Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AIRBUS: Plans Not Tied To Farnborough  
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...49DC-B379-C61E9037A1DC%7D&keyword=

In other words: Don't expect any flashy announcements!

But at least they seem to be going fwd with the A330F version.


MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12342 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3205 times:

Quote:
"Our customers are not looking to Farnborough for confidence," McArtor said in an interview Monday. "They are confident that we are going to offer them a superior airplane."

I wonder if he said that with a straight face!  vomit 



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Good.


It would be far better for Airbus to sit down and get it right than rush out another revision. They need a credible response to the 777/787 that is economically viable for them. This is not the time for back of the envelope drawings and best estimate performance figures.

They may need an A350/A370 to cover the full line up. Regardless they need more time to do it right, and the new boss is not going to make hasty decisions with the next 20 years line up at stake.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

I think what will happen is that the A350 will be confirmed pretty much as it is right now, with customers firming up their commitments the days after: Yemenia itself has said they will sign firmly for 10 A350s on June 18th for instance.

In parallel, Airbus will also announce they have started to work on a bigger, wider, faster twin, which will be as a big sister to the A350 and will replace the A340, yet will compete with the 777 and they most probably will announce RR has signed an agreement to build the new engine for this plane. General key performance targets will be set, like range, weight, size, fuel consumption, payload etc and maybe some sort of artistic drawing of the new plane will also be made available to make sure there is something visual to show to the world, but I don't expect a real launch of a completed product yet: for that they'd need more time, more insight in the needs of potential customers and above all, a launch customer.

How does this sound? It is not overly ambitious and it unites different news patters like the new engines for a bigger twin from RR and the order from Yemenia for the current A350.


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Well they need to get it right one last time. An extra few months is no big deal when the plane wont in use until six or more years from now.

I wonder if this diminishes or eliminiates the chance of he 787-10 annoucement at Farnborough. Maybe Boeing goes back and looks at more adjustments or enhancments.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
I think what will happen is that the A350 will be confirmed pretty much as it is right now, with customers firming up their commitments the days after: Yemenia itself has said they will sign firmly for 10 A350s on June 18th for instance.

In parallel, Airbus will also announce they have started to work on a bigger, wider, faster twin, which will be as a big sister to the A350 and will replace the A340, yet will compete with the 777 and they most probably will announce RR has signed an agreement to build the new engine for this plane. General key performance targets will be set, like range, weight, size, fuel consumption, payload etc and maybe some sort of artistic drawing of the new plane will also be made available to make sure there is something visual to show to the world, but I don't expect a real launch of a completed product yet: for that they'd need more time, more insight in the needs of potential customers and above all, a launch customer.

How does this sound? It is not overly ambitious and it unites different news patters like the new engines for a bigger twin from RR and the order from Yemenia for the current A350.

Doing my own back of envelope calculation - if they continue the current A350 with it's 100+ sales I think that'll make them there money back on about 400 (that's 300 more) planes. Making a new, larger clean-sheet design will mean that the main players from Boeing and AB will not compete directly in size:

A350
787
A370
777

and everyone's happy!!!!


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
How does this sound?

So Airbus is going to spend $5 billion on the old "all new A350" and then spend $15 billion more on the new "really new A370" which will be a "big sister" to the A350 and will replace the A340. But aren't these two planes too close in size to justify a $20 billion investment which still does not address the 788 size segment of the market? And you think this is "not overly ambitious"?


User currently offlineM27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

For some reason when I read the linked article, I think of the old saying(wish I could take credit for it, but think it was Will Rogers) that goes--If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Sticking with the 350 takes care of several important issues.

First it provides a new plane for delivery in 2010, making it attractive to some airlines.

It also fills a gap that would go to Boeing if Airbus only delivers the 370.

Just as important as potential sales it avoids having to write off the R&D investment made to date.

I'm for sticking with the 350 and also for having the guys & gals working on a 330F make it a 350F. I just don't see the logic of developing a freighter based on the 330 when there is some good R&D completed for the 350. If your engineers are working on a freighter let them work on the best you have.


User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3):
How does this sound? It is not overly ambitious and it unites different news patters like the new engines for a bigger twin from RR and the order from Yemenia for the current A350.

It is quite ambitious if you consider the sheer number of engineers that will be needed to work both projects simultaneously. The intial investment would require an enormous financial commitment at a time when Airbus will be strapped for cash (to a certain extent). Would having both projects running simultaneously push the A370 back from 2012 to 2013?

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 4):
Well they need to get it right one last time. An extra few months is no big deal when the plane wont in use until six or more years from now.

I wonder if this diminishes or eliminiates the chance of he 787-10 annoucement at Farnborough. Maybe Boeing goes back and looks at more adjustments or enhancments.

I don't see why it would. The airlines have voiced a clear demand for the 787-10, and right now the issue is finding a launch customer for the airplane. I think there's enough "existing future operators" of the 787 that their demand for a larger airplane that maintains fleet commonality to make the 787-10 project worthwhile. Not to mention the possible EK order.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Just to clear up something in the article... the A330-200F is done. Done. Finished. Ready to go to production. It was ready in 2001, but shelved immediately as a result of the collapse of the US economy followed by 9/11.

It won't be an engineering drain, and I think it could easily prove a moneymaker for Airbus.

N


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
I'm for sticking with the 350 and also for having the guys & gals working on a 330F make it a 350F. I just don't see the logic of developing a freighter based on the 330 when there is some good R&D completed for the 350. If your engineers are working on a freighter let them work on the best you have.

Going from 330 to 330F can be done for a lot less $$$ and much quicker than 330 to 350F.

A 330F project can consist of Doors, Floors, and testing.

A 350F project could involve new power plants, new skin materials, new wing, new systems, new ... well, you get my point.

330F also sits right between 767F and 777F. 350F will be closer to 777F.



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

I don't think it needs to be A330F OR A350F, but rather A330F now AND A350F in about 6 to 8 years.

The A330 and A350 share indentical fuselage cross sections (size I mean) and electrical systems, so integrating the newly designed A330F cargo components into the A350 will not be that difficult I'd think?

[Edited 2006-07-12 01:18:16]

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
Just to clear up something in the article... the A330-200F is done. It was ready in 2001, but shelved immediately as a result of the collapse of the US economy followed by 9/11.

The US economy collapsed? A collapse would be something worse than the Depression of the 1930s. The stock market collapsed, but the stock market is not the whole economy.

The US economy experienced a mild recession, this was underway prior to 9-11. The airline industry was heading into a cyclical downturn, then collapsed as a result of 9-11.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 13):
The US economy collapsed?

Apparently the US$ did. Last time I checked the A350/370 was projected to cost about 8 billion Euro. You've converted that into US$ en came up with...

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 6):
then spend $15 billion more on the new "really new A370"



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
Sticking with the 350 takes care of several important issues.

First it provides a new plane for delivery in 2010, making it attractive to some airlines.

It also fills a gap that would go to Boeing if Airbus only delivers the 370.

Indeed. Most existing customers and customers who haven't firmed up their commitment yet were expecting this aircraft afterall. That would mean about 185 orders right there.

Nevertheless, untill Airbus makes her announcement, it's all just speculation.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 14):
Apparently the US$ did. Last time I checked the A350/370 was projected to cost about 8 billion Euro.

You are correct. I did have my numbers mixed up. The A370 will likely cost 8 billion Euro or $10.2 billion at today's exchange rate. If they build the A350 too, that's another $5 billion for a total of $15 billion.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 15):
If they build the A350 too, that's another $5 billion for a total of $15 billion.


These numbers are based on building the A350 OR A370.

Some of the technologies payed for in developing the A350 might be used on the A370 (following the 2 aircraft theorie). Therefore the developments costs of the A370 might turn out lower than in the case Airbus would only develop the A370.

If we compare this to the investments made by the competitor, Airbus US$ 15 billion is nothing extrodinary. Boeing has projected US$ 8 billion for the 787 (a figure that possibly excludes the much anticipated 787-10), and IIRC has invested US$ 12 billion in the 777, the aircraft the A370 is supposed to take on.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 16):
Some of the technologies payed for in developing the A350 might be used on the A370 (following the 2 aircraft theorie). Therefore the developments costs of the A370 might turn out lower than in the case Airbus would only develop the A370.

Possibly, but that's pure conjecture at this point. My opinion, given the cost over runs on the A380, is that $15 billion is low balling it.


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...
Airwise.com Says Airbus Not Committed To 350 Yet posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:33:09 by SSTsomeday
Can Airbus Afford Not To Redesign The A350? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:46:37 by BoomBoom
Airbus Plans To Take On The 7E7! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:53:06 by VSFullThrottle
Airbus Plans To Launch A3XX By Years-End posted Fri Feb 25 2000 05:27:37 by Pilot1113
Kingfisher Plans First U.S. Service To SFO, NYC posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:57:15 by Laxintl
If I NOT Want To Put Down My Window Shade? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:51:16 by Bofredrik
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
ATW: Airbus Considering Revisions, Delays To A350 posted Wed Oct 25 2006 07:48:30 by Leelaw
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees
Episode Of US Flights Not Posting To UAMP... posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:51:54 by ASTROJET707