Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ: Airbus A370 Updates  
User currently offlineDouwd20 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 17791 times:

The WSJ is reporting that Airbus has meet with key customers over the revamped A350 and intial reactions are good.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1150...78418.html?mod=hps_us_my_companies

Fair Use Extract:

According to people familiar with what Airbus is proposing, the plan is for a family of three jetliners that would be bigger than the initial A350 and have greater range. One of the planes will fly further than the 787 and than the A350's promised range of 8,800 nautical miles. Airbus hopes the new family of jets will compete with both the 787 and Boeing's larger 777 model. Airbus wants to officially unveil its new A350 model at or before the Farnborough Air Show outside London in mid-July.

Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng, one of the two vocal critics of the original A350, said last week that based on what he knew of Airbus's revised plans, the new jetliner "would make them much more competitive against the 787." Singapore Airlines is looking to order several-dozen planes in the size range.

General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce PLC were developing engines for the original version, but GE is hesitating about offering engines for the new model, according to people close to the issue. GE has heavy investment commitments on other Airbus and Boeing models, and risks cannibalizing its own sales at Boeing, these people said. Rolls-Royce is in talks with Airbus on the plane, these people added. It remains unclear if the world's other maker of big jet engines, United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit, is in the running.

What to name the new plane also is under debate. Some officials at the company argue that an all-new plane deserves a fresh moniker. Others worry about the embarrassment of ditching a widely marketed trademark. Some airline and other industry officials have started referring to the new design as the A370. Airbus is also considering linking the model to the much-hyped A380 by calling it the A280, A480, or even A880, said a person familiar with the debate, because the number eight is considered auspicious in parts of Asia, such as China. Another person close to the issue said "A350" stands more than a 50% chance of sticking. Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht said the company won't discuss the issue at this point.

103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 17695 times:

Quoting Douwd20 (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng, one of the two vocal critics of the original A350, said last week that based on what he knew of Airbus's revised plans, the new jetliner "would make them much more competitive against the 787." Singapore Airlines is looking to order several-dozen planes in the size range.

Interesting statement lets see how SQ will decide.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineDouwd20 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17669 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 1):
nteresting statement lets see how SQ will decide.

Indeed they've certainly kept everyone waiting long enough.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17628 times:

To me, the key paragraph of the article is the one about engines. GE is 'hesitating', RR is 'in talks', the position of P & W is 'unclear'......

If Airbus can't secure a commitment from at least one engine manufacturer to develop an engine to suit the proposed performance/weight/drag characteristics of the new design, surely the new Airbus model will be still-born?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17582 times:

According to people familiar with what Airbus is proposing, the plan is for a family of three jetliners that would be bigger than the initial A350 and have greater range.

All three jetliners will be bigger than the initial A350?
Sounds like it will compete with the 777 leaving the 787 the smaller mid-size market all to itself.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17472 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
If Airbus can't secure a commitment from at least one engine manufacturer to develop an engine to suit the proposed performance/weight/drag characteristics of the new design, surely the new Airbus model will be still-born?

We know how upset you always are when Airbus receives yet more bad news so let me reassure you that RR will be sure to sign up. Now you can focus on the more upbeat and positive aspects of this report.  Wink

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):
Sounds like it will compete with the 777 leaving the 787 the smaller mid-size market all to itself.



Quoting Douwd20 (Thread starter):
Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng ... said last week that based on what he knew of Airbus's revised plans, the new jetliner "would make them much more competitive against the 787."

Sounds like the people that run SQ don't agree with you.

The competition between airliners often comes down to shifting people at an advantageous CASM rather than the need to match exactly the competitor's capacity.


User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17441 times:

My understanding is that SQ require a 787(8/9) capacity aircraft, have been shown the 370 and deemed it too big. An SQ 787 order is not too far away IMO.

User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17415 times:

Hi!

This is a little bit of the big news that will arrive soon!!! Regarding the issue that NAV20 came up with ( engines )....well Airbus will need to have engines for their new airplane right? And the engine manufacturers want Airbus to use their engines right? So NAV20 what's your point? The plane needs engines to fly....so maybe RR, GE and P&W will give their engines has an option for the new Airbus bird right?
regards


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17374 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
let me reassure you that RR will be sure to sign up.



Quoting CV990 (Reply 7):
So NAV20 what's your point?

My point is that engines cost money to develop, all same airframes. I'm equally sure that one or other of the engine manufacturers will sign up - provided that Airbus pays for the development work.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUTA_flyinghigh From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17374 times:

Not to rain on your parade but I know for sure it shall (...) not be called the 370 due to the "7" being associated with Boeing.

Don't ask for sources but believe me on this.

UTA  checkeredflag 



Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17360 times:

Hi NAV20!

I really don't understand you.....do you think that Airbus is "that short of money" that they cannot "pay" for any development costs that might come with the engines involved???? Come on!!! That's a very poor point you coming with indeed! Not only Airbus WILL PAY and maybe ( surprise, surprise!!!! ) they sign up for more than one engine option!
Regards


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17303 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
We know how upset you always are when Airbus receives yet more bad news so let me reassure you that RR will be sure to sign up. Now you can focus on the more upbeat and positive aspects of this report

Naw20????!!!!!  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
My understanding is that SQ require a 787(8/9) capacity aircraft, have been shown the 370 and deemed it too big. An SQ 787 order is not too far away IMO.

I don't think so. The 787- 8/9 seems to me to be far too small for SQ relative to their strategy to deal with the growing number of LCCs in Asia. Their strategy seems to be the opposite of what most traditional US and European carriers have done: Go for big aircrafts (at present nothing smaller than the 777-200) with relative few connections so that the planes can get filled. At the same time they use new aircrafts (and sell used equipment as long as they are able to still get a decent price in the market). Combine the lower operating expense of newer and bigger aircrafts on a per seat basis with a decent service and you have the recipe for SQ being as successful as they are.

The reason why SQ might have been so keen on not simply order the 787 rather than the old 350 could well be because the 787 is simply too small for them. I expect that they are now most likely looking for a program to replace their 777s. Their ashtrays must be about full by now (as the saying goes in the Asian aviation industry). This will also explain why they are in no hurry to go for the 787 as they have no use for the 7 and 8 and might only want the 10 which is not yet on offer (as SQ used to be first with the newest).

Abba


User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17243 times:

Apparently, QR cannot wait for A370 and decided to go ahead and order 20x 777.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=6%2F13%2F2006

Cheers


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17134 times:

Hi!

Yeah, that's a nice report...."According to sources in London.....that order is BELIEVED...." very, very vague for my taste, very vague!!!
regards


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17125 times:

Engines are critical in the development of any new jetliner. In fact it is probably engine technology rather than airframe technology which really drives new aircraft development. This is because the aerodynamics are already so good that only a few % can be gained from the airframe but 10+% from the engines.(Except for the 787 which will gain a lot of airframe efficiency from decreased weight). So I agree with NAV20 that the engines are the critical weakness in the Airbus proposal, as well as a couple of others related to timing and market segment. Airbus could secure an engine manufacturer by offering engine development money.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17039 times:

thnx for linking the article

when would SQ's 777 fleet be up for replacement, taking into account their fleet replacement strategy?

Maybe a B789/A370 mix? A330/B777 proved a winning team with many airlines.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16946 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 14):
So I agree with NAV20 that the engines are the critical weakness in the Airbus proposal

A critical issue for sure, but I cannot see why either of you conclude that it is necessarily a weakness. If anything, Airbus have a strong hand to play.

Put yourself in RR's shoes. They built a lead on the 777 only to watch is slip away through GE's exclusivity. Then they were frozen out of the 747-8. They're holding their own on the 787 so far but GE have more customers and more orders and are likely to continue to leverage 787 sales off the two other Boeing programmes where they have exclusivity. RR will probably still gain a decent share of the 787 programme but on other Boeing models they are finished.

RR also hold the lead on the A330 and seem unlikely to lose it but that, too, is a programme that is running out of time. The promise of RR's de facto exclusivity on the A340 will never now be realised and the jury is still out on the A380. In other words, RR cannot bank on continuing robust sales on Airbus widebodies to keep the money coming in.

PW have died a death in civil aviation and RR, who were looking quite strong just a few years ago, badly need another major application or two to ensure that the same fate doesn't await them. Enter the New A350/A370.

Might Airbus blow it again and might RR be pouring their money into a Toulouse citron? Of course, but it's a risk that RR have to take. But all investments are a gamble. If Airbus can come up with a plane of the appeal of the A320/A330 in the 787/777 market and if RR have secured pole position then a decade from now we'll be admiring their vision and foresight.

And can RR deliver? I'd say so. With zero Airbus market share to build on, RR pitched the Trent 700 against the CF6 and PW4000 and came out ahead of both.

Will RR sign up? Will Airbus have to beg them? Do they both need each other? Badly?! It seems a no-brainer to me.


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16935 times:

Hi PM!

Good point PM, very good point...it's the same to me, this is a no-brainer issue indeed!
regards


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16875 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 11):
The reason why SQ might have been so keen on not simply order the 787 rather than the old 350 could well be because the 787 is simply too small for them. I expect that they are now most likely looking for a program to replace their 777s.

Doesn't anybody here remember the 787-10? It has the same chance of being launched and the NNNG A350 and is widely considered and 772 killer. So how could a plane that will replace the 772 be too small for SQ? And SQ has not even asked about replacing their 772s, since 773ER are still coming.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
If Airbus can't secure a commitment from at least one engine manufacturer to develop an engine to suit the proposed performance/weight/drag characteristics of the new design, surely the new Airbus model will be still-born?



Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 14):
So I agree with NAV20 that the engines are the critical weakness in the Airbus proposal, as well as a couple of others related to timing and market segment. Airbus could secure an engine manufacturer by offering engine development money



Quoting PM (Reply 16):
Will RR sign up?

Without a commitment from engine manufacturers, the programme won't be born at all, never mind still-born.
My understanding was that RR have either already signed an MOU to develop an engine for the new model, or are just about to, and that the Alliance are proposing a development of the GP7000, incorporating GEnx technology.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+bid+to+power+revamped+Airbus.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+Rolls-Royce+big+engine+prize.html

I'm pretty sure the new model WILL have engines  Smile.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
My understanding is that SQ require a 787(8/9) capacity aircraft, have been shown the 370 and deemed it too big. An SQ 787 order is not too far away IMO.

Quote "Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon Seng, one of the two vocal critics of the original A350, said last week that based on what he knew of Airbus's revised plans, the new jetliner "would make them much more competitive against the 787."

Although I certainly have no information on this point, the two comments do not seem to be compatible to me, Dale.

Regards


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16763 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
GE is 'hesitating', RR is 'in talks', the position of P & W is 'unclear'......

Didn't Flight International report RR and Airbus were close to signing a MoU on a new 95,000 lbs engine only last week?

RR is a given fact on this project.

P&W would better board ship too, if they want to remain of any significance in the higher thrust regions.

GE is in a difficult position really: they are reported to be far stretched both financially and technically with their GEnx, so maybe they are just not in a position to step in right now. Besides, they have exclusivity on the 773, so they will certainly not make the opening move for a program which will take the 777 out of the game. On the other hand, once either one of the other engine manufacturers announces it will take up the challenge to build the all new engine, they might as well step in the race too, hoping to conserve at least some of their market share and they have a good chance of doing that: several 773 customers will dump their planes for the new much more efficient Airbus, yet might want to stay loyal to GE and their engines which have served them well on the 777. Anyway, expect them to move as last: they will take a cautious wait-and-see approach.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16600 times:

IMO, the "decisive utterance" regarding the relative merits of any nascent "newest all-new A350 (A370)" proposal will come from Mr. Udvar-Hazy of ILFC. Whether he's willing and able to make such a profound pronouncement as soon as Farnborough will be interesting indeed.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16559 times:

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 6):
My understanding is that SQ require a 787(8/9) capacity aircraft, have been shown the 370 and deemed it too big. An SQ 787 order is not too far away IMO.

Given SQ product / brand specification & route network I think they would not consider 9 abreast on the 787.

Probably most of their new medium aircraft would be two class. How many people would fit in a 787-9 long haul? (8 abreast economy, 32-34 inch pitch, 30-36 seats business 6 abreast 57-60 inch pitch.)

Their long haul 772ER's with this specification have 285 seats
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Sin...Singapore_Air_Boeing_777-200_3.php


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16551 times:

Airbus's A350 rethink splits customer opinion, with delays concerning Yemania as Finnair takes a relaxed view

Airlines with Airbus A350s on order have given a mixed response to the proposal to relaunch the aircraft with a raft of major improvements that will delay its entry into service by several years.


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ng+Yemania+as+Finnair+takes+a.html


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16534 times:

I think you guys are missing the point about the engines, or at least I did not explain my point clearly enough.

There would be no 787 without the new engines from RR and GE. Why because it is the engines which produce the greatest increment in efficiency gains. The engines were not developed in response to the 787 airframe, the airframe was developed in response to the new engine technology.
Boeing could see what was happening in the engine development field and developed an airframe to exploit the potential of the engines and then some.

In contrast, Airbus are saying this is the airframe we feel we need to produce, how about you develop an appropriate engine for it. Inevitabley under these circumstances and because of entry into service constraints, and the thrust requirements to match the performance of the 777, the 370 engines are going to be derivatives of a technology which predates the 787 engine technology.I cannot see RR or GE developing a whole new family of engines when they already have engines in the same thrust category. Engine Alliance developments of their 380 engines will be a compomise.

What segment is this 370 aimimg for. The 777 has already accounted for over 800 sales in its segment of the market, and the 787 will obviously outperfrm the 370 in the segment below 777 size. Ultimate performance ala 777LR and 345, are niche markets at best, with 2 players in their already, so why strangulate the 370 with the structural requirements to go out to that market.

In my opinion the sensible, relatively cheap, timely solution is to put the proposed weight saving (what is it 6 tonnes?) of the 350 into the 330 empty weight without increasing its MTOW, (330 Lite) possibly with Gen-X engines. This should have killer economics, and possibly provide a shortened even lighter and lower MTOW version also. This should cover a significant share of the 787 market and the shortened version could be offered as a 300/306 replacement. The proposed 350 could remain, hold its existing customers and provide significant compatability with the 330 Lite.

Ruscoe


25 Post contains images DistantHorizon : Don't you ever know when to stop? It's getting ridiculous.
26 Aloha717200 : Do we have any images of the A370 yet?
27 Post contains images Astuteman : No disputing that. I've no doubt that all 3 manufacturers talk routinely to the airframers, but I just can't believe that GE said - hey, let's make a
28 Post contains links Slz396 : Quoting Leelaw (Reply 21): IMO, the "decisive utterance" regarding the relative merits of any nascent "newest all-new A350 (A370)" proposal will come
29 SeJoWa : Indeed, Airbus going for the 'Perfect Nine' market would make some sense. I still wonder about the long term implications of Boeing's putative fusela
30 Johnny : @ NAV20 i had to read your following post twice to be really sure that you mean it like you wrote it: "My point is that engines cost money to develop,
31 Scouseflyer : Give it 10 years and Japan (and possibly China) will have it's own airliner industry.
32 Post contains images NAV20 : Don't see why, Johnny - I phrased it as simply as I could, sorry if you still found it too complicated. Engine manufacturers only make money on new e
33 Post contains images N1786b : It makes me believe that the A340 is dead - maybe some incremental improvements and follow on orders but that's about it. It makes me believe the A330
34 Leelaw : We'll soon see whether SQ, EK, and other major players make a decision in this category before Mr. Udvar-Hazy "utters." Personally, I wouldn't bet on
35 Post contains links Trex8 : did some people here miss this? besides those who seem to have selective memory http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...-R+primed+to+power+new+‘A370
36 Slz396 : Where does the article say that? All I can find is: RR in TALKS means HARD TO GET for you? "Boeing in talk of XXX 787" means "Boeing is having diffic
37 Atmx2000 : I fully agree that RR will jump into this program, and will be happy if GE doesn't jump into it. As for competitiveness with the 787, I think it will
38 Post contains images Johnny : @NAV20 HAHA. I am still smiling about your idea to let Airbus pay for engine development.That is so absurd.You are in fact the comedian on this site.N
39 Dalecary : Fair enough, I can see the incompatibility. I am fairly sure the SQ RFP includes some 788s and majority 789s from Boeing. The 370 has been overlooked
40 Post contains images AirportGal : while I wouldn't have phrased it quite as colorfully, I was thinking the same thing.....
41 Post contains images CM767 : In my opinion there would be a market for the 370 engines, could efficiencies obtained be applied to the 777 or even Y3? This raises another issue; ev
42 Abba : I believe that SQ might only want the 10 and has therefore been dragging their feet with the 787 so far as the -10 hasn't been offered as of yet. How
43 DAYflyer : A very good point. There are some routes, even for SQ, that are simply too thin for an aircraft the size of the 777. If the A-370 (?) is in that 777-
44 Dougloid : The entire production amounts to a game of musical chairs with dollars. Each firm closer to the source will do everything it can to shift costs to th
45 Slz396 : Any idea just how you adapt 787 technology to the 777? Does that mean re-winging the 777 to give it an all composite wing just like the A350/787 is s
46 Ken777 : Engine makers are in the same boat as A & B. The larger planes look good from a marketing point of view, but heavy users of the 737 and 320 are wantin
47 DeltaDC9 : I have heard of the possibility of using lighter materials before and after the wingbox, and 787 uprated engines. A new wing would make a -400 possib
48 BoeingBus : I'm finding that folks are getting so passionate about nothing. What do we know about the A370? Nothing really. It's an idea, right now an Airbus drea
49 Slz396 : Basically do an A350 to the 777? I think Airbus just found out the hard way you can't effectively compete against an all new product just like that a
50 AirMailer : Doesn't a new engine have to be designed for the 787-10? If so, couldn't GE develop an engine that would be able to server the largest 787 and the sm
51 Baroque : Oh dear, now you have let loose the "only RR engines" thread.
52 NAV20 : Good point, AirMailer. But surely Boeing's next move in the chess game would be to say, "If you want to develop an engine for the 787-10, the first th
53 Slz396 : I think they are avoiding it, because what would they put against the 787: an identical Airbus plane? Airbus in not going to go under because they ha
54 11Bravo : That is a sweeping generalization that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The ability of a derivative aircraft to compete against a newer design depends o
55 Stitch : Perhaps RR would like to use the "A370" engines on the 787-10? Or even 787-11? A 787-10 with more powerful engines would make it a better plane, and m
56 Slz396 : What engine manufacturer would deliberately limit the market for its latest product? Unless of course Boeing is to pay billions in R&D for the 787-10
57 Brendows : For a 787-10 at the same TOW as the 789, (most likely) no. If I've understood Widebodyphotog and Lightsaber correctly, GE would have a hard time usin
58 Post contains images Johnny : @ NAV20 But surely Boeing's next move in the chess game would be to say, "If you want to develop an engine for the 787-10, the first thing you have to
59 DAYflyer : Correct, I am saying that the after the 787...if it meets it's performance targets....would have then been acting essentially as a testbed for the ne
60 Slz396 : And you are thus saying Y1 will be deferred till deep into the second half of NEXT decade hen? I think they will be jumping for joy in TLS when that
61 11Bravo : Why would they do that? Using the product development cycle of the B787 as a guide, it is entirely plausible to see something like this: 2008-2012 Y1
62 Baroque : Well phrased Astuteman! I am trying to work out if E Pennines influence is flowing upwind or if you moonlight writing scripts for the Vicar of Dibley
63 CV990 : Hi! Well, it looks to me that some people here thinks that Airbus is getting "weaker" just because they rewinded back the Airbus A350....well I think
64 RedFlyer : So after reading through 61 replies on this thread, I don't believe anyone has addressed how a lack of firm commitment from the engine manufacturers i
65 CV990 : Hi! And let's talk seriously....is 2012 hard to achieve for Airbus????? We are in 2006, we have about 6 years...to develop a plane is that too much fo
66 CM767 : CV990 my doubts arise because Airbus, responses to Boeing new game of lower CASM are trough offering a bigger product and not on new technologies. On
67 BoeingBus : I don't think this matters so much. If the A370 is to compete against the 773ER than by all means it will do it successful with no doubts. The A370 d
68 CV990 : Hi CM767! Well my friend my personal opinion is that Airbus is actually "really cool" with the fact that they have some pretty good airlines waiting t
69 Oroka : If the engine makers do commit to a new larger engine, what is stopping Boeing from developing a 777 with 787 tech and the new engines for the 'A370'?
70 CV990 : Hi! Let's be serious now!!!! I've just checked out airlines that ordered the 787 and the A350 and we have some really good clients on the 787 ( Air Ca
71 BoeingBus : But the problem lies that Airbus will have a tougher time to compete with the 787. You need to explain why Airbus lost some key customer to the 787,
72 Katekebo : Well, Airbus just came up with the "big surprise" today - another 6-7 months delay in the A380 program ... they know what the are doing.
73 AndesSMF : This coming second to market is a good thing mantra simply ignores the realities of the aviation and product world. Second to market is not good for m
74 Baron95 : You are making this way too complicated. A370-8 could be 787-10/772 sized with the same MTOW of 787-9/10 using the 787 GEnx and Trent 1000. i.e. no e
75 Brendows : Only one problem... If the A370-8 airframe is based on the much larger versions of the A370, it will most likely be heavier than the 787-9/10, and th
76 CV990 : Hi BoeingBus! Look, I DID TALK about airlines like AC, QF, NW.....so you don't need to "send some dust to my eyes" ok???? Now you didn't explained me
77 Post contains links Baron95 : Quoting Brendows (Reply 75): Only one problem... If the A370-8 airframe is based on the much larger versions of the A370, it will most likely be heavi
78 RedFlyer : Airbus is under a lot of pressure to bring their product to market as quickly as possible. And they are the ones that said it would happen in 2012. I
79 Post contains images 787engineer : It comes down to both. If they an airline can't fill the bigger plane which has higher overall trip costs, obviously the extra capacity is a disadvan
80 Post contains images BoeingBus : Because they were not looking for aircraft. Simple as that... its not a conspiracy theory or anything too complicated. There were no RFP out there fo
81 CV990 : Hi RedFlyer! I understand you point and I agree with you that "the ball in on Airbus side" indeed!!! But I can't EVER imagine Airbus just getting loos
82 Ap305 : The bottom line to the whole a350/a370 saga is this- The two smaller versions of the aircraft Airbus is now proposing need to have an oew/mtow/sfc in
83 87dreamin : [quote=Baron95,reply=77]Not necessarily. It could just have proportionally less range with full payload. You're right about that, but flip it around -
84 Baron95 : And that only worked because the 777 was revolutionary!!!! Not he design per se, but the concept. Very large, very long range twin engine airplane wi
85 Katekebo : Apparently it is difficult for Airbus to come up with new airplanes in timely way. They already lost a couple of years vs. the a B787, mainly due to
86 DeltaDC9 : Yes way, especially if Airbus chooses to go after the 773 and neglects the 250 seat market. 29 Airlines have chosen the 787, it only took 66 airlines
87 Brendows : Very true, but that would also make the A370-8 less desirable... Three engines for a family of aircraft, that sounds expensive, not only to certify,
88 Post contains links BoomBoom : Airliners That Could Have Been http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...05/12/20/203709/Clipped+wings.html
89 Post contains images Columba : BA being the most likely one out of these three. LH is an open race. They said they don�t want to be dependant on one manufacturer so the 787 wo
90 DeltaDC9 : As well as the probably to be announced 787-10. Also, we must consider when these airlines will need to purchase, and which manufacturer will have th
91 SparkingWave : Instead of speculating about how the A370 would compare to the B787, I'm just going to offer my 2 cents about what I'd like to see the A370 become as
92 SparkingWave : Instead of speculating about how the A370 would compare to the B787, I'm just going to offer my 2 cents about what I'd like to see the A370 become as
93 Post contains images Columba : That is why I said an open race. I hope that we will know very soon -maybe we see an announcement at Farnborough - together with some 747-8Is and 747
94 CV990 : Hi DeltaDC9!!! I can also say yes to a thing and don't buy it!!!! I believe many airlines where the 787 was showed said "Yeah, very nice!!! But.......
95 Stitch : AF is one of the larger 777 operators, so when it comes time for a new smaller widebody, evidently manufacturer nationality won't play a role. So if
96 Katekebo : I think Airbus/EADS will face some real issues with financing the development of the new A350/370. Here is why: - They need to pay off BAE - approx. $
97 787engineer : CV990, calm down and please lay off the "?" and "!" it makes you seem frantic. A commitment isn't just a simple yes. Many airlines have firm commtime
98 CV990 : Hi! 787engineer, have you ever seen me analysing the way you right? Of course not, so I don't expect you to do the same on the way I write. If I use "
99 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Hi CV990...I don't think he means any disrespect in any sort of way, but I was thinking the exact same thing when I read your posts..I do enjoying re
100 Astuteman : Hats off, Dale - it would appear you were correct............ Regards
101 Dalecary : Hate to brag, but I think I was just proved right as SQ order 20 + 20 789. Granted, they haven't ordered any 788s. But they ain't going to order any
102 787engineer : I never said you were frantic, in fact I think you're quite the opposite, and that is why I brought up that point. I said the way you write makes you
103 DeltaDC9 : Actually, I expect BA to buy what they think is best for them at the time, and at the time the 320 was best, just like it was for United. Just becaus
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...
WSJ: Airbus Redesigns The A350 - Mr. U-H's C-note posted Fri Jul 14 2006 11:58:55 by Leelaw
WSJ: Airbus A380 Faces Operating Limits posted Mon Jun 12 2006 13:54:27 by Leelaw
Airbus A370 Could Hand RollsRoyce Big Engine Prize posted Mon Jun 5 2006 14:48:42 by Keesje
WSJ: Airbus Under Pressure To Update 340 posted Mon Jan 16 2006 11:31:16 by Joni
WSJ: Airbus Pushes Ahead Of Boeing At Dubai posted Wed Nov 23 2005 14:41:30 by FlyingHippo
WSJ: Eads And BAe Close Airbus Deal posted Fri Oct 13 2006 18:03:23 by N328KF
Airbus A380VIP: Any Updates? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:38:02 by SmithAir747
Airbus A350/A370, What Will It Look Like? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:55:50 by WINGS
What Airbus Needs To Do To Break Even With A370(?) posted Wed Jun 14 2006 13:24:54 by FWAERJ
Airbus Updates Orders Xls Spreadsheet posted Thu Jun 8 2006 17:49:18 by Katekebo