BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3243 times:
Quote: Back to Farnborough. It was dominated by Airbus’s new A350XWB. We’re cautiously optimistic about this. Going after the 777 is way smarter than going after the heart of the 787 market, although a successful 787-10 could present serious problems. By 2012, the 777 will be vulnerable. Creating the ambitious new Airbus plane will seriously tax Airbus/EADS’s resources, particularly with the ongoing A380 monster cash suck (and considering that the original A350 contract prices likely won’t be revised upwards). That 2012 service entry looks aggressive and perhaps a tad unrealistic, but this announcement was a good start. There’s only one way to eat a rhinoceros—one bite at a time.
But most of all, Airbus doesn’t have a choice. They could wait a few years until they get the right mix of new enabling technologies and leapfrog the 787, but that would mean spending 2009-2016 or beyond as a niche player, with just narrowbodies and the low volume A380. Without the new plane, Airbus would have nothing to sell between 200 and 500 seats. So Airbus is doing the right thing, an impression endorsed by the XWB’s first blue chip airline order from Singapore, announced at the show’s end.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
This was interesting as well BoomBoom:
...Reaction from Boeing was predictably swift. And swiftly predictable. They correctly pointed out that the new Airbus design stood little chance against the 787-3/-8/-9. They also maintained that while the new plane might be a good competitor in the 777 segment, by the time it arrived Boeing would be ready to start a 777 replacement, presumably with composites. Maybe so, but a lot can happen in 6-10 years, and Boeing has lost its focus before. And with the right engines, the XWB might be a strong 350-seat performer, no matter what Boeing introduces. Besides, competition is good for this industry, especially in this growing segment...
I'm sure the Aboulafia naysayers on A.net will observe that he's merely stating the obvious, but they may become hard-pressed to automatically dismiss whatever he says as having a pro-Boeing bias if keeps up this tone.
Because he or his secretary put a decimal point in the wrong place? You just put two question-marks on the end of a sentence, if we're going to start judging people on their typing skills few of us will survive.
Still - if he IS a joke, I imagine that his view that the A350XWB might be competitive/successful can be discounted, as far as you're concerned?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
And there was this:
Quote: There's also a new spirit of contrition and openness among Airbus leadership. The new XWB represents a willingness to listen to the market. Nothing focuses the mind like the sight of the gallows, as Samuel Johnson said. Look for the old one-sided market debate about super jumbo planes versus smaller widebodies to be replaced by a more meaningful debate---250-seats versus 350-seats. [emphasis added]
It would be nice to have a debate on "250-seats versus 350-seats" rather than typos.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8519 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2603 times:
I don't think he was pleased with the non-American conditions of Farnborough (not being able to deal with the heat very well). Americans become very cranky without adequate a/c, and even Southerners (like myself, moving equipment outdoors by hand at 103 degrees and 100% humidity in Mississippi) don't care for it.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2479 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
His opinion largely echos my speculation that the A350XWB will prove a far better 777 than 787 competitor, aside from the -9 & -10 models. Still, I agree Airbus is doing the right thing; doing a perfect 1-to-1 787 fighter would completely leave the 777-300ER/200-LR unchallenged for years, unacceptable now that the A340 is dying off. The 787-8 and slower-selling -3 will have to be addressed by another Airbus development, perhaps a total A300 revamp as others suggested. Trying to cover both the 777/777 range with a single basic design is, as Steven Udvar-Hazy said, a lot to ask. Still, the A350XWB seems a big improvement over the last A350, a design too compromised by reliance on a legacy airframe. I'd hope (but doubt) that his recent comments lay to rest the overwhelming speculation in here that he's biased toward Boeing.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 15107 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 10): If the old A350 was a poor competitor to the B787, in part because of its narrower fuselage, exactly does the A350XWB become a good competitor to the B777 when it again has a narrower fuselage?
The new A350 will have much better CASM than the 777's...even the old A350 had better CASM than the 777-200ER...the new A350-1000 will be a tough nut to crack....
F14ATomcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2367 times:
[quote=Leelaw,reply=1]This was interesting as well BoomBoom:
...Reaction from Boeing was predictably swift. And swiftly predictable. They correctly pointed out that the new Airbus design stood little chance against the 787-3/-8/-9. They also maintained that while the new plane might be a good competitor in the 777 segment, by the time it arrived Boeing would be ready to start a 777 replacement, presumably with composites. Maybe so, but a lot can happen in 6-10 years, and Boeing has lost its focus before. And with the right engines, the XWB might be a strong 350-seat performer, no matter what Boeing introduces. Besides, competition is good for this industry, especially in this growing segment... It kind of think this is what Boeing was hoping for. A non-composite competitor for the Y3. Don't get me wrong, it will get sales in the "in between market" but it's upside will be limited. The big question fpr Airbus is do you or don't you launch a A380-900? It is the only way to get a any real seat-mile advantage over the 747-8, and you have to think if the route is dense enough for a -800 then a -900 probably would be better. Boeing won't enter that aircraft size market until they are assured of making money. Airbus should basically write-off as a sunk cost the whole -800 program and consider what if any payback potential there would be for the 800 pygmie party plane.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11454 posts, RR: 73
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Why is it that people dismiss/vilify a man who is paid handsomely and well respected in the industry simply because they don't like what he says sometimes.
The guy said some good things about Airbus and people still hammer what he says.
Can't win for losing with some people.
It's pretty apparent that Airbus is trying to go after the 777 more than the 787 with this offering, unless they're just shotgunning and hoping. It looks like SQ is planning on replacing their 772s with A350s several years down the road, and it looks like Airbus is making some progress with their customers.
If they manage to get back into this market they'll make money, and then they can decide whether to go after single aisle or medium size widebodies next. We'll also see what the 787-10 looks like and how it compares against the new new competition.
For how much money the people who run the airlines pay him for his opinions and analysis, i really hope not.... i'm not sure whether the money the give him is to be smart, or to be right, but one way or the other, he delivers well enough to keep up his reputation. What other aircraft analyst do we know by name?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"