Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FI: 787-10 To Face A350-900 Challenge  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13983 times:

Randy Baseler has commented on the structure of the 787-10, saying it would be a 'simple stretch' of the -9 with the same weights and engines, resulting in a range drop to around 7,200nm to 7,500nm, and not be available before '2012'.

He has also said that he is sceptical that the A350-9 can achieve the range figures stated by Airbus, commenting that he would expect the range to actually be around 7,300nm.

A longer range 787-10 would take significantly more effort to develop.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rbus-a350-900-xwb-variant-but.html

I always thought that a smaller stretch of a larger base airframe would be more efficient scale wise than a larger stretch of a smaller base airframe? Anyone care to comment on this?

91 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9002 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13923 times:

Pretty clear from that article in my view that Boeing is getting Airbus data from airlines, "Airbus has not given airlines enough information yet on the specification of the A350 for them to be sure whether the performance claims are achievable,” he says. “But from what we can tell, the A350-900’s range is probably more likely to be around 7,300nm [13,500km]."


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10000 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13869 times:

Thanks for the link, Richard.
I found this an interesting article.

Obviously the two interesting bits are:-

a) Taking the 787-10 from low 7000Nm to low 8000Nm is a step-change, with engine changes, wing changes, landing gear changes etc.
We knew this I guess, but it's the first time I've heard Boeing say that the 787-10 as it stands will NOT be available before 2012, and that a "step-change" 787-10 will take longer to develop.

b) Baseler's quote that the A350-900XWB range is more likely to be 7300Nm than the 8 300Nm quoted by Airbus. i.e. the substantially bigger/heavier A350-XWB according to him only matches the existing 787-10 proposal. What's he worried about, then?  Smile

Out of interest, when did the 787-9 become a nominal 8 300Nm aircraft? I'd understood it to be in excess of 8 500Nm nominal range.

Regards


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13854 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter):
Randy Baseler has commented on the structure of the 787-10, saying it would be a 'simple stretch' of the -9 with the same weights and engines, resulting in a range drop to around 7,200nm to 7,500nm, and not be available before '2012'.

Interesting...IIRC, EK stated they needed a bit more range than that if they were to go for the B787-10...could make the order race quite interesting...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13848 times:

EK still hasn't seen a formal proposal from Airbus re the XWB, and they don't want to see it until Airbus can give them some firm numbers. I think most other carriers are in the same position. I'm not sure if Boeing is getting XWB data from airlines, or they are coming up with their own models/approximations.
If Baseler is correct, it's a huge blow for the 350-900XWB and a huge range drop from the initial promised 8,500nm, which has already been reduced to 8,300nm.
That's not true Trans-Pacific range and would be a struggle against strong headwinds from SIN-LHR.
No wonder SQ haven't firmed up their 350 LoI yet.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10000 posts, RR: 96
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13765 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
If Baseler is correct, it's a huge blow for the 350-900XWB and a huge range drop from the initial promised 8,500nm, which has already been reduced to 8,300nm.
That's not true Trans-Pacific range and would be a struggle against strong headwinds from SIN-LHR.
No wonder SQ haven't firmed up their 350 LoI yet.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
“But from what we can tell, the A350-900’s range is probably more likely to be around 7,300nm [13,500km]."

I have a suspicion that you're seeing some evidence of a "real" in-service range (i.e. airline configured, with full pax AND a whole wadge of non-pax payload too) vs. a "nominal" still-air, pax-only range.
If he was correct, and he actually thought he was, he'd be laughing his head off, saying :-

"Look, my EXISTING 787-10 will see this A350-900XWB thing off, and my plane's 50k-60k lb lighter at MTOW, too. Note to board - no action required  biggrin   biggrin ....".
He'd be one happy chappie..

In reality, the range of an airline configured 787-10 with full payload will probably drop some 1 000Nm from nominal, too.

Baseler's actions will tell you more than his words  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12425 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13741 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
EK still hasn't seen a formal proposal from Airbus re the XWB, and they don't want to see it until Airbus can give them some firm numbers. I think most other carriers are in the same position. I'm not sure if Boeing is getting XWB data from airlines, or they are coming up with their own models/approximations.
If Baseler is correct, it's a huge blow for the 350-900XWB and a huge range drop from the initial promised 8,500nm, which has already been reduced to 8,300nm.
That's not true Trans-Pacific range and would be a struggle against strong headwinds from SIN-LHR.
No wonder SQ haven't firmed up their 350 LoI yet.

EK's CEO has recently said that they won't order the A350 till design freeze, and Airbus (in an interview with Tom Williams) has said A350 won't have a design freeze till end of 2008. Given the "shell game" that Airbus has been playing with the A330-lite er A350 er A350XWB, I think it's not a bad idea to wait till design freeze.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10000 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13689 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
in an interview with Tom Williams) has said A350 won't have a design freeze till end of 2008

Bit of care here...
Williams has said that the M4 milestone, when basic performance is finalised, will be reached in MAY this Year, with M4.2 finalising the full specifications "a bit later in the year".
The M5 milestone "system design freeze" is scheduled for October 2008, and finalises the spec of EVERY system on the aircraft.

From an interview with Williams in an article published today in flight International, but not yet loaded up in flightglobal.com

Entitled "Airbus hastens XWB Supplier plan".

edit - BTW I found this a very interesting article, worthy of its own thread. Watch this space..  Wink

Regards

[Edited 2007-01-29 12:25:57]

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13613 times:

I think Randy should care more about sorting out the 787. Weight, IFE and stuff..  thumbsup 

I think maybe A is not in a hurry to communicate spec details. Maybe wait how the 787 does & then adjust & freeze.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13615 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think Randy should care more about sorting out the 787. Weight, IFE and stuff.. thumbsup

I hardly think the 787 is in that much trouble, it isnt being made by Airbus.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12425 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13363 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Williams has said that the M4 milestone, when basic performance is finalised, will be reached in MAY this Year, with M4.2 finalising the full specifications "a bit later in the year".
The M5 milestone "system design freeze" is scheduled for October 2008, and finalises the spec of EVERY system on the aircraft.

Seems to me that A can be having two internal proposals (shells vs barrels) going in parallel till at least October.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAirspare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13223 times:

I'll bet a few cases of beer (Urquell) that due to the 350 EIS delay, that the 777 has gained some legs in sales. The results are:

The 787-10 won't be built. A 777 replacement with capacity/range/mission profiles from the -9 to the 748I will be. B will have the time to build a Y1 and the Y3 (if I can call the 748I Y3.5).

As B built the 757 and 767 at about the same time, most of the technological foot work has been completed. As Astuteman might say, the keel has been laid. My bet B will have these 2 frames ready to offer about the same time as the 350 EIS.

Now, all of the guys that know a hell of a lot more then me can tell me why I'm wrong (no problems there, Zvezda, I'd be happy to buy you a beer!).

cheer~md



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10000 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13189 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Seems to me that A can be having two internal proposals (shells vs barrels) going in parallel till at least October.

If you mean October this year, I guess that's possible. They've DEFINITELY got until at least May this year, minimum  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13088 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):

If you mean October this year, I guess that's possible. They've DEFINITELY got until at least May this year, minimum  Smile

Regards

 checkmark ...These latest comments from the Boeing camp certainly give Airbus more time...if Baseler had stated "we got the B787-10 to the 8000nm mark w/out too much of a problem", then I would expect to see more "urgency" on Airbus' part...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13008 times:

I have the impression Boeing thought they had the -10 pretty much sorted out & now they are considering changing their minds.

Correct?

[Edited 2007-01-29 15:03:50]

User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12991 times:

How bringing

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13):
"[...] the B787-10 to the 8000nm mark w/out too much of a problem",

became coventional wisdom here at airliners.net is what amazes me...

By the way, Baseler's range numbers for the 359XWB/CFRP are below what was to be expected from the Al-Li non XWB 359 (7,500 nm)...

He could have used a smarter spin saying that the current design would struggle to meet an 8,000+ nm target.

But then again he could be directing his comments at some a.netters, which brings me back
to the start of my post...

[Edited 2007-01-29 14:56:46]

User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6878 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12933 times:

One thing is certain: Boeing and Airbus are limited by the same laws of physics. If they are using similar construction and engines their range/payload results will be similar, assuming that neither has any aerodynamic tricks that the other is unaware of. As it stands now, Boeing has an advantage in having jumped on the full CFRP fuselage bandwagon first, but that will not last. Airbus, however, is hampered by less efficient structure and management, which they need to get straightened out. They are also saddled with the A380 white elephant, which at this point is a big drain on their resources. So if I were Randy I wouldn't be losing too much sleep yet.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I recall only EK and LH asking for more range, so perhaps the airlines talking to Boeing are content with a 777-200ER level of range. Considering that the 772LR is not exactly setting the world on fire in terms of sales though it offers both more range and greater payload-over-range then the 772ER, even if the A350XWB-900 can get over 7500nm, it may not be much of a selling point.

Widebodyphotog's projected 787-10 specs showed a 7,600nm range with 787-9 engines and MTOW by carrying 14,000lbs less cargo in the hold. At max fuel, she could go 7,900nm though I do not know what the payload is. And at MZFW she could fly 4,500nm which could make her a popular choice for the US domestics on Hawai'i and Carribbean service with heavy cargo demand.

And, of course, nothing prevents Boeing from launching a higher MTOW 787-10ER down the road to meet the needs of those airlines who require more range or more payload over range. It does appear from Baseler's comments that Boeing intends the next major model to be able to approach the 640,000lb MTOW limit of the wings. As such, I can understand Boeing being hesitant to spend that money if they don't have to, but it does seem to imply that Boeing is willing to launch a 787-11 and 787-11ER if it is required to fight the A350XWB-1000.

And, honestly, over the next four years I expect GE and RR to develop or refine more powerful versions of their 787-9 powerplants so the 787-10A may yet EIS with a 560,000lb MTOW and a bit better range or payload over range.

[Edited 2007-01-29 15:06:05]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30884 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I have impression Boeing thought they had the -10 pretty much sorted out & now they are considering changing their mind.

Actually, it sounds like Boeing is going to launch the 787-10 variant they always intended to.

Most of us (myself included) have been operating under the assumption Boeing has been actively changing that to increase the MTOW to 560,000lbs from 540,000lbs and use engines with 3-5,000lbs more thrust then the 787-9's powerplant will use. Now, it looks like the majority of potential 787-10 customers are content with the original specification or they want that spec "now" (2012) as it covers the majority of their missions and will take an "ER" version later for those missions that require it's extra capabilities.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12786 times:

Thanks for the article, RP - particularly interesting since the interview seems kind of unscripted, more 'thinking aloud.'

Don't have any strong opinions on the issues raised, as yet. But the point that leaps out at me is that both manufacturers, and the airlines, seem to have fastened on an 8,000nm.-plus range, with full payload, as being the future 'sweet spot.'

Until very recently, I've rather thought that the only people who would REALLY benefit from a range like that are Southern Hemisphere types like me. It would free me from the tyranny of fuel stops at Singapore or LAX, etc. - and it would make routes from here to South Africa, or from Europe to South America, a lot more economic.

But I can't readily think of many other established routes worldwide that require a range like that. Unless (and it's a big 'unless') Boeing were even MORE right about the growth of 'point-to-point' routes (or, more accurately, 'hub-busting' routes) than any of us thought they were?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10000 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12777 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
Boeing and Airbus are limited by the same laws of physics. If they are using similar construction and engines their range/payload results will be similar, assuming that neither has any aerodynamic tricks that the other is unaware of.

However, the A350-900XWB is (currently) envisaged as a 590 000lb MTOW aircraft with 87 000 lb thrust engines, whereas the current 787-10 is envisaged as a 540 000lb MTOW aircraft with 75 000 lb thrust engines.
As you say, with the same c. 310 pax capacity, and using similar construction/engines, and the same laws of physics, the A350 XWB should fly substantially further.....
TP313 makes the (very good) point that Baseler's statement predicts that the 590 000lb "all-composite" A350-XWB will have a shorter range that the old aluminium "A330 derived" 540 000lb A350...... scratchchin 


Quoting TP313 (Reply 15):
By the way, Baseler's range numbers for the 359XWB/CFRP are below what was to be expected from the Al-Li non XWB 359 (7,500 nm)...



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Widebodyphotog's projected 787-10 specs showed a 7,600nm range with 787-9 engines and MTOW

Mr. Baseler's specs say 7 200Nm - 7 500Nm .....  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Most of us (myself included) have been operating under the assumption Boeing has been actively changing that to increase the MTOW to 560,000lbs from 540,000lbs and use engines with 3-5,000lbs more thrust then the 787-9's powerplant will use. Now, it looks like the majority of potential 787-10 customers are content with the original specification

Or alternatively, any change beyond 540 000 lb is considered "major engineering", which Boeing will need to be confident can be justified by the market....

Regards


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12539 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
TP313 makes the (very good) point that Baseler's statement predicts that the 590 000lb "all-composite" A350-XWB will have a shorter range that the old aluminium "A330 derived" 540 000lb A350......

I think that if there is one thing we can all agree on here, is that the market was very skeptical of Airbus's performance claims thus necessitating many different revisions.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12377 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I have the impression Boeing thought they had the -10 pretty much sorted out & now they are considering changing their minds.

As did I, but I can't fault Boeing for waiting to further define the 787-10. They have a great deal of work on their hands with the initial three 787 variants, and Boeing can only benefit by waiting to see more details about the A350 before firming the 787-10.

I am disappointed though, I was hoping the 787-10 launch was just around the corner...  Sad

Quoting Airspare (Reply 11):
I'll bet a few cases of beer (Urquell) that due to the 350 EIS delay, that the 777 has gained some legs in sales.

Certainly the 777LR variants, but I don't think the 772ER will get much love despite any A350 set-backs.

Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter):
A longer range 787-10 would take significantly more effort to develop.

Be it as it may - it would be far more practical to develop the 787-10 with desirable payload/range than it would to re-engineer the 777.


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12225 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
However, the A350-900XWB is (currently) envisaged as a 590 000lb MTOW aircraft with 87 000 lb thrust engines, whereas the current 787-10 is envisaged as a 540 000lb MTOW aircraft with 75 000 lb thrust engines.
As you say, with the same c. 310 pax capacity, and using similar construction/engines, and the same laws of physics, the A350 XWB should fly substantially further.....

....if those extra 50000lb is used to carry more fuel (and/or if it's not being eaten up by a much higher OEW.)

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
TP313 makes the (very good) point that Baseler's statement predicts that the 590 000lb "all-composite" A350-XWB will have a shorter range that the old aluminium "A330 derived" 540 000lb A350......  scratchchin 

True, but if that turns out to be the case, there are several reasons to why that's possible. Lets think about what's happened since the old A350....
1) All members of the XWB family was supposed to have a range of 8500nm when the family was launched at Farnborough last summer, and they had grown it grew considerably from the old A350. MTOW for the A359XWB was increased by 20 tons, the fuselage got 12 inches wider, the wings got three metres longer and got a 20-25% increase in wing area, and it was designed to carry 14 more passengers than the old A359. That's a whole lot of extra weight to carry around, and it wouldn't surprise me if most of that 20 ton increase in MTOW comes from a similar increase in OEW. That doesn't help much in terms of extending the range...
2) Before the XWB was (re)launced in December, it was known that the A359R that had been proposed to airlines didn't even match the A345 on range. The A359R was supposed to have a 1000nm longer range than the A359 (according to Airbus,) and that puts the range of the A359 to below 8000nm.
3) When the XWB was relaunched, range had dropped to 8300nm from 8500nm for the A359.
The things above leads me to agree with the following:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 21):
I think that if there is one thing we can all agree on here, is that the market was very skeptical of Airbus's performance claims thus necessitating many different revisions.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12153 times:

I think Boeing should focus on popping the -3, -8 and -9 out of the factory well under weight, more fuel efficient than promised, under budget and on time. Deliver more than they promised to airlines, and then focus efforts on not merely stretching the 787, but imporving it so that it can be engineered into a 772ER/ LR and 773ER replacement in the one 787 platform. If that means a different wing, reinforced carriage etc, then so be it. Airlines would be far more willing to have one family, 2 different familieis of engines, 2 different wings- after all they were all very happy with operating the 767/777 etc. that way the 787 family becomes kind of like the A330/A340 in many ways, wish a/c that are simply not just a stretch but are essentially the same family. I don't know if i've made sense here so i'll stop!

Cheers
AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
25 Post contains images Keesje :    Seems the smartest strategy: learn & listen as long as you can. Decisiveness and a clear long term vision can be pretty damaging if the world is
26 Stitch : Well we know Boeing can get an extra 20,000lbs out of the undercarriage, but I believe even if all of that was fuel (and it won't be since Boeing has
27 EvilForce : I agree with many of the comments made. I do think however this means there will not be a 787-11 anytime soon, bordering on never. I think Boeing is g
28 SEPilot : One thing I believe Boeing has shown is that they are pretty well attuned to what the market wants. I agree with those posters who say they are smart
29 Post contains images Astuteman : So in summary, Airbus:- a) added 50 000 lb to the MTOW b) committed to an extra $5Bn minimum in development costs c) committed to a completely differ
30 Zeke : I cannot fault your logic, not to mention that the Trent XWB should have a slightly better thermal efficiency coming out a little later then the GEnx
31 Post contains images Astuteman : Airbus claim that the Trent-XWB will have a 2% SFC advantage over the GEnx. Of course, extrapolating the counter-argument, as that is an Airbus claim
32 Stitch : The big question, however, is that while I am sure Airbus has no intention of such a horrible outcome, they keep changing the plane's configuration a
33 Post contains images Zeke : My understanding that was a 2% SFC improvement over the original 350, I have not seen a reference to the GEnx. It is a bigger engine, producing more
34 Post contains images Astuteman : I don't have any problem with wanting to see "the white's of their eyes" when it comes to delivered performance. I also don't have an issue with the
35 Rheinbote : I could imagine that Boeing - having been pushed into 772 territory by 1) Airbus conststantly upping the ante on seats and 2) insatiable wannabe custo
36 Stitch : Agreed. The 787 was taking the majority of the orders, but the A350 was winning her fair share. However, see my final paragraph... Perhaps. Or perhap
37 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's the link: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...bus-hastens-xwb-supplier-plan.html
38 Gbfra : You may be able to sell dreams to a.netters and/or journalists, but you definitely can't sell them to smart airline experts, who know as much about e
39 2wingtips : And you can vouch for the fact that the promised range for the non-composite A350 was correct? Expect changes to the 359 specs if Airbus wants range
40 Jfk777 : The 787-9 will be the the main airplane of the first generation 787 family. The 787-10 will be similar to what the 777-300 was before the arrival of t
41 Post contains links RichardPrice : The 787 orderbook currently looks thus - 787-3 - 43 787-8 - 332 787-9 - 72 The -9 is nowhere near the 'main airplane of the first generation 787 fami
42 Atmx2000 : If think the fact they hadn't launched it suggests that they were waiting on customers to commit to a proposal. But given the time to EIS and Airbus'
43 Jacobin777 : the B797-9 was offered much later than the B787-8 and has been picking up steam in orders lately...also, customers such as NZ have switched (some or
44 Ikramerica : I think this is likely accurate. One only needs to look at the strong sales of the A333 to show that a plane of that size with sub 7000nm range and g
45 Post contains images Stitch : I expect their is some...tension...between the 777 and 787 teams. But, in the end, the decision will be made by senior management and that decision w
46 Post contains links and images Brendows : The range figures in this article comes from Randy Baseler, and I would take them just as "seriously" as any words coming out of John Leahy's mouth..
47 Atmx2000 : Arguably, the offering and availability of the 763ER was the limiting factor. The non ER 763 booked its first order in 1983, but only 34 were sold be
48 Dank : I don't believe that this is true. IIRC the -3, -8, and -9 were launched simultaneously. The problem for some with the -9 is that it has a later EIS
49 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Hi Dank...while I agree with rest of your posts, I have the correct infor regarding the B787-9.... "Boeing’s stretched 787-9 variant has been forma
50 KC135TopBoom : That is because they don't have the specs, either. Good idea!!!! Oh wait, the B-787 has sold some 400 more airplanes than the A-350 has (which are mo
51 Post contains links Dank : Unfortunately, Boeing states in April of 2005 regarding Air Canada (note this wasn't the final order which was just for -8s): "The agreement also inc
52 Stitch : The confusion may be that Boeing raised the MTOW of the 787-9 after they first announced it with the 787-3 and 787-8. This increase in MTOW made the p
53 Post contains images Baron95 : That is exaclty right and should be a lesson for the eventual 787-10 and 787-11. If you launch it with substantially less range it will not sell. In
54 Atmx2000 : Not so fast, the 762 outsold the 762ER. And the 772LR is unlikely to eclipse the 772ER. Sometimes more range comes at too high of price in terms of w
55 Baron95 : Special case as the 762 was not a long range airliner it was a mid-range wide body a la A300. Plus read below.... In all cases, I didn't mean eclipse
56 EK413 : Is it possible Boeing isn't that keen on launching the B787-1 until 2012 due to the fact it will invade the B777 program??? EK413
57 Post contains images Stitch : I am sure the 777 Program Team would prefer not to see a 787-10 anytime soon, but they also know that the window of opportunity for their plane is no
58 Post contains images Dank : Stitch has it correct. Boeing only will hold out as long as they think that they aren't going to lose sales to Airbus. Airbus has put a bit of pressu
59 Post contains images Baron95 : Are you sure about the 777 Program Team wanting that? Sometimes I wonder if inside Boeing there is more competition between 787, 777, 748 program tea
60 Joni : Finnair said that when Airbus offered them the improved A350 at the price of the original A350, not "in the first place".
61 RichardPrice : The first sales for each model - 787-3 - 26 July 2004 787-8 - 26 July 2004 787-9 - 25 August 2004 And those figures reflect Boeings order book as of
62 Post contains images Astuteman : So, as a check for understanding, once again, a) added 50 000 lb to the MTOW b) committed to an extra $5Bn minimum in development costs c) committed
63 Post contains images SEPilot : But the fact that they kept changing the A350 specs indicates that after that first 100 they were'nt getting any more sales, just "show me something
64 Leelaw : IIRC, didn't the "attitude" adjustment/epiphany at Boeing pre-date most, if not all, sales of the "old all-new A350?"
65 SEPilot : But attitude adjustments take a while to take effect. They have to be proved.
66 Post contains images Keesje : Maybe the A350 will just be a little bigger, spacier for its passengers, fly a little further and be a bit more state of the art (5yrs). Nothing to ge
67 EK413 : Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4171 posts, RR: 21 Reply 57, posted Tue Jan 30 2007 05:55:28 UTC (8 hours 15 minutes 36 secs ago) and read
68 Post contains images Stitch : I agree that it doesn't pass the "common sense test" that Airbus would double the investment and EIS date just to end up with a plane with inferior p
69 Post contains links and images Keesje : If you are right, Boeing has changed its strategy and is now in the "reactive mode" http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4505
70 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Ok..maybe that's where the confusion was.... ...regardless though, the B787-9 sales has been picking up steam.. Richard, I got caught in that one too
71 Astuteman : It pains me to disagree, but an A350-800XWB with less range than an A332 will be an unmitigated disaster for Airbus. It's nearest competitor, the 787
72 Post contains images Stitch : All very good points. It's mighty tough to speculate with any real foundation. Is Airbus moving to the 787 CFRP process because that is what airlines
73 TP313 : Yes If someone goes through the trouble of thinking through his/her arguments and making some calculations based on comparing available weight, thrus
74 Post contains images Jacobin777 : The "problem" with the A350XWB is that it is trying to take on two different series of planes (markets)..the B767 (A332) and B777(A333/A340)...its we
75 TP313 : If you take a closer look at the XWB's spec's you'll realize that Airbus has already decided on that: a 789 carrying the same number of passengers th
76 Jacobin777 : I agree..but its still a quandry nonetheless..... Personally, I think Airbus is choosing the wrong market to tackle, especially the B773ER....the B77
77 TP313 : Maybe its not the best strategy in terms of market cycles, but it is the best one in terms of putting a spanner in the works of Boeings development cy
78 Atmx2000 : Y3 won't come immediately after the 787. The 748 would be just out 5 years, and the 773ER would be out maybe 10 years. I would not expect a replaceme
79 EK413 : Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 5715 posts, RR: 16 Reply 69, posted Tue Jan 30 2007 15:22:16 UTC+1 (8 hours 12 minutes 33 secs ago) and read
80 Stitch : Idle thought of the day... Boeing proposes a 69m, 540,000lb MTOW 787-10 with 75,000lb thrust engines and a range equal to or greater then 7,000nm whic
81 Post contains images Astuteman : From my periscope, we seem to do it with extraordinary ease.............. Once again, from my periscope, A-net and reality seem to continue to separa
82 Lumberton : Fine post as always, Astuteman! One thing I'd like to clarify is that I've seen the XWB development costs quoted most often as 10 billion Euros. I've
83 Post contains images Astuteman : Glad you could stay up for it.... Agree. I was VERY careful to use the words "upwards of" Regards
84 Post contains images Stitch : No worries. It's always a good read. On all but one possible reason, I am in complete agreement with you. That one possible reason is why I asked the
85 Post contains images Astuteman : Many thanks. I'll be pleased to be proved wrong, but I see far more reasons for some VERY burned financial backers to be "dictating" some fundamental
86 Post contains images TeamAmerica : A quite excellent explanation. Agreed, but I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread that the root of this reluctance is the A380 debacle. Airbus
87 NAV20 : Agree almost entirely with your analysis on Post 81, Astuteman, well done. The only area that I think requires more thought is the 'smart shareholder'
88 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : Astuteman, juding from your comments and responses, I highly doubt you are losing your grip.... ..that being said, I made my comments about "Airbus g
89 Jdevora : If I remember correctly, they decided to change the order (A359 first) because with the new EIS they missed the biggest part of the 250 seaters repla
90 EI321 : Its possible that by 2014 there wont be any MD11 passenger aircraft left. KLM is the only airline with a decent fleet (Finnair already choes A350).
91 Jacobin777 : ..and that is why I think they should go with the "two-pronged" strategy....its not as if they are going to pip Boeing to the post anyway...if one is
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...
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch
FI: Airbus To Ask Board To Approve A350 XWB posted Mon Oct 23 2006 10:21:23 by Leelaw
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
787-10 Moved Up To 2010? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 06:09:44 by AeroWesty
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
787-10: Formidable Competitor To The A380 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 13:22:04 by SparkingWave
Emirates In Negotiations For Up To 50 787-10 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:27:35 by Terryb99
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Airbus To Counter 787 Stretch With Heavier A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:56:10 by Leelaw