Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Eyes 3 New Planes To Battle Boeing  
User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15099 times:

http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1027452006

Fair Use Excerpt

Quote:
"They are definitely looking at doing three," one industry source said, adding that the new planes were likely to be named the A350-800, A350-900 and A350-1,000. There was a chance Airbus could go with the name A370, he added.

A second source confirmed the story, saying: "It is designed to take on both the 787 and triple-7."

A spokesman for Airbus declined to comment on specifics, but said Airbus' chief executive would provide an update at the year's biggest air show next week: "Christian Streiff will be responding to feedback from customers received over recent months on Monday."

Interesting! Guess we'll hear more on Monday.


Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15009 times:

Quoting Okelleynyc (Thread starter):
one industry source said



Quoting Okelleynyc (Thread starter):
A second source confirmed the story

Industry sources could easily mean 'A.net posters' - after all, those two sources basically said PRECISELY what people have discussed on here as nothing more than educated guesses.

Unless they put their name to the quotes, I generally discount what they have to say.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14833 times:

If it isn't composite, or very significantly lighter and much more fuel efficient than the airplanes it is designed to replace, it will not fly with the customer base. They had better do this right as all of their corporate credibility is on the line. And it had better be an honest improvement, not manipulating with numbers of seats, etc.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14669 times:

I have two comments / questions:

- Apparently Airbus is not thinking that an A300 replacement is necessary, and consequently the B787-3 is not a threat. Maybe they believe that on shorter routes smaller airplanes with increased frequency can do the job - this is in contradiction with their claim that large hub airports are slot-constrained - the hubs that are full are contrained because of small airplanes (which reprsent 80 or 90 of the flights) and not large, long range airplanes.

- In order to take on the B777-300ER they need new, more efficient engines in the 100+ klb range - are such engines being developed? In order to beat the B777, the A3?0 needs to:
a) have new more efficient engines
b) be lighter (and hence use new materials and manufacturing techniques)
c) Airbus needs to do something that will prevent Boeing from being able to use the new engines on the B777 and B787-10


User currently offlineAirlineAddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 3):
c) Airbus needs to do something that will prevent Boeing from being able to use the new engines on the B777 and B787-10

That's a very good point. If Airbus could get a leg up with engines, that would effectively lock out Boeing... how to make that happen is the issue. One way would be for Airbus to provide the seed money to develop the engine.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14368 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 3):
- In order to take on the B777-300ER they need new, more efficient engines in the 100+ klb range - are such engines being developed? In order to beat the B777, the A3?0 needs to:

They don't need to be that powerful. The plane would, ostensibly, be both lighter and more fuel efficient.

N


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

If Airbus is going to develop three airplanes to take on the 787/777....my guess is tha the A358 will be targeted at the 788 and 789, the A359 will be targeted at the 772/787-10 and the largest variant being the A350-1000 will be aimed at the 773ER. Thats a huge range.....its going to be interesting to see what Airbus has in mind and if it can come up with one airplane that can cover such a large market.

Reading between the lines, if these plans are correct, will that mean the A350 family will effectively replace the A330/A340/A340NG family at Airbus. The original A350 was going to slot inbetween the A330 and A340NG families.......this new expanded A350 family seems to be a replacment for the entire Airbus widebody family (except the A380, of course)....although a small market for the A332 is a possibility.

It will be interesting.


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14205 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 6):
They don't need to be that powerful. The plane would, ostensibly, be both lighter and more fuel efficient.

Can you please explain how Airbus can make an airplane with similar payload and range as the B777-300ER with sugnificantly lower empty airframe weight? Fuel efficiency comes from three sources:

- engines - both manufacturers are using the same suppliers and have access to the same technology

- airframe weight - traditionally Boeing has been more weight-efficient than Airbus (B777 vs. A340 for example), and they are stretching this advantage to a new level with all-composite B787.

- aerodynamics - again, about the same for both manufacturers.

So your statement is a nice wish, but please tell us HOW it can be done? If the A3?0 will have similar payload and range as the B777-300ER, it will consequently be heavier than the B787 and need bigger engines. Or it will use the same engines as the B787 and therefore have less range and payload than the B777 - no miracles here.

Airbus can not make an airplane of the size, payload and range of the B777-300ER with B787-size engines.

[Edited 2006-07-14 18:02:02]

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14139 times:

All signs point to Rolls offering an engine family up to 95k for even the A370-1000.

It will be light enough compared to the 777-300ER to allow them to chop that much thrust, clearly, or it wouldn't be worth building.

N


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 3):
Apparently Airbus is not thinking that an A300 replacement is necessary...Maybe they believe that on shorter routes smaller airplanes with increased frequency can do the job - this is in contradiction with their claim that large hub airports are slot-constrained - the hubs that are full are contrained because of small airplanes (which reprsent 80 or 90 of the flights) and not large, long range airplanes.

But if Airbus believes that A380s will replace 747s on a one-to-one basis, then those A380s will be able to bring ~30% more people into the hubs without impacting the number of smaller planes needed to get them out to the spokes.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 7):
If Airbus is going to develop three airplanes to take on the 787/777....my guess is tha the A358 will be targeted at the 788 and 789, the A359 will be targeted at the 772/787-10 and the largest variant being the A350-1000 will be aimed at the 773ER. Thats a huge range...its going to be interesting to see what Airbus has in mind and if it can come up with one airplane that can cover such a large market.

Agreed. Such a range might very well require some tradeoffs at the bottom or top end. Still, a good deal of the market might very well be in the 772-range, so optimizing your family for that market seems wisest (since 773s will be still somewhat "new" and the 787-8/787-9 are going to take a good chunk of the 767/A330 replacement market due to earlier EIS).

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 7):
Reading between the lines, if these plans are correct, will that mean the A350 family will effectively replace the A330/A340/A340NG family at Airbus.

Which makes sense, as that is where Airbus is currently weakest now against both existing (777) and planned (787) Boeing products.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 6):
They don't need to be that powerful. The plane would, ostensibly, be both lighter and more fuel efficient.

As Katekebo notes above, as the A350-1000 will share it's design with a much smaller plane (the A350-800), what design tradeoffs will Airbus need to make?

Assuming the A350-900 is the baseline, the A350-1000 is to the A350-800 what the A340-600 is to the A340-300. That is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but it will impact the performance of the plane moreso then if Airbus went with the A330NG/A350 and a seperate A370 frame.

And what of the A350-800? It would be the equivalent of the 777-100, which Boeing and it's customers determined was not economically viable. If the A350-900 is the baseline plane, sized against the 777-200, then the A350-800 could be at a disadvantage to the 767-400, to say nothing of the A330-300, 787-8, and 787-9.

And if the A350-800 is the baseline, then the A350-1000 becomes an extreme stretch to meet the capacity needs. And that means even more bracing and structure then if the A350-900 was the baseline. Airbus needs to be careful they don't have a repeat of the A340-600 which needed a good deal of structure to support the stretch which raised OEW and lowered payload and range.

[Edited 2006-07-14 18:15:01]

User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14074 times:

Frm where will Airbus have money to develop 3 new planes?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineKilljoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14074 times:

So wait, let me get this straight, an airplane that's supposed to be better than the 787 has the following features:

-It's supposed to be slightly wider than the 787.
-Currently available 2-engine solutions are slightly underpowered.
-The length used to go from medium to large, but now a huge version is planned.

Airbus may just... have invented the best aircraft of all time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Fagerström



User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13983 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 11):
Frm where will Airbus have money to develop 3 new planes?

Why do people always ask this?

Maybe from their MASSIVE profits and cash flow?

N


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13945 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
All signs point to Rolls offering an engine family up to 95k for even the A370-1000.

It will be light enough compared to the 777-300ER to allow them to chop that much thrust, clearly, or it wouldn't be worth building.

OK, so here we go againg. How can Airbus make an airplane with similar payload and range as the B777-300ER with engines that are nearly 20% smaller?

Given that both manufacturers have access to the same powerplants, the only way that the A3?0 can be a "killer" to the B777 is by making the airframe substantially lighter. Does Al-Li offer enough advantage?


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13902 times:

As I've said repeatedly, it will be both lighter and the engines will be more fuel efficient.

You make the frame 20% lighter (easy to do with an all new program) and the engines 10% more efficient (8 is probably more reasonable) and you calculate the lower quantity of fuel required you have no problem running such a plane on 95,000 lbf engines.

Al-Li is as light as composites, no problem. The issue thus far has been the existing structure. An all new structure, conceivably, would resolve that issue.

Since we don't know what the plane will be made of, we can't really have this discussion.

N


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13771 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15):
Maybe from their MASSIVE profits and cash flow?

Care to remember BAE buy-out and the $2b profit gap due to A380 delays? I don't think Airbus/EADS look particularly strong from cashflow standpoint over the next 3 years

Quoting LY777 (Reply 11):
Frm where will Airbus have money to develop 3 new planes?

Your taxes and social security money.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13749 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15):
Frm where will Airbus have money to develop 3 new planes?

Why do people always ask this?

Maybe from their MASSIVE profits and cash flow?

N

Good. That means Airbus will not require government loans, and that will help everyone avoid a nasty trade war.


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13700 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
You make the frame 20% lighter (easy to do with an all new program) and the engines 10% more efficient

LMAO.


User currently offlineOutlier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13632 times:

Its not really 3 planes to take on 1 is it? Its one platform and its derivatives.

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13573 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 16):
Given that both manufacturers have access to the same powerplants

RR isn't allowed on the 773ER (or rather on any 777s above certain MTOW?), so any engine it might develop can't be used by Boeing, unless the 773ER is slimmed down. And as the A346 is effectively dead it needs a platform in this sector badly.

Will GE bother to produce a rival engine for any A350-1000 variants when it already has the lucrative 773ER and 747-8 business?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineFirennice From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12928 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 19):
Good. That means Airbus will not require government loans, and that will help everyone avoid a nasty trade war.

Ahhhh fantasy land. Isn't it great.

Massive profits have to pay off massive debt to develop a/c and design new innovative ways to do things. Or else you stick with the old and proven and sell old technology that is cheap. **poof** there go the massive profits. Then they vanish.

You have to spend a lot of money, and pay shareholders, and open and upgrade facilities. etc etc etc


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12865 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
As I've said repeatedly, it will be both lighter and the engines will be more fuel efficient.

I guess it depends on how "small" the A350-800 is. If it's more like the current A350-900, then yes, they probably can make the new A350-900 lighter then the current 777-200 (since the new A350-800 will be sized like the A333 and 764ER) and the new A350-1000 will be lighter then the 777-300. I'm not sure it will be 20%, though.

Quote:
Al-Li is as light as composites, no problem. The issue thus far has been the existing structure. An all new structure, conceivably, would resolve that issue.

It may be for Airbus design philosophies, but it does not seem to be for Boeing design philosophies. So while an Al-Li A359 and A35G might be lighter then an Al 772 and 773, it will probably not be lighter then a CFRP 772 (the 787-10) and CFRP 773 (Y3).

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 22):
RR isn't allowed on the 773ER (or rather on any 777s above certain MTOW?), so any engine it might develop can't be used by Boeing, unless the 773ER is slimmed down.

It could, however, possibly be used on the 772 and the 787-10, both of which will compete with the new A350-900.

Quote:
Will GE bother to produce a rival engine for any A350-1000 variants when it already has the lucrative 773ER and 747-8 business?

If the A350-1000 is compelling enough, and doesn't arrive at the end of the purchasing window of 777-300ER type equipment, then I expect GE will feel they have little choice.


User currently offlineRpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12803 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 18):
Your taxes and social security money

Hum, intersting statement. Never ever heard that Airbus could cut my healthcare programm to build aircraft. So it's almost impossible to talk about Airbus without this kind of misinformation?

Regards,
Raphael


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12803 times:

I'm really trying to evaluate this idea fairly, but can you really launch an entire generation of airplanes - starting with three simultaneously - with no thought to the megabillions of cost involved, in the space of a couple of weeks with with the company in complete turmoil, and have not one comment say "WHOA?"

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12500 times:

Is it possible that Airbus will go with two tube sizes, like Boeing did with the 757/767 program?

When looking at the target markets I tend to consider the new planes addressing everything from the smallest 330 to (at least) the mid-range 777. That seems to be a wide range for a non-engineer.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to stay with the R&D they have already done on the 350, but direct efforts into improving the economics - even if it means a slightly larger tube? That seems to be the most attractive approach (for the airlines, at least) to competing at the lower end of the market. For the 777 competitor the tube is going to need to be very similar, but that might allow Airbus to offer something that can have a larger capacity than the 777 can (at least for now) offer. Might even nick some potential 748i sales.

Overall this is very good news. I enjoy it when A&B go after each other with great planes and hope this will be the case again starting next week.


25 Post contains images CptGermany : It will be the same deal as with the A340/330: Same airframe components (e.g. fuselage, wings etc), but different market niche. Hey Travelin man, jus
26 787engineer : Not that much lighter. Where do you get the ridiculous idea that Al-Li and composites will make the frame 20% lighter? Remeber 60% of the current A35
27 787engineer : I think the two fuselage width idea is the best way for Airbus to go at this point, assuming the want to tackle both the 777 and 787. Structurally it
28 Katekebo : Not your health insurance, but haven't you heard that certain EU governments are considering rising the retirement age because of the budget "hole" i
29 CptGermany : Katekebo, this statement is true. However, I do not see the connection to the government loans Airbus receives for new aircraft projects. If the gove
30 Ikramerica : I don't think people understand why the 777LR planes have such powerful engines and it is leading them to make mistakes regarding the 350 engines. The
31 Post contains images PolymerPlane : Where did you get this information? A350 as we know right now uses Al-Li extensively yet it is 10-20 tons heavier than 787. Yeah, the program can mak
32 Katekebo : I appreciate your fair and balanced point of view. There is no doubt that the launch aids that EU governments provided for the A320, 330 and 340 prog
33 Tangowhisky : Exactly. One size fits all does not work for the common A330/A340 barrel now that Airbus has to compete against the 787 and 777. This is why Boeing m
34 Post contains images CptGermany : Thanks. This is true. I guess it will be interesting to see this development. However, in general I think that currently there are a few other issues
35 NASOCEANA : I think Airbus is going in the wrong direction. They should build an aircraft that Boeing will have to take on, rather than building a aircraft that w
36 Katekebo : One important aspect of American politics is that the government and its policies are really run by the large corporations. Lobbying is extremely pow
37 Post contains images Rpaillard : Those here in Europe and in France that state that it's possible to work less for the same income and that it's a shame to even think to postpone ret
38 RichardPrice : Actually you can, as our understanding of them changes. We dont know everything, and what we dont know we cant put into computer code. As our underst
39 Gigneil : They currently print some 6 billion Euros a year in profit. Laugh all you want, you've contributed nothing to this conversation. Um, Boeing? They sta
40 Post contains images 7cubed : If you are French, I would assume you'll be paying for it! Some anyways. That being the case why would a established entity like Airbus need launch a
41 PolymerPlane : I know that, but not by 20%. A 20% improvement from computer designed 777, just because of computer design is impossible to do. Look at 787 and 767 c
42 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW, I think a fair proportion of that weight difference is down to the "single piece" construction as much as the presence of the "composites" them
43 Travelin man : I was responding to the poster that said Airbus would be able to pay for the development of this family of planes with the "massive" cash flow and pr
44 Gigneil : Who says they do? The point is they CAN, and no responsible businessman would pass up legally protected supremely favorable financing. N
45 DIA : Good point. Business 101: Use other people's money...not your own.[Edited 2006-07-15 00:08:17]
46 Saturn5 : Very true, with a slight qualifier. They don't need launch aid when they go after a sound business case (like say with A320 or A350), they do need ho
47 7cubed : Where've been for the last, say, 3 years? I assume you're not familiar with the us vs eu subsidies WTO case. This topic has been beat to death and I'
48 Trex8 : minus the 1 billion plus that BAe apparently owe Airbus and if the Rothschild valuation is correct could actually as some other threads have discusse
49 RAPCON : If they think that they're going to get one of those typical "sweetheart" loans that you and I can't get, then EADS is going to be facing the biggest
50 Post contains images 7cubed : Well said!!!
51 Coa747 : The efficiency in design of the 787 is not just in weight and more efficient engines. Significant savings also come out of the fact that inspection in
52 Post contains images AirLanka : You mean ... Airbius may just ...re-invented ...
53 VirginFlyer : Unfortunately a number of users are rehashing the same old cheap shots that have constantly been used on this topic, and this thread is quickly descen
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...
Airbus Aid: A New Complaint To WTO posted Wed May 10 2006 08:51:12 by Leelaw
Jet Blue´s New Planes To Rock Rivals! posted Tue Jul 12 2005 19:06:28 by TACAA320
A380 Delay Help Airbus Sell More Planes To QF? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 16:12:25 by Jetfuel
Airbus Studies A New A330 To Compete W/ 7E7 posted Thu Jul 8 2004 01:27:54 by BoeingBus
Returning Brand New Planes To Manufacturer? posted Wed Jan 28 2004 00:52:54 by Birdwatching
Airbus Gave Away Planes To EA And AA posted Sat Jun 24 2000 20:34:34 by D L X
Airbus Proposes A340-500IGW To Battle 777-200LR posted Thu Apr 20 2000 07:10:28 by Pandora
Boeing: Asia To Buy 6,225 New Planes In Next 20 Ye posted Mon Oct 20 2003 12:52:21 by Flyingdutchboy
Boeing/Airbus In New Battle For ANZ Order posted Thu May 23 2002 06:13:09 by Jiml1126
Boeing To Give Up On Making New Planes... posted Sun Apr 1 2001 10:44:57 by 747-600X