WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 69 Posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8898 times:
Airbus is studying a bigger version of its largest A350 XWB variant, the -1000, to improve its competitiveness against the Boeing 777. But the manufacturer may be forced to delay the formal launch of the entire A350 XWB family as it battles with the more pressing problems that surround the A380.
As unveiled at the Farnborough air show in July, the A350-1000 will seat 350 passengers in a three-class configuration – around 15 fewer seats than the largest 777 variant, the -300ER – with service entry set for 2014. But according to airline sources, Airbus is studying a larger A350-1000, partly due to pressure from Lufthansa, which is evaluating the A350 along with the Boeing 787 for its long-haul fleet needs. The larger -1000 could compete more effectively with the -300ER, and extend the trip cost advantage over the baseline 777-200ER.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6812 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8833 times:
It always amazes me how Airbus and Boeing end up having to modify their planes (usually make them bigger) after their initial announcement. I assume they talk exhaustively to airlines to see what the market wants before they go public. Then they do go public and immediately the airlines (presumably the same ones they were speaking to earlier) tell them to make it bigger or give it more range or whatever.
It happened to the 787. It happened to the 747-8. Now it's happening to the XWB.
I really don't get it.
Still, good news for Airbus (in the long run) and for RR (I assume) if this bigger, better version is launched.
Therefore I don't see this particular news (which is just a study BTW) impacting the 2012 launch date at all.
FWIW, Boeing are still (according to todays Flight International) playing around with the length and weight of the 748i, which is already launched and has a customer.
And I'm fairly comfortable with that (1 year AFTER launch....).
2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8766 times:
Sorry Astuteman, I couldn't resist the jibe after all the derivatives and changes of the A350 program over the last 2 or so years. Tinkering is fine as long as the product is basically solid. The 787 does appear to be a solid product. I'm not so sure on the A350. EK haven't yet engaged with Airbus or seen a formal A350 presentation and they want to buy around 100 787/350. That's strange IMO.
You correctly point out what FI did not; that the 350-900 is the launch model and not the -800.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8680 times:
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4): The 787 does appear to be a solid product. I'm not so sure on the A350.
Your jumping the gun, we wont really know how capable A350 is until its launched and we have the specs. In anycase, they are both very similar planes. If the A350 is not a solid product SQ would not have picked it.
2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8616 times:
I'm talking about current perception in the marketplace. The 787 is the undeniable leader here over the A350. The A350's capabilities may very well change with time. The rumblings that 350 delays are imminent due to Airbus putting more resources into the 380 are worrying for the 350 IMO. Airbus don't really want to lose much more time getting a viable 787 competitor into revenue service IMO. I wouldn't be so sure about SQ. They would have signed on performance guarantees and watertight get-out clauses, as well as brokering a very favourable financial deal. The marketplace does not appear to have been inundated with formal A350XWB proposals and EK persistently say they have heard nothing from Airbus in this regard, even though they are 6 to 12 months away from ordering around 100 787/350.
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2012 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8527 times:
Well, the article at least makes one thing clear-LH is desperate to not take any passenger aircraft from Boeing ever again. I think some of us have understood this for a long time so it still shocks me to see long threads debating Boeing's chances. They're absolutely nil folks. Cargo jets maybe, but passenger jets never again. Airbus is LH's sole source provider on that front.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8471 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 2): It always amazes me how Airbus and Boeing end up having to modify their planes (usually make them bigger) after their initial announcement. I assume they talk exhaustively to airlines to see what the market wants before they go public. Then they do go public and immediately the airlines (presumably the same ones they were speaking to earlier) tell them to make it bigger or give it more range or whatever.
It happened to the 787. It happened to the 747-8. Now it's happening to the XWB.
I really don't get it.
Airbus and Boeing want to distinguish their products from each other but the airlines want them to be interchangable because to the extent they are interchangable, they compete purely on price and the airlines get optimal deals at the expense of the manufacturers. To the extent that the products are differentiated, they compete on factors other than price, resulting in higher margins for Airbus and Boeing at the expense of the airlines (and passengers). This sets up a conundrum of Airbus and Boeing having a good business reason to not give their customers exactly what they are asking for. This is one reason why it takes so long for Airbus and Boeing to decide on exact configurations.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): I dont think it should have come to any surprise that the 350 line have a 332/333/342/343 replacement as well as a 346 replacement.
I was half expecting the a 350 fuse with the 346 length, giving slightly larger capacity than the 773ER. Maybe that will come.
Good insight Zeke! I would be surprised if Airbus didn't eventually offer an A350 model with at least the capacity of the A340-600. The tricky part is that an A350 larger than the A340-600 would offer substantially lower CASM than the WhaleJet and kill it off the same way the B787-10 will kill off the B777-300ER.
Quoting EI321 (Reply 6): If the A350 is not a solid product SQ would not have picked it.
SQ have signed a firm order for the B787, but they have signed only a LoI for the A350. We'll have to wait and see whether or not SQ firm their A350 order. An order for both types is possible.
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6486 posts, RR: 78 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8454 times:
Quoting Wingman (Reply 9): Well, the article at least makes one thing clear-LH is desperate to not take any passenger aircraft from Boeing ever again.
Quoting Wingman (Reply 9): I think some of us have understood this for a long time so it still shocks me to see long threads debating Boeing's chances.
Some of you still haven't understood that LH orders the aircraft which suits most. The A320 was ordered when Boeing only offered an inderior B737, the A340 was ordered as a DC-10 replacement when Boeing's B777 was years away. After these key orders LH increased these families (A319, A321, A330, A346) - adding competing Boeing types wouldn't have been rational.
Quoting Wingman (Reply 9): They're absolutely nil folks. Cargo jets maybe, but passenger jets never again.
They're folks who know how to run a very profitable and respected airline.
Quoting Wingman (Reply 9): Airbus is LH's sole source provider on that front.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8393 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10): The tricky part is that an A350 larger than the A340-600 would offer substantially lower CASM than the WhaleJet and kill it off the same way the B787-10 will kill off the B777-300ER.
I hope you're not considering sunk costs there Zvedza?
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 8343 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13): Why? Do you know how much it costs to develop a wing?
The idea is that the additional cost come back through sales when you have a competitive product. Better than doing it the cheap way and not selling. Look at the A346 for example, basically too long for its fuselage width, and I doubt Airbus will get the 3 billions it spent for development back. Same with the A318, too large for its capacity, a plane with a 5-across fuselage would have done better. Now it looks like they'll not deliver more than 100 of either type. Does that pay off?
I'm just afraid that one set of wings won't be sufficient for planes with lengths from 58 to 73m. The A359 with 64m length could do fine, but the A358 and A3510 could do badly.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 8322 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 14): I hope you're not considering sunk costs there Zvedza?
Please explain. What do sunk costs have to do with it? A B787-10 would have substantially lower CASM than the B777-300ER and thereby kill it. An A350 with more capacity than the A340-600 would have substantially lower CASM than the WhaleJet and thereby kill it. Airlines will almost always choose the smaller plane if it has both sufficient range and a lower or equal CASM than a larger model. (Some here have referred to this as Zvezda's Law.)
Katekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 684 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 8235 times:
I think there are two reasons for which the A350 is growing in size:
1) Airbus knows that the B787 is more advanced and has superior economics than equivalent sized smaller versions of the A350. Consequently, the smaller A350s will have hard time gaining market share against smaller B787 versions, so Airbus is sizing the A350 up to avoid a direct confrontation.
2) Airbus knows that they have a huge gap in their product line-up between the original, smaller A350 and the A380 (for any practical purpose the A340-600 is dead by now), so sizing the A350 up makes sense from their product line-up standpoint.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 8169 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 15): I doubt Airbus will get the 3 billions it spent for development back.
Most of that was spent on the new wing.
Quoting Thorben (Reply 15): I'm just afraid that one set of wings won't be sufficient for planes with lengths from 58 to 73m.
If there was a chance of selling several thousand, it would make sense to spend the additional billions to have two different wings that were better optimized for different missions or fuselage lengths. However, if there is only the chance of selling several hundred, then it is clearly better to keep development costs down by having one compromise wing. Prospective A350 sales are somewhere in between where it's not obvious to me that two wings are justified.
Quoting Johnny (Reply 17): A bigger -1000 would not only kill the B777-300ER, it would also put more pressure on potential B748I-sales!
It is not the same size, but it will attack that new B747 from the lower end with much better CASM.
Much better CASM is probably an overstatement, but the smaller airliner (if it has sufficient range) only needs equal or lower CASM to win over a larger airliner. An A350 with the length of the A340-600 should have substantially (perhaps as much as 5 to 10%) lower CASM than the B787-8.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7996 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21): I'm pretty certain you know full well what i'm talking about
I really wasn't sure.
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21): The A380s costs are already sunk so why would it matter if you kill it off but make more money selling A350-"600"s?
You're right. It doesn't matter. The question is whether or not Airbus expect to be more profitable if they do or do not develop such a large A350. What they've already spent in the past is not relevant.
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21): Relax though, It was a semi-humourous remark.
CHIFLYGUY From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7925 times:
When it comes to the A350, Airbus has basically been throwing numbers at the wall to see what sticks. I have no doubt that they would promise anyone nearly anything to sell that thing, but can they deliver it? That's the question. Airbus' over-promising on the A380 got them into trouble bigtime.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7893 times:
Quoting CHIFLYGUY (Reply 23): When it comes to the A350, Airbus has basically been throwing numbers at the wall to see what sticks. I have no doubt that they would promise anyone nearly anything to sell that thing, but can they deliver it? That's the question. Airbus' over-promising on the A380 got them into trouble bigtime.
I think Airbus have learned from that mistake. The top people who made undeliverable promises about the WhaleJet are gone. I see no reason to expect the same for the A350.
25 TeamAmerica: Agreed, if Lufthansa is willing to wait that long. Also note that if the A350-1000+XWB is the B744 replacement, where does that leave A380?
26 Johnny: @TeamAmerica "...where does that leave A380?" On Top of it !
27 StickShaker: The 350 is also much more competitive against the 772/3 then the 787. Airbus also had little choice in upsizing the 350 to 773 size after the mauling
28 Boeing767-300: Somehow Johnny I doubt it. The reality is that even if Airbus manage to build a twin as good or even better than the 777-300ER it will be introduced
29 Beech19: See... the manufacturers THINK they are building a plane to sell but in reality they are being told what to build by the airliners (smart business).
30 TeamAmerica: This Flight Global article also says: I know there is another thread discussing delayed EIS, but this is the first I've heard of the launch being del
31 Zeke: I would have to agree with you. LH would look at everything on the market for its business if it wants to stay in business.
32 N328KF: Delaying the A350XWB is dangerous. The longer they put things off, the more time it buys the 777 variants, and the closer it brings them to having to
33 Astuteman: There might be a third, like "Airlines are asking Airbus for it"..... Regards
34 AirFrnt: Not really with the 787. Boeing's 787-8 with 300 orders hasn't really changed since launch, and is responsible 75% of the overall 787 orders. Boeing
35 Stitch: Well it makes sense, as the A350-1000 is smaller in cabin floor area to both the A346 (~5%) and the 773ER (~10%). And with a little more length, a 78
36 Zvezda: I'm hoping that the switch from rivets to laser welding will provide an increase in rigidity that combined with the increased cross section of the A3
37 Shenzhen: Boeing will do everything in there power to "not kill" the 777-300ER any sooner then absolutely necessary. They dragged their feet with the 787-9, so
38 Osiris30: Just got a wire story apparently Morgan Stanely is reporting the restructing could affect 350 EIS again. Whether this is just a repost of an old item
39 Thorben: Do you have figures, or is that just a guess? My point is that sales will rise with the new wing. There will be several engines, that should be the s
40 AutoThrust: Oh please stop hyperboling, first we dont know the exact specs and 2nd the final freeze isnt even done. Only because the 787 has bleedless engines,et
41 Johnny: "Airbus knows that the B787 is more advanced " Oh really? Did we miss something here? Do you have the specs. from the A350XWB already?
42 TeamAmerica: Such as what? Technology advances, but applications of new technology develop over time and are rarely a surprise.
43 HB88: Correct. The widebody gap in the product line is an issue, particularly given the margins on WBs as opposed to SR products. If Airbus get this right
44 Express1: Here we go Airbus studies a larger A350X-1000,why dont they concentrate on the problems they have with the A380,and get back the confidence of their c
45 Shenzhen: Firstly, not saying that one is any better the the other.... but..... you ask how Airbus might know.... One way they might know is how the A350 did i
46 HB88: The XWB bears very little resemblance to the 350 lite. In the context of the new 350, there isn't enough information to compare the two aircraft (787
47 KSUpilot: I assume this will deffinatly finalize Boeing's decision on the 787-10. And it has been talked on here more as a "What If" scenario, but maybe we will
48 DAYflyer: I think this ads weight to my recent argument that LH is headed for an all Airbus fleet. If the A350XWB 1000 becomes reality, the 777 and 787 for LH j
49 Shenzhen: Yes, I suppose a couple of years experience in dealing with what the customer wants or now expects, and what you can deliver, is completely irrelevan
50 HB88: I interpreted your comment as being in light of the XWB as it is compared to the 787, not its evolution. Probably my vegetable-like brain not working
51 Grantcv: Hang on, the first A350 tried to compete with the B787 and failed partly because it offered a narrower fuselage. So the fix is to compete with the B77
52 Stitch: I don't think the 777 is an option for LH because if they need more lift in the sub-400-seat range right now, they will add A340-600s. If they need i
53 Keesje: Not sure what you mean. Since the ANA order the nose, tail, wingspan, aft fuselage & door locations changed. Door surrounding have been strenghtened.
54 Zvezda: That assumes that Boeing can make more money by selling a B777-300ER than by selling a B787-10. I suspect it's the other way around. My source is an
55 AirFrnt: Look at the original context. We were talking about number of seats. As opposed to 6-7 years before? I like the A350 strategy. I think it's well posi
56 AirbusA6: The A350-1000 won't enter service for another 10 years, by which time many 773ERs could be up for replacement, if it's clearly a lot more efficient.
57 Stitch: For airlines like SQ, that will be true, but I imagine most operators don't operate on a 10-year replacement cycle. Also, we don't know what the indu
58 Atmx2000: The originally proposed 787 models haven't changed in length. AF found it rational to order 777s after ordering A330s/A340s, so much so they bucked a
59 PM: ... but they've been pressured to come up with the -10. That was never part of the original plan. Actually, AF ordered 777s before ordering A330s. Is
60 DfwRevolution: Keep in mind the original plan is already a smash hit. In three years, Boeing has sold more 787-8 than Airbus has sold A332 (easily their most succes
61 PlaneHunter: It may have been rational for AF for a number of reasons. Though, not necessarily for LH. PH
62 Atmx2000: The 744 and 764 weren't part of the original plan either for those families. I think you should restrict the examples to changed lengths for a propos
63 PM: Do you? Well, I'm restricting my examples to planes that haven't even flown yet.
64 Atmx2000: The article specifically says that Airbus is looking making a bigger A350-1000 than what is currently proposed. Boeing has done no such thing with th
65 Thorben: OK, they didn't change much besides the wing. Maybe they should have changed the fuselage as well. Better than doing it the cheap way and then sell t
66 Lemurs: Well, EK is the loudest one who wants it ASAP. When you look down the roster of 772ER operators, you notice that quite a number of them are already o
67 Zvezda: Close. 640,000 for the wing and 560,000 for the undercarriage.
68 AirSpare: Any chance of this scenario causing an early Y3 launch, covering "-11" class up to 748 (or even a cancellation of the 748)? I am curious how B's buil
69 RIX: - may be, but what for? It doesn't look that airlines will be in rush to replace their 777-300ERs "in another 10 years" (they will be still too new,