with this is that the large the plane the less market there is for it... So by simply growing the A350 w/o properly addressing the larger market 220-300 seat planes could be very risky.
The other problem is that they would be releasing this 773ER competitor 10 years after it went into service. Boeing will likely have something out within 5 years of the -1000 EIS in that space, whether it be a 773LR or the Y3. Given Airbus's long development cycles they really need to be sure that Boeing won't clip their wings a few years after EIS like Boeing did with the 773ER to the A346.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
iin which this whole topic was beaten to death ad nauseum. My only comment is that I think part of the answer to A's dilemma lies in learning how to design a weight efficient structure. This issue was well outlined in the afore mentioned thread by some of the posters. When oil was $25 a barrel it didn't matter too much but today it is a pre-eminent issue.
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 743 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10103 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter): Despite the revamping the "all new" A350 will probably still be heavier than the 787 IMO.
Funny. There is something here that I fail to understand. How important is the issue of weight when comparing different models of aircrafts?
Sure I understand that if you can make an airplane A 10t lighter then airplane A will be a more efficient aircrafts (provided that its specs. for MTOW etc. does not change). However, comparing different models to each other with roughly the same size something does not hold water. Try compare the 787-8 to the 767-300ER. Two airplanes with roughly the same seating (about 210-220) seats.
Max ranges of the two aircrafs are different. However, that might not reflect the construction of the two airplanes (explaining why the one is more heavier than the other) as it might rather indicate that the one of the two is more efficient than the other and by carrying the same amount of fuel will go that much further. Range cannot be used meaningfully in this context.
MTOW might be the thing to compare. MTOW is what the construction of the plane in terms of strength must take into consideration. Then it doesn't matter what combination of pax, cargo and fuel you are carrying. Let us call it the load. The structure must be able to deal with the "load"! And - one should not forget - that the structure must not only carry the load. It must also carry the structure of the airframe itself! MTOW is, therefore, load + airframe. Airframe here is expressed in OEW.
The 787-8 has a higher MTOW than the 767-300ER (with the highest MTOW). 216t against 187t. That is 30t more for the 787-8. Impressive at first.
Less impressive though when comparing the OEW. Here it becomes clear that of those 30t only about 10t can be used for extra load (whatever combination of pax, cargo and fuel that might be)! The 787-8 is no less than 18t HEAVIER than the 767-300ER. 108t for the 787-8 compared to 90t for the 767-300ER.
(All numbers from Boeing's web-site)
Well - I am not to say that the 787-8 is less efficient than the 767. However, I recon that the gain in efficiency of the 787 is not gained by making it's OEW less.... And as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the very same problem might well be involved when comparing the 350 (in whatever version) to the 787...
In other words: Unless someone comes up with a very good explanation I will remain considering the affirmation of a direct correlation between weight (OEW) and operational efficiency between different models of aircrafts to be nothing but uninformed myth. The lighter aircraft might not at all be the most efficient one! The question of operational efficiency seems to me to be far, far, far more complicated than that!
Airways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10103 times:
Boeing had, and has, always expected Airbus to come up with a rival. That's the game we are all in - 50:50 split or thereabouts.
It's just taken Airbus a while to sort themselves out. And, I'm not sure they are even there yet.
I think Airbus need to get this one right. They shouldn't rush (as they have been doing).
However, best scenario for Boeing was for them to stick with their luke warm A350.
Seattle (and Chicago) have a little more to worry about now they look like there's a new competitor on the block. The previous attempt by Airbus would have meant 787 all the way.
Given that this is the size of airplane that will sell 3,000 over the next 20 years, there's no room for errors (on either side).
Saturn5 From United States, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10103 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9): . My only comment is that I think part of the answer to A's dilemma lies in learning how to design a weight efficient structure. This issue was well outlined in the afore mentioned thread by some of the posters. When oil was $25 a barrel it didn't matter too much but today it is a pre-eminent issue
Saturn5 From United States, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10068 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 10): Less impressive though when comparing the OEW.
I think OEW is exactly the name of the game. This is what airlines want - light empty structure. But in order to compare apples with apples you have to compare the volume of the cargo space in combination with the square footage of the passenger compartment. Using number of seats can be deceiving since seating vary due to configuration. If you rechecked you would find out that 787 is "more" airplane than 767-300.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 12775 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10041 times:
Quoting Airways45 (Reply 11):
Seattle (and Chicago) have a little more to worry about now they look like there's a new competitor on the block. The previous attempt by Airbus would have meant 787 all the way.
lets see how the "old new whatever-it-is" A350 comes out first....
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 743 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10002 times:
Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 13): I think OEW is exactly the name of the game. This is what airlines want - light empty structure. But in order to compare apples with apples you have to compare the volume of the cargo space in combination with the square footage of the passenger compartment. Using number of seats can be deceiving since seating vary due to configuration
I'll in principle agree with that (but it becomes complicated!). However, I believe the numbers for the 787-8 and the 767-300ER are such that to use the number of seats as a very roughly indication of the two being of about the same size is good enough for my argument here. In particular when the MTOW are so close to each other.
Look at the wingspan of the two! The 787-8 has a span of 60m while the 787-300 only has a span of 47m. It seems that most of the weight savings for the 787 has been aerodynamically "invested" in a much longer wing! Things like that complicate matters!
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9862 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 15): However, I believe the numbers for the 787-8 and the 767-300ER are such that to use the number of seats as a very roughly indication of the two being of about the same size is good enough for my argument here.
The B787-8 is closer to the B764 and A332 than the B763. In fact, the B788 is only a few square meters smaller than the A332/A358. In terms of passenger capacity, the -8 can match the A358 with 9-abreast seating and still maintain relative comfort.
Quoting Abba (Reply 10): The lighter aircraft might not at all be the most efficient one! The question of operational efficiency seems to me to be far, far, far more complicated than that!
It is, but your slew of logic was so inprecise it isn't even worth delving into in this thread.
There are too many variables you exclude to make that sort of direct correlation between OEW. Why compare to the B763ER, rather than the A358? Their propulsion technology, range, mission limits, etc are more anaglous.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9642 times:
The mistake wasn't the A350, it's the A380--Airbus misjudged the market and now they are paying dearly for it.
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4): I doubt there is that much new technology available in the next 3-6 years to actually leapfrog the Boeing 787.
Airbus can't wait 3-6 years, they got to get humpin on this immediately in order to finish it by 2012.Already there's skepticism that 2012 is doable
Quote: Such a decision would delay the first delivery date by a year and could double the development costs, currently estimated at four billion dollars, the source said.
Other sources spoke of a two-year delay
Quoting CF188A (Reply 5): On a side note, I would love to see an a.net user name with the US flag beside it.... beginning a thread... in which the title reads "Airbus will pose harsh challenge to 787 Design" ... or pherhaps "Airbus improves A350 design 1000:1"
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 743 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9602 times:
I agree with your points in principe. However, even if you compare the OEW of the 764 to the 788 you will still not see the true gain in efficiency of the 787 over the 764. What I believe is that OEW does not say as much about an aircraft's efficiency relative to other "similar" aircrafts as some people here seem to believe (and it is highly debatable what "similar" might mean in this context). That the 350 is heavier than the 787 might not say very much about the efficiency of the two aircrafts relative to each other! What I tried to do was to show just how misguided such a comparison of OEW might actually be!
Abba
PS I will disagree with your affirmation that an 788 with 9 abreast maintain relative comfort!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1498 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
. Just another thing .....if your developing a machine that costs 200+ million per unit, I would rather make a mistake now then when its in developmental process. 
From Japan, joined Mar 2002, 709 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 743 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 278 posts, 