Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The A350 Too Big For Some Who've Ordered It?  
User currently offlineEureka From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 85 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12932 times:

Most everyone here is well aware that the A350 has gone through some design iterations. The latest of these iterations is the A350XWB, which has family members sized between the 787-9 with 290 seats and the 777-300ER with 365 seats. Presumably, some of the airlines that bought the original 100 A350's wanted the 210 to 250 seat aircraft they contracted to receive.

If Boeing can find the odd product slot here and there before or around 2013 can any of the early A350 customers be pulled away? Which airlines might these be?

126 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12802 times:

I have wondered about TAM. As they have ordered the 777, why would they need therir 350XWB orders?

It would seem a 787 would be a better fit for them now. But if they get the XWB for the price of A350 iteration 1, it may be to good of a deal to pass up.

That will probably be the subject of future threads, A will fill the firm orders booked in years gone by for a loss.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12792 times:

My guess is that Airbus's incompetent management has left their sales negotiators on 'a hiding to nothing', Eureka.

Applying ordinary business principles, if anyone came to me and said that the product I'd ordered in good faith was going to be late, larger, and thirstier, my starting position would be, "Yes, I'll still consider taking delivery. But only if - A. the price remains as agreed; B. I get compensation for loss of profits due to the delay; and C. you agree to compensate me for the extra fuel I'll have to buy and waste if I can't fill the thing."

Airbus's chopping and changing begins to look more and more like business 'suicide' to me.

[Edited 2006-12-17 12:31:20]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12701 times:

Quoting Eureka (Thread starter):
Presumably, some of the airlines that bought the original 100 A350's wanted the 210 to 250 seat aircraft they contracted to receive.

If someone felt that way they had the chance to withdraw their order. After such a significant redesign (from the original A350 to the A350XWB) customers are not further bound to their commitments. They could even sue Airbus for delivering the originally promised aircraft. Well ... that woudln't materialize, but Airbus had to pay compensations for not abiding a contract.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12677 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
After such a significant redesign (from the original A350 to the A350XWB) customers are not further bound to their commitments. They could even sue Airbus for delivering the originally promised aircraft. Well ... that woudln't materialize

Worse than that, PADSpot - by ordering the 'old new' A350 they passed up their chances of getting early delivery of 787s. And that means losing real money over a period of years - they simply won't have, and can't get, the aeroplanes on which their future business plans were based.

IMO, If Airbus doesn't pay up handsomely and soon, they'll have every right to sue.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12618 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 4):
Worse than that, PADSpot - by ordering the 'old new' A350 they passed up their chances of getting early delivery of 787s. And that means losing real money over a period of years - they simply won't have, and can't get, the aeroplanes on which their future business plans were based.

IMO, If Airbus doesn't pay up handsomely and soon, they'll have every right to sue.

Well, while it would additionally justify compensations, I don't know if it would finally had an effect, because even the "old new" A350 would had entered into service 2 years after the 787. Thus chances are not all too bad to get some 787 slots at a comparable point in time.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12578 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
even the "old new" A350 would had entered into service 2 years after the 787. Thus chances are not all too bad to get some 787 slots at a comparable point in time.

That's a point that could be argued out in court, PADSpot. But I expect that we both agree that this sort of problem will never see the inside of a courtroom, Airbus will just pay whatever it takes to avoid the bad PR. After all, chances are that they'll mainly be using taxpayers' money in one form or another.  Smile

"MADRID, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Spain approved an increase in payments to Airbus's (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile , Research) A380 aircraft on Friday in a bid to protect Spanish suppliers to the aerospace industry, massively dependent on the beleaguered new plane.

"The planemaker, the core business of European aerospace group EADS, accounts for half of the Spanish aerospace sector's income.

"It is hoped the increase of aid will help alleviate the difficulties the Spanish firms linked to the aeronautical industry are going through due to Airbus's delicate situation," the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce said in a statement.

"Successive delays and profit warnings at Airbus plunged EADS into management turmoil in the summer and mean deliveries of the ultra-large aircraft are on average two years behind schedule."


http://today.reuters.com/news/articl..._AIRBUS-SPAIN.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12559 times:

The A350XWB-800 got wider but actually got shorter than the A350-800. So it probably had around the same capacity. I don't know what the new specs are or if the size has changed.

At the end of the day (if the plane hasn't shrunk) it's about operating costs and not size.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12519 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
"Yes, I'll still consider taking delivery. But only if - A. the price remains as agreed; B. I get compensation for loss of profits due to the delay; and C. you agree to compensate me for the extra fuel I'll have to buy and waste if I can't fill the thing."

 rotfl 

Mr. Leahy has already said that he expect some airlines to cancel. Reading between the lines, he probably said 'dont expect us to sell our planes at a loss, we'd rather loose your business this time'.

The airlines are 'warned' as Mr. Leahy has clearly indicated that the deal can only go trough when both parties are satisfied.

And let's face it, if TAM, just an example, decides to cancel her order and goes to Boeing for the 787... How much room do you expect TAM to have to get a reasonable discount?



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12475 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 8):
Reading between the lines, he probably said 'dont expect us to sell our planes at a loss, we'd rather loose your business this time'.

Manni, an order is a contract. If either party breaches that contract they are liable to pay damages to the aggrieved party.

So, if the orders were genuine, the only thing Leahy can say to the customers is, "Sorry, our fault, what sort of compensation would you consider reasonable?"

Of course, if the 'orders' weren't in fact genuine orders, but only 'letters of intent,' Airbus is in the clear with the customers. But it's in deep trouble with the shareholders and regulators, for publishing misleading information.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12461 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 8):
Mr. Leahy has already said that he expect some airlines to cancel. Reading between the lines, he probably said 'dont expect us to sell our planes at a loss, we'd rather loose your business this time'.

Going forward, that may very well be the case. However, with existing customers, who have signed contracts, there will most likely be compensation or cancellation. IMO, the dollar vs euro imbalance has taken away much of John Leahy's much touted (allegedly) ability to discount.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12415 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
But it's in deep trouble with the shareholders and regulators, for publishing misleading information.

Nav you have a well documented beef with the management at Airbus but to say that is simply not cricket. There has never been any misleading information.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12408 times:

A simple question that provokes very complicated answers - the A350XWB is a different airplane than the A350 Mark 2 that gathered the orders which you are referreing to. My guess is that Airbus will meet with each airline that ordered the A350 Mark 2 and at those meetings the particular airline will either (1) reconfirm their order for the A350, (2) be given the option to cancel their order for the A350 as Airbus cannot (legally) and will not (practically) force airlines to take airplanes that they do no want and did not specify, or (3) do something else, such as being offered A330s at special terms.

Eseentially, contracts must be renegatiated from being to end......the airplane has changed, the delivery schedules have changed, and the prices have likely changed.

I have said this before and some of the Airbus gang got a bit annoyed with me.....but at this point in time, Airbus really does not have any real committments (never mind confirmed orders) for the A350XWB except from possibly SQ and I dont think that deal is confirmed yet either. This is not intended as a negative remark or a jab at Airbus......its simply the reality of the situation: The A350XWB is a different airliner than originally proposed by Airbus, thus they are starting over with the order book.....the fact that many airlines had selected the A350 Mark 2 will help get the A350XWB launched and Airbus will work very hard to re-confirm those deals, but as said by Airbus itself:

Quoting Manni (Reply 8):
Mr. Leahy has already said that he expect some airlines to cancel.


User currently offlineSKA380 From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12399 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
Manni, an order is a contract. If either party breaches that contract they are liable to pay damages to the aggrieved party.

Ohhh, have you read these contracts? I guess not..
Don't you think Airbus has covered their asses and put a small note that the design and configuration of the aircraft is subject to changes in these contracts?

Leif


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12368 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
Airbus really does not have any real committments (never mind confirmed orders) for the A350XWB except from possibly SQ and I dont think that deal is confirmed yet either.

what about the Chinese LOI?


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12361 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11):
There has never been any misleading information.

Thats a remark that I have a problem with.......whether you are an Airbus guy or a Boeing guy, it does not matter, the simple truth is that there has been a good amount of misinformation or lack of information (with the same result) coming out of Toulouse in recent times.

Quoting SKA380 (Reply 13):
Don't you think Airbus has covered their asses and
ut a small note that the design and configuration of the aircraft is subject to changes in these contracts?

Modifications to a design are one thing, a complete redesign of an airliner is another..........Airbus can cover its asses all they want, but they will not force airlines to accept delivery of an airplane that they did not order over a time period that was not originally anticipated. It would be a huge legal mess and cost Airbus a huge amount of good will with the airlines. Airbus and the airlines must renegotiate whatever agreements exist concerning the A350.....and this will happen behind the scenes in the coming months and, as stated above, there COULD be some cancellations for a variety of reasons which is something that Airbus is fully prepared for.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12350 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14):
what about the Chinese LOI?

Depends upon whether you are counting an LOI as a firm order.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12339 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6):
After all, chances are that they'll mainly be using taxpayers' money in one form or another. Smile

Nope, that is a common misconception. All what has been talked about were stakeholder-secured loans. That means that the stakeholder of a company (here the French and German governments) only safeguard a standard bank credit, which is subject to normal interest and amortization payments. If and only if Airbus is not able anymore to pay for the credit the stakeholder steps in and takes over responsibility. That has never been the case up to now, thus tax payer's money wasn't ever wasted. The opposite is the case: Airbus has made more profits than losses and as the French and German governments are actual stakeholders of EADS/Airbus the tax payer profited from those profits

The only direct payment that were made, were start-up payments at the beginning of the A300/310 development in the 70s. But that's a little long ago to argue about ... and then the situation was that two government open up a business. I think it's not unusual that stakeholders bring in the money in that case.

However Airbus' critics argue that already a government-secured loan poses a subsidy because it is a financial advantage that a competitor outside the reign of that "generous" government does not have (-->Boeing). But that is a matter of definition, because one could say exactly that about piles of legislation on both sides of the pond. Just think of laws that protect defense companies from foreign take-over, individual tax agreements and so forth. The entire discussion is also quite industry-specific. The same happens in many other industries and nobody complains about it ... airlines business, automotive industry etc ...

I think the problem is not the government-secured loans of Airbus, but the fact the US have a "free economy", where it is not part of the philosophy that the state supports business to promote social welfare. It is up to the market to decide, who wins and who fails. Many European countries (mainly France and Germany, but also the Nordic countries) practice something called "social economy" in which more money is spent to secure social welfare. Part of that is supporting promising technologies in order to secure high-skilled labor. And that is why Airbus was founded 35 years ago. Thus finally it is not a legal issue, but a cultural one.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 12340 times:

Steady, EbbUK - I merely said that if the A350 'orders' turned out to be only LOIs, THAT would be considered 'misleading.'

As it happens, though, there are already lawsuits pending which mey in fact turn out to allege misinformation as well as 'insider trading.'

"PARIS -(Dow Jones)- A French shareholder lobby group said Wednesday it is planning to file a lawsuit in connection with recent allegations of insider trading that have surrounded the Franco-German aerospace giant European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (5730.FR).

"The move comes just days after investigators raided the Paris headquarters of EADS and one of its major shareholders, the French defense and media group Lagardere SCA (13021.FR).

"Colette Neuville, chairman of ADAM -one of France's best-known shareholder groups representing small investors -told Dow Jones Newswires the lawsuit would allege either insider trading or the publication of "misleading information"."


http://news.morningstar.com/news/Vie...INE000519_univ.xml&Cat=Industrials

I reckon that the only certain thing about all this is that the courts will be busy for years arguing out the manifold details of the Airbus debacle.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12323 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 8):
How much room do you expect TAM to have to get a reasonable discount?

While the B787 is doing extraordinarily well and Boeing is in a position to maximize their margins on this product, I suspect any of the existing A350 customers would likely receive a nice discount to switch.

The benefit of having a customer switch may well outweigh the cost of a discount. It would further strengthen the already very robust market position of the B787. I'll bet Boeing is working this with some of the larger A350 customers; US , JJ, TP, and SQ (loI).



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12252 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 19):
The benefit of having a customer switch may well outweigh the cost of a discount.

Really don't see why - Boeing have 787 orders running out of their ears.........

The more likely 'business reality' is that the aggrieved airlines will screw appropriate compensation out of Airbus and then use Airbus money to pay Boeing or 'A.N. Other' - (i.e. existing 787 customers) extra to secure 'early delivery' 787 slots.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12243 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15):
the simple truth is that there has been a good amount of misinformation or lack of information (with the same result) coming out of Toulouse in recent times.

so a lack of information is misleading? The two are very different.


It is incredible that whatever Airbus does is bad PR for the company. See below

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
Steady, EbbUK - I merely said that if the A350 'orders' turned out to be only LOIs, THAT would be considered 'misleading.'

Of course it is a possibility that no one has purchased a single Airbus plane, such is the "misleading" information coming from Toulouse.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
As it happens, though, there are already lawsuits pending which mey in fact turn out to allege misinformation as well as 'insider trading.'

This lawsuit has nothing to do with the 350, and nor will it address the issues that trouble Airbus at present.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12212 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 21):
so a lack of information is misleading? The two are very different.

In many cases, the lack of information is midleading.......think A380. The two are not different, in neither case is the truth being set forth.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12191 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 21):
so a lack of information is misleading?

Absolutely, if it consists of keeping shareholders in ignorance of expected production delays (while selling off your own shares).

So, in my opinion, is leaving 100-plus 'orders' for an aeroplane that has not been designed, will not be built, and will never be delivered on your company website.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31401 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Eureka (Thread starter):
If Boeing can find the odd product slot here and there before or around 2013 can any of the early A350 customers be pulled away? Which airlines might these be?

Depends on how many they need, when they need them, and how their current fleet is organized, I imagine.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
The A350XWB-800 got wider but actually got shorter than the A350-800. So it probably had around the same capacity. I don't know what the new specs are or if the size has changed.

It's heavier and therefore needs more powerful engines. So while it's not really an A332 replacement anymore, it better covers the A333 and A343 markets.

Quoting Manni (Reply 8):
Mr. Leahy has already said that he expect some airlines to cancel. Reading between the lines, he probably said 'dont expect us to sell our planes at a loss, we'd rather loose your business this time'.

In all honesty, Leahy has to say that...

I don't expect Airbus to exactly roll-over, especially since they still have the option of canceling the A350 program if the orders don't justify the costs of going forward, but, obviously, Airbus isn't going to be in the strongest position with customers who ordered predominately or substantially the original A358 model.


25 11Bravo : Why must you always take such a sarcastic and confrontational tone on this forum? NAV20's point remains; Airbus is in noncompliance with the terms an
26 ORD2pm : I'm not trying to insult anyone, but cant you guys just admit that you know nothing about Airbus or Boeing. And your posts is just alot of rubbish? I
27 Scbriml : This is known how exactly? Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if I am), the original A350 never achieved design freeze, so i
28 Post contains images Dutchjet : Why would anyone be insulted by your remarks?
29 Post contains images Leelaw : Who knows which design iteration of the A350 was the subject of the "Chinese LOI" announced on October 26th. After all, Mr. Leahy, et al, didn't offi
30 Post contains images Scbriml : They signed for A350XWBs. I don't think the move from Al-Li to composite fuselage has changed the basic sizes of the models, and I would have expecte
31 11Bravo : Relatively minor adjustments to the specifications perhaps, but no customer in their right mind would sign a legally binding contract that would allo
32 ATCGOD : Probably a quite reasonable discount seeing that they are a 100% Airbus operator (until the 777's come along). Boeing might see this as an opportunit
33 Leelaw : What I do know is that before Farnborough there were rumors that Airbus would change the design to a composite fuselage. At the Farnborough press con
34 EbbUK : Well of course the reality of the 380 is as we know it now. Well I guess this is what the court case will try to prove. That at every step of the 380
35 Trex8 : and that would also be true about the SQ LOI which predates the Chinese one. but does it really matter? I find it hard to believe that SQ or anyone i
36 Kaneporta1 : The A350-800XWB has the same MTOW as the old A350-800. That's 245t.
37 Dutchjet : Airbus: Hello Ms Airline Exec, this is Airbus calling. Airline Exec: Yes, how can I help you? Airbus: I am sure that you remember that your airline si
38 Ken777 : I'm far from an expert, but I believe that there are two major issues Airbus faces with the existing orders. The first, as noted in the thread starter
39 PanAmOldDC8 : Don't understand? I don't believe in Governments getting involved in business, they only ruin them. Seen many cases of Government run businesses neve
40 PanAmOldDC8 : And if the company goes belly up then who is left holding the bag THE TAXPAYERS
41 ATCGOD : I'd say in most cases you will be correct, however, there will most certainly be a few airlines that will say, "this is not the product we ordered an
42 Poitin : A third issue is the several airlines who signed up for the A350 Mk 1 or 2 and signed contracts at well under the present price of the XWB version, a
43 PADSpot : In that unlikely case it is the price one has to pay for years of safe employment of tens of thousands of people, profit for millions of shareholder,
44 SSTsomeday : All things considered, I suggest that it is a good idea for the 350 to be larger in most of it's variations than the 787. Even if Airbus loses some cu
45 Atmx2000 : Airbus's problem is that they have to address a market ranging from 200 pax to 400 pax in 3 class layouts. They thought they had the high 300 market
46 Eureka : TAM or any of the other airlines that, for whatever reason, ordered the A350 early on have plenty of room to negotiate a "reasonable" discount. Boein
47 Post contains images 797charter : Absolutely! And maybe to small, for orders who've not ordered it. And who knows, maybe even "suitable" for a minor minority of others. Regards Steen.
48 FlyDreamliner : Airbus has a number of issues relating to the buyers of the earlier version A350s. First off, they are missing their promised delivery dates by 2-3 ye
49 Post contains images Osiris30 : Minor point here, but legally not disclosing something corporately like that and lieing about it are equivalent.. so in the legal sense (at least eve
50 PanAmOldDC8 : I am not from the US and I see that in Canada the taxpayers would be the ones on the hook for the money if the company goes under. I hope that does n
51 Stitch : Fair enough. And her powerplant thrust is identical to what the 245t 787-9 needs to get into the air. Be interesting to see how the A358X's OEW compa
52 Post contains images Glideslope : Yes, and keep looking. They will come.
53 Baron95 : The advertised capacity of the original A350-800 was based on 8-abreast in Y. The advertized capacity of the A350-XWB-800 is based on 9-abreast Y. Th
54 Post contains images Glideslope : Don't mingle facts. There is no mistaken fact. The entire would sees what is going on except for all the EU Pride that clouds the truth. The 380 is g
55 Baron95 : I think you guys are underestimating Airbus power with the A350XWB. The fact of the matter is that the original A350 was a much less desirable product
56 Post contains links NAV20 : Don't know about going bankrupt, Stitch, but it's no secret that EADS/Airbus IS seeking a 'cash infusion' of up around E4 Billion; and that they want
57 Trex8 : BAe have been saying for several years they want to rid themselves of their Airbus share even before the A380 debacle because 1. they see their futur
58 NAV20 : I'm sure you know, Trex8, that the RB211 was the first engine to have carbon-fibre (i.e. composite) turbine blades and other radical new features. RB
59 ATCGOD : I don't think they'll lose money in offering the XWB...they'll lose money from offering the initial A350. Don't forget that just because this aircraf
60 Post contains images Trex8 : I agree with you staying at home with momma and poppa is not good but if RR has grown up why does it still nurse at Whitehalls teat for projects as re
61 Eureka : The A350XWB can have a very desirable appearance because it can have just about any imaginable appearance. It is a fuzz ball right now. I'm only surp
62 Post contains images Trex8 : thats only because GE hasn't signed on fully to the project besides Boeings always go faster!
63 NAV20 : Trex8, I've done my best to explain that I don't rule out government involvement in all circumstances. My simple point in all this is that, firstly, I
64 Trex8 : NAV20 , I agree with you!
65 Ruscoe : NAV20 I agree with you also! To add a little, what the "easy money" did was allow Airbus to take risks without being exposed to the usual consequences
66 Eureka : This is so true. As much as it pains me to say it, an Airbus alive is better than an Airbus dead for Boeing. Boeing would be less than it is without
67 Post contains images NAV20 : Great, guys. Just hope all this agreement hasn't killed an interesting thread, though.
68 Eureka : The language in such contracts usually covers changes in the configuration mandated in an unforeseen fashion by the regulatory authorities. There usu
69 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Excellent thought, could not have said it better myself One quick comment: Are you sure it wasn't the Ge90 that introduced the first carbon fiber tur
70 NAV20 : Not sure, DfwRevolution, you could be right. The RB211 started off with CFRP, then (after the 'chicken' incident) Rolls-Royce tried titanium instead -
71 Eureka : If we focus back on the original topic I believe few speculative answers have been given as to the airlines that might dump the A350 now and try and g
72 Post contains images NAV20 : My own feeling is that the A350XWB will turn out to have been a 'half-measure.' Airbus have evidently decided that they are not capable of producing a
73 Revelation : It's my understanding that the Airbus CFO recently said they have up to $1B in exposure for penalties included in old-version A350 contracts. Pocket
74 EbbUK : So what? There is a hell of a lot of money in the "me too" market. Hilarious. That Airbus would make the same mistake with the wiring on the 350 as i
75 PADSpot : It's not life-threatening, but they burned a lot of a cash that could have been used for other things like the A350XWB and A320NG as well as smaller
76 Post contains images Stitch : First off, I am in strong agreement with what NAV20 wrote in Reply 63. The EU government's primary concern - as it is with most governments - is to pr
77 EI321 : Or maybe they want to stick to the strategy that they have used successfully for the last 15 or so years. What boeing do with two different models (t
78 EI321 : Ok maybe WA and KA, but I think its a gereralisation to say that CA will feel the cold as Long Beach winds down. The effect may will be localised, bu
79 Osiris30 : Problem is it's the 332s that are selling like mad (relatively)... The question of whether the sweet spot is 256 or 270 will prove interesting.. howe
80 Eureka : Those who have currently ordered A350-800's have by your own admission ordered a plane that is essentially at the upper end of a 210 to 250 passenger
81 Trex8 : why are we all trying to pontificate when none of us have any details to work on???
82 Post contains images Stitch : Tradition. Seriously, while much of the hard information from Airbus on the A350X program is not yet in the public domain, we're not exactly working
83 EI321 : A point I should have added to my post. Will some customers be lost? Yes, Im sure of it, but I even think that a few more will be lost through the la
84 Eureka : I don't think your primary purpose is to point out any discrepancies. You're trying to avoid or distract from the unavoidable. The A350XWB as current
85 Stitch : Speaking only for myself, the A350X family looks to be a major improvement on the A343, A345 and A346.
86 Eureka : That doesn't take much.
87 Post contains images EI321 : Well, er yes. It would be nice if you supply a reason for this conclusion. The A345/6 was a compromise for various reasons, none of which have anythi
88 EI321 : Why wouldnt it be cheaper? Its a smaller plane! Have you seen any at all?
89 Eureka : The 787 is also for an ever growing list the appropriate plane. Airlines are known to advise you of what the other guy is offering. So, yes it is a p
90 EI321 : That doesnt even make sense. The Airbus is 6 years from EIS. Thats an awfully long wait for airlines ordering aircraft today. Six Years before the EI
91 Eureka : You want to know the basis for my thought that the A350XWB has yet to prove itself a very worthy competitor in the marketplace? Take this excerpt fro
92 Eureka : This entire conversation might make sense to you when the some of the early A350 customers order 787s. Besides that, who's fault is it that the A350X
93 EI321 : No, I want to know your basis of thought for why you stated that it (The entire A350 concept) is a compromise. Basically GE are saying that they wont
94 Eureka : I see. In the statement below I did say "compromised". It's time to play context clues. My intent was to express that the A350XWB seems to be comprom
95 Post contains links Jdevora : Your logic is a little hard to follow, you choose to ignore the available information and create a whole theory based on one phrase from an outdated
96 Jdevora : Ok, lets take the stretch factor as the only relevant one, I agree with you that the 787-8 is very optimized because it doesn't have other plane in t
97 Eureka : Airbus created the A330-200 nearly 20 years later than the 767-300ER and the block fuel per seat and range of these planes are very similar. It is th
98 Ikramerica : The 350X will be too big for some who ordered it. The 350X was also too small for some people who didn't order it because of that. Airbus is betting t
99 Eureka : A very important rule of aircraft design is that weight generally increases in proportion to calendar time. If you look at the 787 thrust requirement
100 Eureka : I should correct myself to say that the A330-200 uses 101,700 lb more fuel and structure together.
101 Post contains images WingedMigrator : You should further correct yourself that this also includes payload. Or you could just come out and say that you're doing a straight-up comparison of
102 Eureka : You're right that the extra 24 passengers are in the 101,700 lb difference in MTOW, so a better approximation is 96,660 lb assuming 210 lb per passen
103 EbbUK : the scenario you have put forward is very similar to that of original presentation for the Sonic Cruiser (we all know what happened to that!) Yet I w
104 Trex8 : since the topic of the 767 vs A330 operating costs have come up , here are some real world costs from airlineempires.net for FY06Q1 AA 763 cost per bl
105 Eureka : That first Boeing Sonic Cruiser presentation was definitely more glitz than substance. The purpose of this presentation was somewhat different than t
106 Eureka : I'll answer you more fully now because I have the OEW information I could not remember precisely last night. The 767-300ER in the 269-passenger confi
107 SSTsomeday : Are these caparisons relative to passenger capacity only, or do they address the fact (from what I understand) that the 330 is a more efficient haule
108 Post contains links Trex8 : AFAIK these are the numbers the airlines give the Federal government, how they define it I have no clue. example AA 763 http://www.airlineempires.net/
109 Trex8 : from the same site AA 763 fuel per hour 1560 USG, NW ?A333/2 1823, US A333 (as we know thats what they operate though its listed on the site as A332)
110 Tangowhisky : Spending $10B and pouring resources is a great effort, and I truly wish that Airbus will come true on its promise that the A350XWB will be a successfu
111 Trex8 : if you plug in the seat numbers AA and US actually use, the A333 really s way ahead given the block fuel per hour is almost identical and the A333 sea
112 Post contains links Jdevora : I never did a plane efficiency calculation, but after reading a.net for some time, I saw a lot of posts stating that the amount of fuel that a plane
113 Eureka : I can tell. Once I had pinned down the constraints of the 767-300ER and A330-200 comparison I did earlier to the full passenger design ranges, which
114 Trex8 : wouldn't you consider a 10% difference significant? I mean your calculated block fuel per seat is only 10% also!
115 Baron95 : While I am a Boeing fan, it is obvious that Airbus is a credible designer and supplier of commercial airliners to the industry and that the top airli
116 NAV20 : Undoubtedly true until recently, Baron95 - not so sure about it nowadays, though. There's the continuing silence over detailing key A380 performance
117 Bicoastal : Bingo! It's hard to pass up such deals at this time. I suspect that it helped push Lufthansa to the 748i and others to the 787. I suspect more to com
118 Eureka : I would suggest examining a payload-range curve; any payload range curve will do, before assailing data of this nature that I have presented with ind
119 Eureka : What spec? I don't think there is very much of a configuration specification for the A350XWB to be examined. There are some curiously familiar pictur
120 Trex8 : Eureka, I think I understand what you are saying but it seems airlines in the real world sometimes burn almost equivalent amounts of fuel in these 2 a
121 Eureka : The comparisons of N. American carriers will naturally give the A330-200 an advantage since the 767-300ERs will be much older and have experienced mu
122 BoomBoom : And therein lies the rub. Airbus are priced in dollars, but their European labor costs are paid in Euros. That's why the goal is to outsource so much
123 Post contains images EI321 : Yeah, and if my aunt was a guy she would be my uncle!
124 Post contains links Jdevora : As I said before, I only have a few notions that I read here on a.net One of them is that if you reduce the range by 10% you will reduce the fuel use
125 Ikramerica : There's also the problem that the 767 has been available for 24 years now, and in that time, performance has increased. The 763ER is just under 20 yea
126 Eureka : All this is true. I believe I said as much already.
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...
Are The 320/737 Too Big For US Network Carriers... posted Fri Jan 27 2006 18:28:47 by Boeing7E7
Too Big For The Seat posted Wed Oct 1 2003 06:24:59 by Flybynight
A380 Is Too Big For BA! posted Wed Feb 21 2001 20:38:47 by Cruising
What Is The European Job Market For Pilots Like? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 02:42:57 by JAM747
Is The A350 A Casualty Of The A380 Delays? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:46:18 by NYC777
SJC Too Big For General Aviation? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 04:09:14 by SJCRRPAX
Is The A350 Just An A330 With A New Name? posted Fri Mar 10 2006 06:47:59 by Sonic67
Is The A310 A Bad Plane For AR Or Just In General posted Tue Jan 3 2006 02:13:30 by GusNYC
What Is The Highest Total Time For Any Pilot? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 16:53:16 by KDTWFlyer
Why Is The UK So Popular For Aircraft Maintenance posted Fri May 13 2005 14:46:00 by R3500vdp