Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8497 times:

Just out on Bloomberg.

A350 would be a CFRP andAirbus will present the plans to EADS on Nv. 7th.

Additionally it'll cost USD 12 bn and would be out around 2013.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aQI2TjN25utM


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
73 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8488 times:

"...If they are reconsidering the virtues of an all-composite tube (fuselage), that's a smart exercise," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group, an industry consulting firm near Washington, D.C.

"They have to decide whether they believe composites is a killer technology," Aboulafia said. "If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/291097_airbus04.html


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8472 times:

Quoting Aboulafia:
"If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."

The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8470 times:

Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice?

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8446 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3):
Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice?

I'm not the only one suffering deja vu! I thought this was a long thread to which I had posted. Perhaps the mods can restore it? Unless they deleted it?


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

Wasn't there an active thread on this, was it deleted?

After all Leahy said about composite tubes being: only minimally lighter, subject to serious ramp rash, can't be inspected, plastic plane, chinese copy of the 330, etc. - will he need to eat his words?

Actually, having 5 years between their respective EIS's will allow for Airbus to incorporate a lot of lessons learned from the 787.

In terms of risk sharing partners, I hope Boeing has Alenia and Vought under strong contracts as it would not be good for Boeing if they became involved with the tube on the 350. I suppose Boeing could dangle the 737RS project to them to keep them exclusive, at least on the tube.

Will the wings be built in the UK, or china? Will Airbus have a single CATIA program and digital model? Will they actually mock up the wiring to test the wiring? Lots of questions.

Is there any word on bleedless or bleed engines.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3):
Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice

Me, too. I think this is "Part 2," due to the length. Although I can't find Part 1... A technical glitch?



I come in peace
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8429 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

So are you saying there is no demand curve for the A350XWB except for the A350-8 which equals the 787-9?

Then it would follow that there's no demand curve for the bigger A350-9 and A350-10 either.


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 7):
There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

So its a bad idea on boeing's part to develop the 787-10 ?


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8385 times:

Actually the thread (1st one was deleted as I posted copyrighted material. Thus all the responses from the previous thread that were posted were also deleted. I reposted the thread using a link to the original article(didn't have alink the first time).

Perhaps the mods can at least repost the thread discussions here.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8387 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 9):
Perhaps the mods can at least repost the thread discussions here.

While the work of the moderators is generally appreciated, indiscriminate deletion of a large number of posts like this is quite annoying.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 7):
So are you saying there is no demand curve for the A350XWB except for the A350-8 which equals the 787-9?

Then it would follow that there's no demand curve for the bigger A350-9 and A350-10 either.

WTF!?!?! How on earth did you make that jump of reasoning? I didn't write anything of the sort. Do you know what a demand curve is?

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 8):
So its a bad idea on boeing's part to develop the 787-10 ?

We're on a roll here.  Yeah sure How do you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? It doesn't follow at all.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8301 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
WTF!?!?! How on earth did you make that jump of reasoning? I didn't write anything of the sort. Do you know what a demand curve is?

Wow! Sorry, it was a question, not intended as a slam.

I thought you were saying there's no need for composite 777 replacement.

Bringiton drew the same conclusion, so I wasn't the only one confused by your statement. There's no need to go off on people.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
Quoting Aboulafia:
"If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."

The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8289 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
How do you draw that conclusion from what I wrote?

Didnt draw a conclusion but asked a question !


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8283 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
Sorry, it was a question, not intended as a slam.

I didn't take it as a slam. I took it as deep confusion. My answer wasn't meant as a slam either.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
I thought you were saying there's no need for composite 777 replacement.

Not at all. There is very much a need for the B787 and, especially if it's CFRP, the A350.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
Bringiton drew the same conclusion

I'm not sure what Bringiton concluded. You might be right there.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8247 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
While the work of the moderators is generally appreciated, indiscriminate deletion of a large number of posts like this is quite annoying.

I have to agree.. wouldn't simply editting out the copywritten material have been easier.. The thread was nearly 200 posts long with a fair amount of good debate/information...



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
I took it as deep confusion.

And I'm still confused. Aboulafia says, "a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement"

And you say:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8159 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 16):
What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?

Might be the effect of the jetlag setting in right now, but somehow I thought that Boeing's future strategy was to be set around the B737RS, B787 and the Y3 (or whatever the large aircraft/possible VLA was named).

In that context, it would seem as if the B777 wouldn't have a direct replacement, with the B787-9 and B787-10 basically taking over from it.

... but, as I said... that might just be the jetlag clouding my brain right now...  Wink



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8146 times:

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 13):
Didnt draw a conclusion but asked a question !

It appeared to be a rhetorical question. If it wasn't, then the answer is no.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 16):
What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?

I'm asserting that the B787 is the B777 replacement. I apologize for not being more clear.


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8133 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 17):
Boeing's future strategy was to be set around the B737RS, B787 and the Y3 (or whatever the large aircraft/possible VLA was named).

I think boeing will wait until technology both at the level of the Engine manuf. and at boeing internally becomes more mature and newer eff. are created . The Y3 will be something larger then the 777 IMO with a possible 11 abreast possibility . A 400-550 seat 2win engined aircraft . Clearly the technology required is far away so we wont see it happen anytime soon but when it does happen it would be a replacement for the 777(larger varients) and 748 aswell as re-energize the VLA market by significantly lowering CASM as compared to smaller 2win jets such as 787 and A350 while not hurting RASM to the level where it becomes a real niche plane .


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 17):
In that context, it would seem as if the B777 wouldn't have a direct replacement, with the B787-9 and B787-10 basically taking over from it.

I thought the 787-10 could take over for the 777-200.

But won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

That is how I interpreted Aboulafia's statement.

[Edited 2006-11-04 19:27:52]

User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8079 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
But won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

That is just 1 varient of the 777 family that the A350-1000 competes against ( A350-1000 wont be available for delivery till perhaps 2015 or so) . The A350-1000 vs 777-300ER isnt enough of a reason for boeing to launch a new Composite aircraft to meet the challenge infact boeing isnt concentrating on airbus's lineup but are in the process of defining their own FAMILY of aircrafts starting from the 737NG all the way up to the 747-8 . The 777 is a very good aircraft and continues to sell very well . Boeing will strive to make it better , cheaper to produce and will sell them at economical prices so that it looks atractive speacially now that the 10 Abreast (17 width - 34 pitch ) has been demonstrated by EK to be quite good . The T7 will sell nicely for atleast the next 5-6 years . Boeing will now concentrate their attention on getting the 787 and 747-8 right , ramping up production of existing aircraft families and making the entire process more leaner , eff. as its competitor currently struggles with losses from the A380 program . Next step for boeing will be to get the 787-10 Roadmap sorted out and From then on it is really sitting on the Buzzer waiting to press it and give the 737RS a green light . The Y3 program wont be initiated by 2015 atleast IMO which would give Airbus perhaps only a 3-5 year run with the A350-1000 before a larger Y3 becomes available ( first smaller model ) .


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8060 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

Not if the CASM of the B787-10 is lower than or equal to that of the B777-300ER (easy) and the A350-1000 (more challenging).

[Edited 2006-11-04 19:55:42]

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8041 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Not if the CASM of the B787-10 is lower than or equal to that of the B787-300ER

Do you mean 777-300ER?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8031 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 23):
Do you mean 777-300ER?

Yes, thank you! Now corrected.


25 Kaitak744 : No. A 300 seater can not replace a 360 seater. Period. (see below) Correct. By the time the A350-1000 is out in service, it would be about +2015? By
26 Bringiton : The problem with that comparison is that the future 350 seater and beyond ( T7 replacement) would offer equal if not better eff./Cost and the greater
27 Zvezda : You can write this as many times as you like, but it isn't true. Using your example, if the super efficient 300-seater has lower trip costs than the
28 SSTsomeday : May I interject: what I don't understand about your analysis is that the route may not have enough demand to fill the 300 seater. Even if the economi
29 Post contains links Zvezda : There is a concept (central to the argument at hand) that economists call price elasticity of demand. One can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia
30 Rheinbote : Guys, how about introducing the term "load factor" into the debate? A 300-seater would be preferable over a 200-seater only if it's a) more economical
31 Kaitak744 : Zvezda, SSTsomeday put it even more eloquently than I put it. " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_e...emand This stuff does not work fo
32 Slz396 : Just a rhetorical question: Why do people automatically assume any Y3 to be immediately far superior over any A350XWB? If what this report says is tru
33 Slz396 : Zvezda, Your analysis is valid only in an ideal world in which strangely enough the number of flights should be UNLIMITED (so airlines can set on FREQ
34 Adria : Price elasticity is a very nice thing to learn at the university but it is a theoretical concept and does not include all the factors that airlines h
35 Stitch : Trans-Atlantic travel fragmented in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s thanks to smaller aircraft with either better CASM or sufficiently better RASM that it
36 Adria : Since Boeings point-to-point "thing" is very popular with a.net it does have a major flaw. I cannot imagine that 20-30 years from now airports like F
37 Bringiton : Remember the VLA has to be able to meet the RASM-CASM to be eventually popular with airlines . VLA market IMO isnt going to be all that big for 550-7
38 Stitch : You're arguing a point I already agreed with in the text you quote. Today, JFK and LHR and FRA are still hubs. But trans-Atlantic traffic flies out o
39 Adria : Ok so to complement does not mean to replace. You also have to consider that 20 years ago there were fewer passengers and that the steady rise of tra
40 Post contains links Leelaw : EADS Board Won't Decide On A350XWB Model Tuesday - Source PARIS (Dow Jones)--The board of directors of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. won't T
41 Post contains images Jacobin777 : With Boeing/NASA introducing the "BWB" concept again, things could get rather intereting on a potential Y3... This would be one possible Boeing VLA d
42 Poitin : Ah, yes, once again we hear "Definately NO decision has been made!" Such a mantra!
43 Bringiton : I doubt it . BWB's will be time tested in the military side first before making any descision however having said that Some of BCA's and Boeing's top
44 BoomBoom : The company previously has said it would analyze whether the funding and the required engineering skills for construction of the long-range wide-body
45 SSTsomeday : This is very interesting and logical, to a point. However, I think there is a price "bottom" that cannot be reduced further due to practical logistic
46 Dambuster : I think the A350 is way too late to have a serious impact on the 787... but then, analysts might have said the same thing. Airbus needs a good push (e
47 BoomBoom : You're always seeing problems for Boeing. As I recall, you've seen every single version of the A350 as a problem for Boeing.
48 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Many technologies incorporated in CivilAv comes from military....considering that "BWB" is very viable in civilav...there is a chance of "less doubt"
49 Poitin : Once upon a time I was a fan of the BWB, but then I saw the basic flaw in its design --- you cannot stretch it by adding a new section into the fusel
50 Jacobin777 : Would be very interesting to see how that could be pulled off..but no doubt, the tooling would be setup for allowing different sized planes..IMHO...
51 Post contains links NoWorries : I've always been intrigued by the the possibility of a BWB as well. But, in his latest blog, Randy Baseler seems to be saying don't hold your breath
52 Post contains images Jacobin777 : NoWoories, thanks for reminding me about Randy's Blog...yah...you are correct....right now, it doesn't sound like as if they want to go with "BWB" fo
53 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, but it will not be the dominant trend in future air travel many here on airliners.net, to say nothing of Airbus and (now) Boeing, sometimes try
54 Osiris30 : WTF?!?! I give up... Coming soon to a century near you.. the a350xwb-Mk-MCMVIII
55 Adria : Well 2018 is far away and I doubt that the fragmentation will be so severe that no 450 seater will be needed. Even Boeing gives an estimate that abou
56 JayinKitsap : Alaska has two non-stops a day to DCA AS2 and AS4 with AS1 and 3 being the return flights. For a December 4-7 date it is about $ 600 RT on one and $
57 Osiris30 : No it's not.. It's ten years after the 380 enters service. Just 10 years. The 777 is nearly 20 years old to give you some perspective on how fast 10
58 Adria : The 777 is far away from it's 20th birthday, EIS was 1995 I believe so do the math again... As I said before even Boeing estimates 990 deliveries of
59 Bringiton : Is it with Freighters included ?
60 Post contains images Astuteman : Presumably it was better than this one..... Been away for 3 or 4 days. I missed the first thread. That is effectively what it will be It is undoubted
61 Post contains links Joni : I didn't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but apparently the EADS board is meeting on Tuesday (7.11.) to discuss
62 Parapente : Once upon a time I was a fan of the BWB, but then I saw the basic flaw in its design --- you cannot stretch it by adding a new section into the fusela
63 JayinKitsap : True point to point only works if both "points" have enough O&D traffic to fill the plane(s) on the route, mostly larger or large airports in major m
64 SSTsomeday : The way I put it is to call at least one of the "points" a "secondary hub." It has some long-haul traffic, and some domestic traffic, so there is som
65 Tifoso : Why is that? Intellectual property?
66 Zvezda : That assumes fixed prices. It was trivial to demonstrate in the case that the larger airliner has lower trip costs, but it works any time CASM is suf
67 Poitin : I have not seen this "patented different-sized-center sections nor do I see how it would work. Perhaps you have a reference to how this would work? T
68 BoomBoom : Right on! If you can eliminate only one stop it saves hours when you consider that you probably had to fly out of your way to reach a hub, make a con
69 Stitch : Again, you are arguing a point I have already agreed with you on, which confuses me. I have stated VLAs will be needed, just not in the four figures.
70 Osiris30 : You're right ofcourse.. my bad.. My brain was out in the 2015-2018 time frame due to the discussion. This is what I don't get.. why do you choose to
71 Adria : No, ceteris paribus considers only ONE factor and leaves other as a constant. Price elasticity (the curve) considers only one factor... But the 787 s
72 Osiris30 : Those estimates are based on now till 2020. The longer Airbus takes to reach the breakeven number the higher it gets due to interest. If they by 2020
73 Post contains images Bringiton : Heck of a return on the 4 billion dollar investment considering the margins are high for VLA's and speacially for Freighters.
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...
US Airways Alternative To The A350? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:49:18 by Vega
US Airways Indifferent To Airbus's A350 Dilemma posted Mon Jun 5 2006 10:04:08 by Leelaw
US Airports Refuse To BE A380 Reliever posted Tue Jan 4 2005 17:04:35 by Aerofan
A350-800 To Cost $154M, A350-900 To Cost $170M-WSJ posted Wed Dec 15 2004 19:19:07 by N328KF
Are Scanners Allowed To Be Brought In To The US? posted Mon Jun 26 2000 20:00:30 by Aer Lingus
US Airways Closed To Muslims? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:28:09 by Rdwootty
Why So Long To Clear Us To The Assigned Altitude? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 18:48:32 by Golftango
Abuja Gateway Consortium To Invest US$ 371 Million posted Tue Nov 14 2006 16:55:04 by AsoRock
Help - Which Non-US Airlines Fly To Grand Cayman? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 03:22:47 by Nickofatlanta
RAF Jets Scrambled 6 Times In 12 Months To Escort. posted Wed Nov 1 2006 21:27:23 by Cumulus