Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Airbus Compete Directly With The 787-3&8?  
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Just for the hell of it and to see what you all think, should Airbus revise the composition of the existing A330/40 airframe (new fandangled composites etc), put on some new wings and go head to head with the 787-3 & 8?

Yes it would not be as wide as the 787's body, but it's generally accepted that most carriers, unless long-haul, are going nine-abreast with the new Boeing, so the eight-abreast Airbus should be more comfortable on certain routes.

At the short-range end, there's a need for a continental/regional jet replacement (going back as far as the A300) and of course one for the 763, 764 and A332 at the long-range end.

In tandem with the A350's new developments, and using the more cost-effective existing fuselage cross section (with new materials, larger windows, different wing, new engines etc), how compelling do you think it is or could be?

Thoughts (and don't crucify me, I'm not Mel Gibson)?

Regards
MH


come visit the south pacific
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

Maybe the 350 is already competing with these aircraft.
Total seat count is not all.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 1):
Maybe the 350 is already competing with these aircraft.
Total seat count is not all.

With an aging fleet of A300's adopted from JAS, JAL would look at what in the Airbus portfolio to replace them?

Humor me, this isn't real life.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

If they renew the A330 it will enter service behind 787 and with less new technologies. It doesn't make sense

User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6070 times:

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 3):
If they renew the A330 it will enter service behind 787 and with less new technologies. It doesn't make sense

I'm just talking about using the existing fuselage cross section so as to take advantage of the existing jig (thuhs reducing some development cost). In all other aspects, it would be a totally new aircraft (hypothetically of course).

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6017 times:

The B787-3 is a niche market not worth competing over. The B787-8 market is an interesting market, but what could Airbus offer? The A350 is too large and the A340 is far too heavy. The only option would be to apply the B787 engines to the A330, as Airbus proposed two years ago. That proposal didn't fly. It's not worthwhile to develop a whole new plane for this market segment. The launch of the current A350 ceded the B787-8 market to Boeing.

User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5987 times:

In long term the 787-9 will outsel the -8 version. This has happened so often in the past that Airbus should focus on the -9 possibly-10 and the 777. After all that was what the major airlines wanted in the first place. If anyone should now what (after all that has been said about the previous A350 version) the airlines want its Airbus. But it is nice to see that carriers like EK, LH,... waited for Airbus to come up with a solution instead of ordering the 787-9 or pushing Boeing to bring the -10 to the market sooner.

User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5987 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
The launch of the current A350 ceded the B787-8 market to Boeing.

Which was theirs with the A332.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5910 times:

-3? No, not enough market as demonstrated by 14 orders in 2 years.

-8, yes. Far more frames to sell in this segment. I think if Airbus does the re-engine of the A-330 it could grab a few sales here since the A-350XWB is much larger.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 885 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
The B787-3 is a niche market not worth competing over. The B787-8 market is an interesting market, but what could Airbus offer? The A350 is too large and the A340 is far too heavy. The only option would be to apply the B787 engines to the A330, as Airbus proposed two years ago. That proposal didn't fly. It's not worthwhile to develop a whole new plane for this market segment. The launch of the current A350 ceded the B787-8 market to Boeing.

 checkmark 

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 8):
-3? No, not enough market as demonstrated by 14 orders in 2 years.

-8, yes. Far more frames to sell in this segment. I think if Airbus does the re-engine of the A-330 it could grab a few sales here since the A-350XWB is much larger.

I think Airbus must have made a calculation that a) they could benefit by competing most at potentially Boeing's weakest point in the 787 line (i.e. a potentially range-limited 787-10 and b) that the most likely customers for the -8 sized plane (who already hadn't ordered a -8) are US carriers who already are extremely unlikely to buy an Airbus. This allows them to target higher capacities of aircraft without losing the efficiency they would have lost by starting with a smaller craft (i.e. not having to target a range from the -8 to the current a350-1000).

One other thing is that my guess is that in the next generation of narrowbodies, both Boeing and Airbus are going to cede the low end to the likes of Embraer and so the gap between the high end of the narrowbodies and the 350-800 may not be quite as large (there still will be a gap, though).

Cheers.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30860 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
The B787-3 is a niche market not worth competing over.



Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 8):
-3? No, not enough market as demonstrated by 14 orders in 2 years.

I still think the 787-3 could be big (in terms of orders and marketshare) in China and India when it comes time for their populations to start moving about the country. It's light (compared to other available widebodies), carries plenty of people, and would work with existing airport infrastructure far better then an A350-1000/777-300/747/A380.

I don't believe flocks of narrowbodies are going to be as effective at moving large numbers of people by air. Of course, China and India could just go straight to high-speed rail to connect their major population and business centers, but the costs to launch such an infrastructure might be too great at first.

[Edited 2006-08-03 18:58:19]

User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
I think Airbus must have made a calculation that a) they could benefit by competing most at potentially Boeing's weakest point in the 787 line (i.e. a potentially range-limited 787-10 and b) that the most likely customers for the -8 sized plane (who already hadn't ordered a -8) are US carriers who already are extremely unlikely to buy an Airbus. This allows them to target higher capacities of aircraft without losing the efficiency they would have lost by starting with a smaller craft (i.e. not having to target a range from the -8 to the current a350-1000).

I think Airbus ceded the market covered by the 787-3,8,9 to Boeing probably because they couldn't compete effectively on CASM. They instead decided to go for the "low hanging fruit" in Boeing's current wide-body offerings, which is the 777. Going after the 777 will assure Airbus can claim a clear advantage.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11):
think Airbus ceded the market covered by the 787-3,8,9 to Boeing probably because they couldn't compete effectively on CASM. They instead decided to go for the "low hanging fruit" in Boeing's current wide-body offerings, which is the 777. Going after the 777 will assure Airbus can claim a clear advantage.

I dont see much in terms of low hanging fruit here unless it is the 200, which hasnt been selling well recently anyway and which will also be killed off by the 787-10 when it is launched.

And what clear advantages will the XWB really have over the 777-300ER? I have not seen any solid numbers on this yet from any source.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5581 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
China and India could just go straight to high-speed rail to connect their major population and business centers, but the costs to launch such an infrastructure might be too great at first.

At first? High speed rail is far more expensive than any alternative. If China or India build high speed rail, it will be driven by either prestige or corruption or both.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11):
Going after the 777 will assure Airbus can claim a clear advantage.

Airbus will not just be able to claim a clear advantage. Airbus will be able to demonstrate through sales a clear advantage of the A350 over the B777.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 12):
And what clear advantages will the XWB really have over the 777-300ER?

Lower CASM at a smaller size.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
High speed rail is far more expensive than any alternative.

Sigh.. you've always said that. However, the vast bulk of the research disagrees, at least in terms of the cost/environmental impact.

That's an offline, or maybe non-av discussion.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
Lower CASM at a smaller size.

Do we actually know that the A350-1000XWB is smaller than the 777-300ER?

N


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2510 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
I think Airbus must have made a calculation that a) they could benefit by competing most at potentially Boeing's weakest point in the 787 line (i.e. a potentially range-limited 787-10 and b) that the most likely customers for the -8 sized plane (who already hadn't ordered a -8) are US carriers who already are extremely unlikely to buy an Airbus.

 checkmark 

I think Airbus has definitely proposed a winner with their A350XWB lineup. I think this is evident by SQ's order, QR's backing out of the 777 deal and EK's non-decision so far (I expect that one to go A350 eventually).


User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3499 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):
Do we actually know that the A350-1000XWB is smaller than the 777-300ER?

Airbus' own marketing data lists three class seat counts with 9 A/B Y as:

A350XWB: 350
773ER: 365

The 773ER number is Boeing's seat count.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dank (Reply 9):
I think Airbus must have made a calculation that a) they could benefit by competing most at potentially Boeing's weakest point in the 787 line (i.e. a potentially range-limited 787-10 and b) that the most likely customers for the -8 sized plane (who already hadn't ordered a -8) are US carriers who already are extremely unlikely to buy an Airbus

Airbus have cleverly positioned the A350X at where the money is, i.e. no. of frames x purchase price. That this also coincides with a (currently) range limited 787-10, and an "older" model 772 helps.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 12):
And what clear advantages will the XWB really have over the 777-300ER?

It will perform a very similar mission (in terms of ASM) to 773ER whilst being 20% lighter on take-off.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):
Do we actually know that the A350-1000XWB is smaller than the 777-300ER?

It's certainly narrower, and almost certainly won't be longer.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
. The B787-8 market is an interesting market, but what could Airbus offer? The A350 is too large and the A340 is far too heavy. The only option would be to apply the B787 engines to the A330, as Airbus proposed two years ago. That proposal didn't fly. It's not worthwhile to develop a whole new plane for this market segment.

An A330 re-engine might be worthwhile if driven primarily by the freighter and tanker. As you say, for the pax version, against the 787, in its own right it's not competitive.

I'd like to see Airbus at some time produce a "smaller" family, based on the A350X cross-section, but limited to c 420 000lb MTOW, powered by the 748 GEnx engines (which should be perfect for it), but with a substantially smaller wing and lighter landing gear than the A350X.
With all the new tech, such a craft should be able to match or even beat, the current A330 performance, on a 20% lower MTOW (maybe 270-280 pax for 6000Nm, and 220-230 pax for 7000+ Nm - (assuming a 59m and 54m ish fuselage..)).
Whilst not DIRECTLY competing with the 787-8, it should be very competitive for those that don't need 8500Nm (being 20% lighter than the 787-8) and judjing by current A330 sales, there's a strong market here still. I reckon it could steal a lot of 787-8 sales.....
A good long-term replacement for the A300 I would have thought.
Sadly, I wouldn't expect to see it for 10-12 years minimum........

Regards


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2366 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5488 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 1):
Maybe the 350 is already competing with these aircraft.
Total seat count is not all.

The thing is, Boeing thinks Y2 should be a A300, 767, 757-300, A330-200 replacment, and only that. Airbus thinks it should be an A330-A340 replacement. Airbus doesn't seem to care that there are soooo many old 767s out there. Replacing a 767 with an A350-8 will be too big of a capacity jump. Airbus still has 2 huge product gaps: 200-250 seats, and 350-500 seats. I think they should fill these markets with something.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):
Do we actually know that the A350-1000XWB is smaller than the 777-300ER?

In length, width, and MTOW, yes.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 18):
The thing is, Boeing thinks Y2 should be a A300, 767, 757-300, A330-200 replacment, and only that. Airbus thinks it should be an A330-A340 replacement. Airbus doesn't seem to care that there are soooo many old 767s out there. Replacing a 767 with an A350-8 will be too big of a capacity jump. Airbus still has 2 huge product gaps: 200-250 seats, and 350-500 seats. I think they should fill these markets with something.

I think the A320 and B737 replacements will cover the 200 to 250 seat market.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30860 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):
Do we actually know that the A350-1000XWB is smaller than the 777-300ER?



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 16):
Airbus' own marketing data lists three class seat counts with 9 A/B Y as 350 (vs. 365 for the 773ER per Boeing marketing data).

And Airbus tends to use more Economy and less First and Business Class passenger seating then Boeing does, so a 773ER in "Airbus spec" would probably be closer to 400. So the 773ER should carry more people then an A350-1000 in each airline's specification, but that should not be a deal-breaker/deal-maker in itself, since each airline has their own capacity needs.


User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3179 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 18):
I think they should fill these markets with something.

I concur, which is why I started this thread.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5390 times:

I think NO.

The market of the -3 is too small for two airplanes

The market of the -8 is already covered by the A358 as the seat difference is insignificant. There is no need for Airbus or Boeing to cover the complete range of airplanes in each claas.

The -8 will not be the most successful version of the B787, that will be the -9 as history shows in case of the B762 and 763.


 Smile


User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 22):
The market of the -8 is already covered by the A358 as the seat difference is insignificant. There is no need for Airbus or Boeing to cover the complete range of airplanes in each claas.

Rubbish. The -800 is a significantly heavier aircraft than the -8, as reportedly the A350 wing has been optimised to the larger -1000. Do a MTOW comparison b/w the 2. The -8 will dominate it's segment.

The -8 will not be the most successful version of the B787, that will be the -9 as history shows in case of the B762 and 763.

Maybe so, but there are a lot of -8 RFPs still out there. I'm sure the -8 will eventually be very popular with many US majors, Euro charter carriers and airlines with large existing 763 fleets, such as LA. There is still a big market out there for the -8, but I suspect you may be correct in stating that the -9 will be the biggest selling version of the 787.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 22):

The -8 will not be the most successful version of the B787, that will be the -9 as history shows in case of the B762 and 763.

It's far too early to make that sort of prediction. Just about two months ago several members here were suggesting that Boeing should drop the B787-9 and skip from the B787-8 to the B787-10. That was similarly premature.

It's a safe bet that the B787-8, B787-9, and B787-10 will each outsell the B787-3. Other than that, I would not make any relative sales predictions among the B787 models.


25 Dfwrevolution : Well more than that, but still only two customers. Boeing has 43 orders for the 787-3 JAL - 13 ANA - 30 Not any more. The A350-800 XWB is now signifi
26 Post contains images Gigneil : Smaller, not better. N
27 1337Delta764 : I would definately expect Delta to order the 787-3. To replace the non-ER 767-300s, there is no need for the range of the 787. Additionally, the wing
28 Post contains images Johnny : @Dfwrevolution "Be it as it may, it's a market projected to be nearly a thousand units and Airbus' closest widebody is nearly 20% larger." Do we reall
29 Post contains images Dfwrevolution : Somehow my brain inserted CASM into your sentence Enought to know that the A350-800 XWB is now much much larger than the 787-8? Yes, we do.
30 Post contains images Johnny : @Dfwrevolution Thanks a lot for that answer.  I give you my figures: Boeing 787-8 210-250 according Boeing A358 270 seats according Airbus Assuming t
31 Post contains images Scbriml : It is often claimed here on a.net that Airbus's figures for the seating capacity of their planes are overly optimistic. If that is the case, then the
32 ZKNBX : I am NOT so sure about this. Asia is getting more and more populous... Europe more and more congested. And then there is the domestic USA. There is N
33 Post contains images Scbriml : The problem that I see is that the 787-3 is a much bigger plane than the 762 or A310. Boeing's website list the 787-3 as seating 290-330. At 290 seat
34 Sabenapilot : Correct IMO. I don't see many orders for this plane; especially not orders which Airbus could win, knowing they are simply locked out of the Japanese
35 Atmx2000 : Or has Boeing cleverly boxed Airbus out of the 200-250 pax market and pushed them to go where there appears to be some space. As for the "limited" 78
36 Sabenapilot : Remember, the 787 needs bleedless engines: it is easier to make a bleedless engine bleeding (like is done for the 748 and A350), than the other way r
37 Zvezda : The A350 and B787 both seat 9 abreast. To compare passenger capacities among various models, compare interior cabin lengths.
38 Atmx2000 : That's probably good for a first approximation, but it is possible that the extra width for the A350 changes the seating in the premium cabins.
39 Post contains images Astuteman : Correct . That's why "limited" was in inverted commas, and supported by the word (currently) in brackets... Regards
40 DAYflyer : Thank you for that correction. I thought the ANA order was all -8.
41 FlyingHippo : That's an awfully arrogant statement. I wonder why Japan built their bullet trains, why France and Germany have their high speed rails...
42 787engineer : Personally, I don't see why it would be any more difficult to go from bleed to bleedless. I'm not saying it's easier, but from what I know (I don't w
43 Post contains links Keesje : I think the A300/A310/757/762 short medium haul 220-270 seat is still an open market with a lot of potentail IMO. The 787-3 is a very heavy replacemen
44 TP313 : Yes, it is partly a function of engine availability, but it is also in part the need for a strenghtened wing and a redesigned main landing gear... I
45 Stitch : I agree the 787-3 would not make a very good replacement for A300 operators. Which is why I have been skeptical about LH, for example, ordering it. B
46 F14ATomcat : Why, so they get the crap beat out of them with another poor offering?
47 Post contains images 787engineer : The wing will also be new for the -9 so the -10 should not be any more difficult (relative to the -9). The main landing gear will be an interesting i
48 TP313 : If Boeing wants to match the 350XWB range figures the -10 wing will have to be strenghtened to carry more fuel and heavier engines than the -9 or the
49 787engineer : No, no, why would the -9 adopt the -10 design? What I'm saying is the 2014 EIS suggestion is quite ridiculous. It won't take 4 years to design the -1
50 MotorHussy : So that would be a no I'm thinking?! MH
51 Zvezda : The trend is toward more generous seating in the premium cabins. Both the B787 and the A350 will usually have 6 abreast business class seating in lon
52 Johnny : @ Zvezda That is nonesense.The more producers we have in europe, the bigger the competition is.And that is good for all passengers. High Speed Train C
53 Express1 : I think Airbus is having enough problems at the moment with the contracts they got running such as the A380 with delivery delays and weight changes. C
54 Jdevora : Are you been serious????? Do you really think that it is cheapper, for example, create the extra airports that you need to cope with the amount of pe
55 ZKNBX : WHICH beggs the question, who will addess this and when, because it is a gaping hole in the market and a lot of 762 /A310 are now being retired.
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...
On Tour With The 787: Dreamliner Is On Schedule posted Fri Jun 16 2006 14:59:40 by NYC777
Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783? posted Wed Feb 22 2006 09:20:55 by PADSpot
How Is Airbus Going To Compete With The 7E7? posted Sat Jun 12 2004 02:25:55 by BoeingBus
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
Will B747 Have Cockpit Commonality With 787 & 777? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 00:34:32 by JAM747
I Thought The 787 Was Designed With 8-Abreast? posted Wed May 24 2006 11:28:10 by MotorHussy
Airbus In Bigger Pickle With A350-A346 & A380 posted Fri May 5 2006 15:40:35 by Halibut
Who Came Up With The Name Airbus? posted Sat Apr 8 2006 21:59:59 by AirCanada014
How Much Has Underestimating The 787 Cost Airbus? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 16:50:10 by Art
Airbus Will Build Parts For The 787 posted Tue Oct 18 2005 19:54:05 by Oldeuropean