Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Do Airlines Commit To The 350 This Early?  
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

I was wondering:

How do airlines take the leap of faith at this point to order the 350 when it's specifications have yet to be defined? How can they confidently order ANY A/C, for that matter (A or B), at such a preliminary stage of development?

I have heard in this forum (although I cannot provide a link) that there are engineering skeptics who question whether the technology exists or will exist that can support the performance and economic predictions Airbus is making for the bird; such as being as or more efficient than the 787. (For example, It will not have full barrel composite technology or bleedless engines, from what I understand.)

Also there is risk, I would imagine, in ordering the 350 and thereby not taking any options for 787 delivery slots. If the 350 turns out to be not what is promised because it's not technically possible, or if the design has morphed into something quite different during development, then 350 launch customers have by that time missed the 787 boat for some time to come.

Is this part of the nature of being a launch customer; you assume additional risk and that's why you get the launch customer discounts?

There must be considerable risk assumed by an airline choosing to commit to an A/C that is not yet defined, but for a substantial discount, vs paying more (non-launch customer prices) for an aircraft which has had it's design frozen and is very clearly defined, albeit not yet proven.

This is not an Airbus dig. I am quite willing to be educated in this regard. What am I missing? Thanks in advance.


I come in peace
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12337 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
How do airlines take the leap of faith at this point to order the 350 when it's specifications have yet to be defined?

A lot of the A350 specifications have been defined. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A350XWB#Specifications for a nice chart.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
How can they confidently order ANY A/C, for that matter (A or B), at such a preliminary stage of development?

It is indeed a risk, just like signing a contract for a house that hasn't been built yet. You mitigate the risk in a similar fashion: you only make small payments as the product is being built, and you only pay the bulk when the product is delivered as specified, and you include penalties in the contract if the product does not meet the specifications in terms of both physical characteristics and delivery time.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I have heard in this forum (although I cannot provide a link) that there are engineering skeptics who question whether the technology exists or will exist that can support the performance and economic predictions Airbus is making for the bird; such as being as or more efficient than the 787. (For example, It will not have full barrel composite technology or bleedless engines, from what I understand.)

While I am no aviation engineering expert, it seems to me that the questions you raise would apply equally to the 787. With respect to the engine issue, since the bleedless engine is the new technology, I imagine that Airbus has all sorts of data supporting its claims with respect to the traditional engine. It is Boeing's claims re: the bleedless engine that lack real world data. It seems that Boeing regularly meets or exceeds its performance predictions on new aircraft, so there must be something besides lucky guessing behind the numbers. I am sure Airbus does the same (but did I read that Airbus' predictions re: the 340-500/600 did not hold up after EIS?)


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2906 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
bleedless engines

Little 350XWB briefing I have seen says it now has Electro-Pneumatic bleed system with 4 variable frequency electrical generation systems.

So we are talking the same sort of engine technology now, with a slightly larger fan, so most probably a slightly higher propulsive efficiency, being released a few years later, so we are also more than likely looking at slightly better thermal efficiency, overall a more efficient engine over the 787 GEnx/Trent.

I don't think they have gone as far as to say bleedless, as even on the 787 it is not bleedless, as it has a bleed pick-off for engine anti ice.

Many things have been adapted from the 380, including much of the cockpit technology. From the 330 the flight control system has been simplified, fuel system simplified, and landing gear has been simplified.

I can understand the manufacturing reasons for not going barrel, it would restrict them to transportation options of the fuselage shells. It would also would mean a large investment in oversized autoclaves, where present autoclaves could be used with the shell process. The tape layup on a barrel with the 787 the thickness of the layers differs around the circumference, around doors, and around windows, manufacturing it in 4 parts would allow for less complexity around the part and the framework for lighting protection, which in my view would make it cheaper to build.

With a total of 12 shells (panels) making up an entire fuselage, with some of the shells being twice the length of the 787 barrels I think they could potentially package it for three-nine suppliers to provide the shells, one for the bottom, one for the sides, and one for the roof (4 shells per section, 3 sections per fuselage).

While I think Boeing may have a slight advantage with the 787 fuselage with a slightly lower part count, I think they have a disadvantage on the wing which has traditionally always been the Airbus strength.

I think they have attacked this to be a much lower risk project than the 380, thus the reasons for simplifying systems, and using existing techniques that could be produced today in their present facilities.

With a 10-15 year fleet renewal process, Airbus must firmly be looking at replacing a lot of 330/340/777 fleets that are currently out in the market.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
A lot of the A350 specifications have been defined. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A350XWB#Specifications for a nice chart.

Thanks for that link. I'll check it out.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
So we are talking the same sort of engine technology now, with a slightly larger fan, so most probably a slightly higher propulsive efficiency, being released a few years later, so we are also more than likely looking at slightly better thermal efficiency, overall a more efficient engine over the 787 GEnx/Trent.

Interesting.



I come in peace
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...
How Do Airlines Recover From The Oil Prices? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 23:39:33 by Slashd0t
How Do Unions Propose To Fix The Majors? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 20:39:19 by MaverickM11
How Do Airlines Decide The Flight Numbers? posted Wed Aug 27 2003 00:36:23 by Pe@rson
How Often Do Airlines Fly To Greenland? posted Wed Jan 9 2002 19:37:42 by B747-4U3
How Do Airlines Do This? posted Sun Jan 6 2002 21:58:36 by KLMBlue
How Many Airlines Fly To Vietnam posted Fri Dec 29 2006 09:53:49 by FL370
Philippine Airlines Commits To The 773ER posted Wed Dec 6 2006 13:44:13 by 2wingtips
How Do Airlines Choose A Used Airplane? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 07:39:49 by Jlbmedia
Why Do Airlines Still Use The 732 posted Tue Jul 25 2006 19:12:07 by Curious
How Do Airlines Make Their Wine Selections? posted Sat May 27 2006 21:14:54 by 777fan