Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK: A350/B787 Decision Not For 6 Months  
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4118 posts, RR: 90
Posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7422 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum Chairman of Emirates has spoken in an interview that they will require 6 months to 1 year before they make a decision as to which model they will order between the A350XWB and B787. He also stated that they will require 70 to 100 frames and that the order will not be split between OEMs.

``We're looking at the A350 and the 787, about 70 to 100 aircraft,'' said Al Maktoum in an interview. ``We need at least six months to a year to decide, when we have all the data.''

In addition GE have confirmed that they have been in constant talks with EK and will not offer a powerplant for the A350-1000, at this stage;

``We've been in active talks and remain in conversations with them about powering the A350-800 and A350-900,'' said Scott Donnelly, chief executive officer of GE Aircraft Engines, in an interview today at the show. ``The A350-1000 we said we're not going to power.''

However EK would prefer at least 2 suppliers

Al Maktoum said he preferred a choice of engines. ``We'll always be very satisfied to see more than one engine manufacturer on any aircraft we buy,'' he said.

Quotes are fair use excerpt from http://www.bloomberg.com the article will be available under a search on their site.

It would appear that EK are going to take their time well and proper on this decision which was implied by Mr Clark and Mr Flannagen prior to the airshow.

Regards, PanAm_DC10


Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7382 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
In addition GE have confirmed that they have been in constant talks with EK and will not offer a powerplant for the A350-1000, at this stage;

Interesting PanAm, I guess RR will be moving forward on their proposed 3-shaft design after all.



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7361 times:

I think it's likely that Emirates Airways will order the A350XWB-900, not the -1000 model. The reason is simple: EK will have a substantial new fleet of 777-300ER's.

User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4118 posts, RR: 90
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7205 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Too late to dite my original post's link but here is a direct link to the article;

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...=conews&tkr=BA:US&sid=aHV3keoqsmMc

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7157 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 3):
Too late to dite my original post's link but here is a direct link to the article;

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...qsmMc

Hi PanAm_DC10..thanks for the link. Smile

I think EK will wait until Boeing comes out with the final numbers for the 787-10 and the industrial launch for the A350.....

If Boeing's Bair is to believed, the 787-10 might be a possible good choice with EK..as they have been on record a number of times stating that the -10 would be a great plane...

"Bair reconfirmed that Boeing is proceeding with the 787-10, telling media that it is a case of "when and not if" the stretch will proceed and "the economics were almost unbelievable." The current design specification for the dash 10 in a typical three-class configuration with eight-across seating is around 300, with trade studies to determine final range/payload. Current range is 7,500 nm. but he suggested it may increase by 200 nm."

source:atwonline.com



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7116 times:

Wow, I didn't see that coming.  sarcastic 


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7048 times:

I'm confident "al-Maktoum's Brain," Mr. Clark, will have something to say about the A350XWB proposal in short order. I'm a little surprised he hasn't already whispered in Geoff Thomas's ear.  Smile

User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4118 posts, RR: 90
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7025 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 6):
I'm a little surprised he hasn't already whispered in Geoff Thomas's ear

Respectfully, I believe he may have already done so, given the esteemed Mr Geoff Thomas was one of the very few journalists to state that he didn't expect a decision by EK on these models at Farnborough  Wink

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

In itself, the 787-10 would certainly be a very good choice for EK or in fact for any airline which looks at an efficient long haul twin seating around 300 pax.

However, in this specific case, and although Emirates have been pushing Boeing extremely hard to actually launch this highly efficient stretched version of the 787, it looks to me like the 787-10 will come out as the lesser plane against the A350XWB-900 in EK's eyes.

To start with, the 787-10 does not offer the range the A350XWB offers Emirates.
On top of this significant performance disadvantage, the 787-10 also comes with a 5 inch narrower cabin: since EK will certainly go for a 9 abreast configuration in Y class, this comfort issue will play in the minds of the Emirates executives.

Also, looking beyond the individual differences of both planes, the 787-10 is having a serious handicap due to the fact that contrary to the A350XWB, it doesn't give EK the possibility to replace their big fleet of 777-300ERs with something much more efficient in a not to distant future. Sure, the 777-300ER has been and still is a very efficient plane, but Boeing itself -and now also Airbus- have shown it can be beaten in efficiency rather easily by clean sheet designs. Will EK just wait till Boeing decides they have milked their 777 enough for it to be replaced by something all new? Or will they go for the A350XWB-1000 before that, making use of the most efficient plane as soon as it becomes available to the market, regardless of who produces it? A look at the companies history will easily answer this question for you.
The fact the A350XWB would allow EK to make a choice for 1 type of plane for ALL their needs below the A380, rather than for a mixed fleet of initially 787/777 and then most likely 787/A350XWB later on and you have the reasons why I think the 787 has just lost EK as a customer.

The slightly bigger A350XWB looks tailor-made for airlines which only need the 787-9/-10 as well as the 773 because even if it only matches the efficiency levels of the 787, it does offer them the chance to make huge efficiency gains by also replacing their fleet of 773s right away, iso having to wait till Boeing offers them something completely new in this category many years later.


User currently offlineCartoonranger From United Arab Emirates, joined Aug 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
Al Maktoum said he preferred a choice of engines. ``We'll always be very satisfied to see more than one engine manufacturer on any aircraft we buy,'' he said.

This is quite an interesting point as EK seemed to set out on an RR crusade when they first started to ramp up expansion. Then after the problems with the trent 800's, they appeared to change tact and all the big orders suddenly appeared for GE (or Engine Alliance) powered frames. Of course there wasn't always a choice but by the looks of things, engine competition for new EK aeroplanes is about to get very hot

CR


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6875 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 8):
The slightly bigger A350XWB looks tailor-made for airlines which only need the 787-9/-10 as well as the 773 because even if it only matches the efficiency levels of the 787, it does offer them the chance to make huge efficiency gains by also replacing their fleet of 773s right away

You are basing your assessment on the 2006 picture. Try to propel your mind to 2015. How will the 773 have evolved until then? How far will EIS of the Y3 be away by then, and what will the level of technology be? Which airlines will be around by then?

While the A350XWB at EIS might still have a metallic fuselage and Airbus' 1st CFRP wing design, the Y3 may be on the verge to introduce the 3rd incarnation of a CFRP fuselage and the 4th or 5th commercial CFRP wing design.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 8):
To start with, the 787-10 does not offer the range the A350XWB offers Emirates.
On top of this significant performance disadvantage, the 787-10 also comes with a 5 inch narrower cabin: since EK will certainly go for a 9 abreast configuration in Y class, this comfort issue will play in the minds of the Emirates executives.

IIRC Emirates specifically said they wanted a 300+ seater with a range of 8300Nm+

Regards


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6841 times:

Considering the young age of their B777/A340 fleet, I'd be very surprised to see EK go with the new A350. This isn't to say that the A350 hasn't improved, I just think the smaller 787 is going to make more sense for the EK fleet. Time, as they say, will tell.


Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6783 times:

Interesting news out of Emirates.

We do not have any clear figures out for the 787-10X yet do we? (or proper figures for the A350 really apart from Leahy's presentation).



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6777 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 8):
To start with, the 787-10 does not offer the range the A350XWB offers Emirates.

The full range spectrum for the A350XWB has not been presented. Only the base range of 8500nm and I believe that is for the A350XWB-800.

Anyone else think that writing out A350XWB-800 is just too much. We all know it is the new version of the A350. There is nothing but the XWB. Can we just call it the A358, A359, A3510?



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently onlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 14):
Anyone else think that writing out A350XWB-800 is just too much. We all know it is the new version of the A350. There is nothing but the XWB. Can we just call it the A358, A359, A3510?

It looks like Airbus begs to differ:

http://www.wagna.net/temp/Airbus%20A280%20FT%20ad%20-%202006-07-19.gif


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6701 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 12):
Considering the young age of their B777/A340 fleet, I'd be very surprised to see EK go with the new A350. This isn't to say that the A350 hasn't improved, I just think the smaller 787 is going to make more sense for the EK fleet

Sure, the 777-300ER is relatively new, but why would that keep them from dumping these planes? EK is currently negotiating ways to cancel an order for 20 A340-600 which haven't even been built, because the 777-300ER is 8 to 10 % more fuel efficient. Imagine their reaction if indeed the A350-1000 beats the 777-3ER by a whopping 25%!

EK has said they ONLY want the 787-10, which is the biggest version of the plane and they are NOT interested in the smaller versions. In fact, EK sees the 787 not as the 767 replacement it is intended to be, but as a real 777-200 successor (something Boeing didn't really entirely optimize the 787 for) and I dare to say they would most probably love to see it also as a 777-300 successor. Unfortunately for them, the specifications of the 787 are such it will always be set below the 777-3ER (probably to avoid eroding the lucrative market for their top product), but it now seems Airbus is making use of this strategy from Boeing to make their A350XWB sit right in between the very modern 787 and the not so modern anymore 777, in an effort to make a single and very attractive plane for all those who plan to operate both the bigger 787 versions AND the 777. If Airbus can match the 787 efficiency and beat the 777 efficiency by a large margin, then it will proof to be much cheaper to go only A350XWB than to go 787/777 combo.

Will Airbus loose out on the low end to the 787-8 and more importantly the 787-3 with this strategy? Most probably yes, but then this must not be a dramatic thing for them. Looking at their current product line, they have never had a 757 or 767-200 competitor and they have been doing fine over the last decade despite not selling much pax A300 or A310 either, so this market segment is really not that important to them prospering. You might come back and say the segment of the 787-8 alone (i.e. the 762/A310/757) is predicted to be about 1,500 planes and Airbus just hands all this to Boeing, but that is not a bad thing for them to do indeed, taking into account more than half of the market for those planes is with US based airlines which have a Boeing only policy, meaning Airbus can realistically only hope to win about 300 to 400 orders in this category: 350 or so sales in not really worth optimizing their A350 for, but the outlook of 1,150 (1,500 in case Airbus does not compete with them) sales did make a valid business case for Boeing to size the 787 somewhat smaller for: which is why in my point of view BOTH manufacturers have sized their plane perfectly, albeit each to match the needs of their potential customers only.

[Edited 2006-07-19 12:06:46]

User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6461 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 16):
Sure, the 777-300ER is relatively new, but why would that keep them from dumping these planes? EK is currently negotiating ways to cancel an order for 20 A340-600 which haven't even been built, because the 777-300ER is 8 to 10 % more fuel efficient. Imagine their reaction if indeed the A350-1000 beats the 777-3ER by a whopping 25%!

Unfortunately you are still in the "dream world" that you have been in since Leahy's slick presentation on the A350XWB. Unfortunately for Airbus the easiest part is Leahys and there are not many better in his field.

People like yourself will believe what they want to believe and quite frankly if you really believe that the A350??? is going to be 25% more efficient than 773ER then whatever you are smoking is good sh*t...... smile 

Your blind faith in Leahy's sales pitch is admirable but when the Airlines tire of all the gloss and promises and want the hard (contractual) figures from the engineering department rather than the sales department I believe you will find that Airbus is just a little desperate in their current situation and they know only too well they have to offer something superior to 787/777.

Whether they can do this remains to be seen. Whether they can make money on the programme given the EIS of 2012/3 and huge development costs also is in doubt. There are some fairly serious promises and make no mistake the A350XWB looks very good on paper and I stress the word paper because when the serious negotiations start with the Airlines the engineers will be left with the job of ensuring Airbus's credibility is not destroyed yet again.

One does not need to look too far back (2002) just prior to A346 launch. At this stage due to Leahy's spin etc etc everybody including even Boeing thought the 77W was in deep trouble before it even flew for the first airline.

The rest as they say is history and the A346 has turned out to be a relatively inefficient aircraft when compared to the 77W. There is no doubt that both Rolls Royce and Airbus disappointed in this project to the point 777 outsold A340 by 15 to 1 in 2005. The point is that airlines would look very skeptically at this proposal, they will watch very closely A380 performance EIS as well. Airbus need to be very sure that they can match or exceed promised performance because if they don't they will have shot their credibility and the A350 programme will fail.

Right now thy are promising the earth with technology that despite being 4/5 years later EIS is older than the composite fuselage 787. I believe the A350 will suffer the same fate as A346. It will weigh significantly more and therefore suffer in the fuel burn/efficiency department.

This is a very interesting time for Airbus and you can bet performance contracts/penalties will rate very high in any negotiations. The thing that really shadows all the Leahy gloss and bullshit is this..Singapore Airlines are very excited about the plans we have shown them........Yeah RIGHT!!!! they turned around and ordered 20 787 and if that does not send a clear message I don't know what does. Airbus have acknowledged to the Aviation world that the A340 is DEAD and Boeing got it right with the 777 in the early 1990s and really caught them with their pants down with the 787.

How does Leahy explain to Airlines we spent two years getting it completely wrong about A350 but now we have a 787/777 killer sketched up in two months...... go back to whatever you are smoking.....  scratchchin 

My prediction... EK are doing a QF for price and like QF this order will be pivotal to both A and B. If Boeing get the order then it is yet another large slap for Airbus and a few nails in the A350XWB coffin and if Airbus get it it is the just the start they need to restore credibility. This situation was made for the EK beancounters and will ensure EK get an awesome price.

Thats the way I see it... very interesting.. twocents 


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 15):
It looks like Airbus begs to differ:

That was great!



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently onlineAirMailer From United States of America, joined May 2006, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 8):
On top of this significant performance disadvantage, the 787-10 also comes with a 5 inch narrower cabin

Ya'll must be really fat over there in europe to choose an aircraft because of an extra half inch of room per seat.

I hear on the news over here how fat Americans are becoming, but I have seen very few people in all of my travels that need more room than what comes in the coach section of a 737 (except for when I travel to Chicago, no offense to anyone there, that just happens to be my observation... maybe they're just passing through).

How much more drag is added to the aircraft by those extra 5 inches?
What is the added cost per seat of that .5 inch?

.... I mean does half an inch actually constitute the term Extra Wide?
or is it more like marginally wider?


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6365 times:

Interesting thoughts from EK. I think this will eventually go to Airbus as they generally favor that manufacturer (with the exception of the 777). If they really wanted the 787 they could and should have ordered it by now, especially after all the hubub Boeing did jumping through hoopes to do the 787-10 for them.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 16):
Imagine their reaction if indeed the A350-1000 beats the 777-3ER by a whopping 25%

Bear in mind that the 25% is an Airbus claim that has to be taken with a grain of salt, and is for sure based on seat configuration and mission profile that favor Airbus (typically Airbus uses higher seat densities than Boeing for such comparisons to make their CASM look better).

Now, EK is one of the few airlines that flies their B777 with 10-abreast in Economy, what increases the seat density by 11%. This would not be possible in the A350 (irrespective of the XWB denomination). Although in Airbus comparisons, with 9-abreast seating, the B777-300 and the A350-1000 look like same-size airplanes, EK is actually squeezing more seats in their B777 that they would be able to put on a A350. This already reduces the claimed CASM difference by approx. 10%.


User currently offlineAirlineAddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
IIRC Emirates specifically said they wanted a 300+ seater with a range of 8300Nm+

 checkmark 

Because the 787-10 is engine limited until updated specs from the engine manufacturers are released, it would be premature for EK to announce an order. EK will only know what to order after the dust has settled on what type of engine RR and potentially GE will be offering for the A350-900XWB and whether that technology could be used on the 787-10.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 16):
(something Boeing didn't really entirely optimize the 787 for) and I dare to say they would most probably love to see it also as a 777-300 successor.

maybe if you bothered to read what I wrote in reply 4, you would have possibly figured out that it was more than just the "baseline" 787's Boeing was going to have..  sarcastic 

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):

"Bair reconfirmed that Boeing is proceeding with the 787-10, telling media that it is a case of "when and not if" the stretch will proceed and "the economics were almost unbelievable."



Quoting AirMailer (Reply 19):
(except for when I travel to Chicago, no offense to anyone there, that just happens to be my observation... maybe they're just passing through).

lol...living in Chicago for 3 decades, I agree...but try flying to MCO, it gets bad there too..even worse!!!

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 20):
Interesting thoughts from EK. I think this will eventually go to Airbus as they generally favor that manufacturer (with the exception of the 777). If they really wanted the 787 they could and should have ordered it by now, especially after all the hubub Boeing did jumping through hoopes to do the 787-10 for them.

They just ordered a dozen 747-8's...EK will order the plane which fits their needs..if its the B787 then it shall be the B787, if its the A350, it will be the A350....simple as that.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6093 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 17):
Unfortunately you are still in the "dream world"

I am? Rather than kicking around fairly strongly and wildly at all sort of things, you might actually show me wrong on any of the specific points I've brought up so I can wake up and smell the coffee.

The point I am trying to highlight is that after more than one year of pushing Boeing really hard, the 787-10 could FINALLY give EK a very efficient plane with the required seating capacity, but it still lacks over a 1,000NM of much needed range!
The A35XWB-900 however seems to match EK's need perfectly both in size and range as it is and at the same time it also looks like the bigger A350XWB-1000 could be a very efficient 777-3ER replacement for them, thus modernising, simplifying and seriously economizing their fleet by opting for one single plane rather than a 787/787 combo. Whether the savings will be 'only' 10 to 15% or the full 25% is important to calculate exactly how many billions they could save over time, but not in making up their mind to put the almost certain 787-10 launch order on hold since their might now be something available which is even better for the airline from a wider fleet perspective.

From the initial reaction EK now shows to the A350XWB, it seems they may think more along the lines of my personal analysis as described more in detail in reply 8 than they do along your lines really.


25 RayChuang : I think Airbus designed the A350XWB-900R specifically for two customers: Qatar Airways and Emirates Airways. With a still-air range of over 9,000 naut
26 DfwRevolution : You're forgetting the simple aspect of timing. Much needed range? Let's dilute the 7,500 nm range of the current 787-10 to about 6,000-6,500 nm to ac
27 BoeingFever777 : Welcome to my respected users list. What makes everyone think EK is going A350XWB cause the range when EK has been consistently hit with delays and d
28 Slz396 : Because maybe in the end it is better to risk having to wait 6 months for a plane which actually does what you really want it to, than to get a plane
29 BlueSky1976 : As of today Airbus has the advantage, but once Boeing decides to put stronger engines and redesigns the landing gear, they could push the range up to
30 Slz396 : I think 18 to 20% would indeed be closer to the reality indeed, especially given the fact EK puts 10 abreast in the 777, thus giving their 773 a high
31 MEA-707 : With Emirates, Qatar and Etihad, plus all the Indian airlines growing and ordering like madmen, maybe Emirates has already found out the 777s and A380
32 DfwRevolution : Not really... Boeing is in a much better position to offer firm specifications because the 787-10 is based upon an aircraft on the verge of entering
33 787engineer : Well EK recieved their first two 773ERs this year, one in February and another in March. They also have 26 more on order. Assuming a 15 year lifetime
34 BoeingFever777 : Very true... 100% agree with you there. What is the 787-10 lacking that they are looking for?
35 BlueSky1976 : Keep in mind, that Yellowstone-3 will have technology beyond the one we see in 787: probably more composite structure than 787 (closer to 65 - 70% vs
36 787engineer : Who knows, the 787-10 isn't much more of a "real" airplane than the A350XWB. Both are still very conceptual.
37 Post contains images Johnny : Hmm, it is really strange, but EK seems to be unhappy with the B787, otherwise they would have ordered it already. Now they want to compare it with th
38 BlueSky1976 : EK wants 787-10 with 787-8 range. Now that Airbus has A350-900XWB, I find it highly unlikely that Boeing will not give them what they are asking for
39 Slz396 : Yes I know, but I didn't mean the individual plane, but rather the models, like 787, A330, A340, 777 etc.
40 DfwRevolution : No, they've simply been waiting to see what sort of aircraft Airbus will offer. Fleet planning requires very deliberte and long-term decisions. There
41 Kaitak : I'm not at all surprised that EK is waiting; Boeing, I would imagine, is pretty worried about this new aircraft. The good news for airlines is that ev
42 BlueSky1976 : Boeing is in much better position to offer a "simple stretch" with range-for-payload tradeoff a'la 777-300 (non -ER), not a competitive alternative t
43 DIA : 777 premature end? Not really. The 772LR/772F/773ER marching onward is not a premature end...let's not forget all the outstanding orders. As for the
44 BlueSky1976 : Allegedly, they have been working on it since they lost Qantas campaign ( January 2006). They couldn't announce anything without having solid data to
45 AutoThrust : Totally wrong, Airbus already have a fully CFRP designed & assembled wing, the A400 wing wich is just on production. They will base all experience of
46 Post contains images RedFlyer : This is interesting. Now we know why Boeing said they won't make a decision on a 2nd production line until sometime next year. I'd say at this point
47 SeeTheWorld : I'm sorry, but this comment doesn't really make sense. Waiting until the plane is ready vs. taking it right now doesn't solve the problem that Airbus
48 Rheinbote : The A400M wing structure is predominantly designed towards coping with static and dynamic loads introduced by four huge turboprop engines. It is a st
49 Jacobin777 : and the Al-Li alloys you are referring to probably isn't used in plane fuselages..the main Al-Li alloys are heavier (and more density) than the CFRP
50 Post contains images AirMailer : Not only that, but they will have at least 1 more customer that could place a large order order by then... DL. You mean to say that EK doesn't want a
51 AutoThrust : You are right, they dont have alot in common, they have diffrent roles but my point is just that both are made of CFRP. Even the A350 will have a tot
52 Post contains images Johnny : @DfwRevolution "Quoting Johnny (Reply 37):" Hmm, it is really strange, but EK seems to be unhappy with the B787, otherwise they would have ordered 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...
EK's 787 Vs A350 Decision Not Imminent posted Mon May 22 2006 12:01:21 by Atmx2000
A350/B787 Abreast In J posted Wed Jul 19 2006 19:33:19 by A360
FA For 6 Months In Europe-any Advice?..AF Problems posted Sat Jun 10 2006 23:05:34 by Ap7570
PrivatAir Will Buy A350/B787 posted Tue May 16 2006 10:30:23 by 777ER
A350/B787 Situation... posted Wed May 3 2006 17:17:22 by Brendan03
Airbus In Pickle Over A350-2 Redesign Or Not 2-II posted Thu Apr 20 2006 16:53:38 by Halibut
Airbus In Pickle Over A350-2 Redesign Or Not 2? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 13:53:01 by Halibut
SIA Aircraft Decision Update For May 9th Meeting posted Tue Apr 11 2006 17:34:21 by DIA
Report: A350 & A400M Reason For BAE Airbus Sale posted Sun Apr 9 2006 18:41:01 by N328KF
Boeing: Aeroflot May Split A350 / B787 Order posted Wed Mar 8 2006 11:20:49 by PanAm_DC10