"BA had hoped to announce the order this summer, but a decision is unlikely before the autumn, as the airline wants more time to consider its options."
However, Airbus has still not delivered the final specifications for the A350-1000, the largest of the 350 variants that the company expects to produce....
The specifications for the A350-1000 should be with BA next week. Airbus is also expected to confirm the price of the A380....
Frequency of service is a more significant factor and is likely to boost the chances of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and the A350."
Let's see, with that we have the following....Emirates waiting on A350 specs and now saying their order is for 2008, BA pushing their decision back AND Lufthansa giving A a second chance to beat the 787 (according to some A-netters). One has to wonder if this is simply due diligence or something more.
Qatar jumped (did anybody really expect them to order the 787 after they relinquished their slots?) and Aeroflot was a political decision.
Pass the popcorn this is going to be fun to watch.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21320 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12520 times:
There is no urgency to order planes that will be delivered 5 years or more in the future. The only urgency at all is that other carriers might order and take up slots, but Boeing is making many statements about how they think they will have increased output, so some carriers seem willing to wait.
The 350-1000 seems to be the plane that airlines are focusing on. Airlines that didn't jump on the 77W yet, and may not want a plane as small as the 787-8. But then there's also the possibility that a company like BA would order both the 787-8/9 and the 350-1000, as they really do serve different markets.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6824 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12428 times:
Quoting N1786b (Thread starter): One has to wonder if this is simply due diligence or something more.
Sensible airlines will mull over the following.
* Boeing are on a roll. The 787 is a winner and the 777-300ER is the right plane at the right time.
* Airbus have stubbed their toe with the A380 but the problems seem more to do with production than performance.
* The A340 was a dead-end for Airbus but the A330 is a winner.
What does the above suggest about the A350?
Will it be an A340 , an A380 / or an A330 ?
There must be a fair chance that Airbus will bounce back with an A350 that is - for some airlines - worth waiting for. If I was running BA I'd wait to see what the A350-1000 could offer.
(Actually, if I was running BA I'd buy anything that came with RR engines but that's another story.)
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1897 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12295 times:
Quoting N1786b (Thread starter): Frequency of service is a more significant factor and is likely to boost the chances of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and the A350."
That's a rather selective quote because this is only about the flights to the US. The article also says that the A380 could be attractive for flights to Asia and Australia.
The article also says that the A350 is the new competitor for the B777, which makes it one of the first media to get that part of the A350-program right.
It are interesting times and it's interesting to see that Airbus has been able to "tickle" airlines to wait and see what kind of plane the A350-1000 is going to be. I hope Airbus is giving them enough at the end of this week. Delaying your order to fall is also convenient because the B787 have flown by then so you'll have some real data.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6992 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12267 times:
Quoting N1786b (Thread starter): However, Airbus has still not delivered the final specifications for the A350-1000, the largest of the 350 variants that the company expects to produce....
The specifications for the A350-1000 should be with BA next week. Airbus is also expected to confirm the price of the A380....
Interesting that BA is interested in the A350-1000 given the fact that they don´t operate any 777-300s or A340-600s.
If I understand the quote right only the final specifications of the -1000 are missing. So can we asume that the specifications of the -800 and -900 are done ?
Would be interesting if BA choose Airbus for longhaul and later replaces its A32x with the 737RS
[Edited 2007-03-28 11:24:55]
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11927 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 2): Will it be an A340 Sad , an A380 optimist / pessimist or an A330 bigthumbsup ?
The A330 is certainly a winner for Airbus and a great airliner. The A340 probably earned a profit for Airbus, but not a large enough RoI to justify the investment in hindsight. The A340 is neither a winner nor a loser unless one considers that it killed the 747-400, which was good for Airbus. The WhaleJet is shaping up to be the biggest failure in the history of commercial aviation. Airbus will probably lose somewhere in the range of $10 to 20 billion on the program. No other commercial aviation fiasco has ever come close to having wasted that much money.
As for the A350, it's looking good. There is no reason to doubt that the A350-1000 will match the CASM of the 787-10 and beat that of the 747-8 and the WhaleJet.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6824 posts, RR: 65 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11840 times:
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 6): Complete guess this but could it be to do with the fact that RR and GE have both signed up for the 800 and 900 but only rr have signed for the 1000 and GE is still saying "chase me!"
I believe I'm right in saying that GE signed up for the old A350 but have not yet committed themselves to any version of the XWB.
Karan69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2852 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11638 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): There is no urgency to order planes that will be delivered 5 years or more in the future. The only urgency at all is that other carriers might order and take up slots,
Bingo, and in the case of the A350-1000 it is a good 7-8 years away.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): company like BA would order both the 787-8/9 and the 350-1000, as they really do serve different markets.
I dont see that happening, i think it will either be 787-8, 787-10, 747-8, A380 [i dont see them ordering the 787-9, somehow their route structure and aircraft configurations does not require an aircraft between 788 and 787-10] and if they go Airbus it will be 358 359 3510 A380, i just have an inclination that the A380 is imminent in BAs future, may not be now but definitly a decade later we will see A380s in BA colours.
Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 3): The article also says that the A350 is the new competitor for the B777,
Any update on the upgrades Boeing is gonna make to its 777 programme., Also does anyone have any figures/links as to how the 787-9/10 compare to the 772ER and the 350-1000 to the 77W.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5): The A340 is neither a winner nor a loser unless one considers that it killed the 747-400, which was good for Airbus.
Also it[A340-300] was initially built as a competitor to the 747-200/300s and it was successfully in beating the MD-11s/DC-10s etc..and was a more than capable replacement for them, if it were not for the 340-300 Boeing would not have bothered to build the final winner of the Category the 777 series.
Hard to say because the A340-200/-300 were developed together with the A330. It was one programme.
Later Airbus developed the 340-500 and -600 which have many differences over the older 340/330s series.
I don´t know if the A340NG development paid off but the whole A330/A340 programme is a real success .
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28633 posts, RR: 84 Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11204 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): There is no urgency to order planes that will be delivered 5 years or more in the future. The only urgency at all is that other carriers might order and take up slots, but Boeing is making many statements about how they think they will have increased output, so some carriers seem willing to wait.
Which makes me believe that Danny might very well have the truth of the matter - BA and EK do not have 787 delivery slots and at this time will not be able to get planes until the A350XWB's EIS without a production increase at Boeing or a shifting of models (from earlier 787-8's to later 787-9's/787-10's) from existing customers so, at this time, they have nothing to lose by waiting as chances are more and more airlines also seeing 787 delivery dates approaching the A350XWB's EIS might as well see what Airbus can offer.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11111 times:
I think BA focused on the A350-900 and know what they wanted to know but wants to make sure the A350-1000 could be a good growth option in the longer term. If BA stays loyal to RR that might be an advantage for the A350.
Regarding the 787, the 787-9 seems an excellent aircraft to me but is significantly smaller then BA´s current large 777-200ER fleet. BA aircraft generally have a low cabin density, so if they think 9 abreast is too narrow for World Traveller there is an issues. A 787-10 would seem necessary to realize the necessary seat capacity. I´m not sure the -10 would be suitable for BA´s Asia network.
A´s secret weapon behind many A350/A380 deals, "proven low CASM A330´s next year" might play a role again. BA nearly fell for it a few months ago..
On the other hand, I think the open skies future across the Atlantic might have significant influence on BA's long term fleet plan. I can imagine smaller aircraft like the 787-8-/-9 might have improved their chances with BA.
I (still) think that if the 787's were launched 10% bigger the 787 family would be a stronger option for airlines like BA.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2855 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10851 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): the 787-8/9 and the 350-1000, as they really do serve different markets.
That's true. The 787-8 will be in the size range of the 767, A330, while the A350-1000 will be in the 777-300ER market. That's quite a difference. Anyhow, because of fleet comminality, I believe that they will ever get the A350 or the 787, not the best of two worlds.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10805 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 18): it was not just the A340, the 777 has had the same effect.
People seem to overlook the fact that it was simply time to upgrade the 400 after 5-600 were sold. Boeing just could not find one version enough airlines could agree to until the 800 which took a painfully long time. This is also a factor.
Another factor is the fact that with so many sold, the market was satisfied until the 400s got long in the tooth. If the the 380 sold like the 744 sold it would see a major dip in sales once everyone that wanted one got one, or has that already happened?
Business cycles and competition let to the slow sales.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28633 posts, RR: 84 Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10660 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): Regarding the 787, the 787-9 seems an excellent aircraft to me but is significantly smaller then BA´s current large 777-200ER fleet. BA aircraft generally have a low cabin density, so if they think 9 abreast is too narrow for World Traveller there is an issues.
BA uses 17.5" wide seats in World Traveler on both their 777s and 747s, so 17.2 on the 787 in 3+3+3 would pretty much match the 777 product in width. And dropping a few seats would improve RASM by raising the average fare paid.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): A´s secret weapon behind many A350/A380 deals, "proven low CASM A330´s next year" might play a role again. BA nearly fell for it a few months ago..
I think BA is going to stick with the 772ER until the next generation arrives (that they took options reinforces this belief), be it the 787 or A350XWB, so I do not believe Airbus will be able to use the A333 as a sweetener as it has on other orders.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): I (still) think that if the 787's were launched 10% bigger the 787 family would be a stronger option for airlines like BA.
Quoting EI321 (Reply 16): EK & LH also complained that it was too small I believe. Hovever, the 787 is designed to replace the 767 so it cant be too big.
The 7E7 was closer to the 767, but airlines wanted something closer to the 764/A332 and A333/A343 so the 787-8 and 787-9 grew, but Boeing also put in place future growth with the 787-10, 787-11, and even a conceivable (but extremely unlikely) 787-12. The 787-10 might not have the raw range of the A350XWB-900, but it will have 772ER capacity and range with much better operating economics (better, if only slightly, then the A350XWB on similar sectors, I imagine, thanks to lower weight and less thirsty engines).
And if the 787-10 can carry more payload out to 7500nm then the 772ER can, at a price cheaper then the 772LR, it could be a popular replacement step and blunt Airbus' attempts to muscle in on the market, at least with current 777 operators (it should prove quite popular with A340 operators, of course).
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2818 posts, RR: 43 Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10654 times:
Between BA's sudden decision to push the contest out and EK's, Airbus must have gone to carriers and said "the specs for the 350-1000 won't be available for 6 months" hoping to freeze any contracts out there in place. Not a new tactic, in fact Airbus has already one it twice just with the 350. IT can backfire... The AC and NW deals occurred under the first freeze, while the SQ deal occurred under the second.
Gokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1116 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10487 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5): The WhaleJet is shaping up to be the biggest failure in the history of commercial aviation. Airbus will probably lose somewhere in the range of $10 to 20 billion on the program. No other commercial aviation fiasco has ever come close to having wasted that much money.
Zvezda my friend. Here you go with your "WhaleJet" predictions I don't know how you write off such a big project that has at least 30 years life span this early. Did the A380 project hit major bumps on the road? Absolutely. Does that warrant a complete failure of the program? Absolutely not. Airbus has many years to sell and further develop(think A389, or A380R) since they over engineered the A388. I think many 744 operators of today that hasn't ordered the A380 yet will order sometime during the programs life span, BA being one of them.
As far as the A350, BA and others seem to be interested in the 350-1000 variant, but BA being a 767 operator its not far fetched to see them operating a mix of 787's and A350's am I wrong?
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3672 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10362 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5): The A340 is neither a winner nor a loser unless one considers that it killed the 747-400, which was good for Airbus. The WhaleJet is shaping up to be the biggest failure in the history of commercial aviation.
Your opinion about the Jumbojet and the A380 really interests me !! And you don't sound biased at all
25 Dutchjet: There is more going on here..........BA is not ordering an airplane in the A350/787 category at this moment because, from an economic and financial po
26 Coa747: We have seen this game before. Airlines waiting for the latest round of A350 specs only to be burned later and fall further down the line, i.e. Singap
27 EI321: They were, and still are going to order one or the other before either enters service, so in service performance wont happen in time to influence the
28 Flysherwood: They better hurry then. They have 23 years left if what you say about it being a 30 year project is correct. Let's see; if what Mr. Leahy says is tru
29 DeltaDC9: Didnt they say that about the L1011? Nothing is a given, no matter how good it is.
30 Gokmengs: I'm far from being a "Airbus Aficionado" trust me, if thats what you are implying so let me get that out of the way first. All I believe is its reall
31 DeltaDC9: No one planned, or could have even conceived the kind of success the 747 has seen with 1500 copies sold. Boeing was prepared but had no idea the scal
32 DAYflyer: While the -10 may be suitable for some, the market has spoken regarding the size of the 787 -8 & -9.
33 AndesSMF: It is the only airplane they have a chance against, since they will be years later than the 787. If Airbus had only aimed the A350 against the 787, t
34 Gokmengs: Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the life span of the PROGRAM, not an individual 747 frame. Fair and probably right assumption, but if t
35 BoomBoom: Consultant Scott Hamilton said Airbus has work to do before prospects for the A350 can be regarded as promising. "...the A380, without a doubt, is a
36 BigJKU: Assuming they sold them all in one family and had no further development cost. The problem for the A380 will be that they will have completed 80 or s
37 AndesSMF: Yes, but a good percentage of the 747 success has had to do with the freighter program, and that part of the A380 program is very uncertain at the mo
38 NW727251ADV: What are you talking about?? Boeing ALWAYS from day one intended on stretching the 777 to what became the -300 series. Boeing didn't decided several
39 Scbriml: Karan69 said absolutely nothing about Boeing stretching the 777, all he pointed out was that without the A340 on the market, Boeing would have had si
40 Birdseed: Indeed. I think it's fairly clear that the A340 should have been a much better aircraft than it is (arguably the 500/600s were a late attempt by Airbu
41 BA787: That thought has always struck me too. I'm a big supporetr of both the 787 and the A350 programs, but looking at BAs current fleet, they seem to be s
42 Karan69: Mate before you tell me to get my facts straight, i guess you should clearly read that i write only about the 343, and how the 777 family was launche
43 Solnabo: Did I miss any reply inhere, but there´s great news for QR n the 350XWB who´s gonna get 80 of them, the order will be confirmed at the Paris Air Sho
44 DeltaDC9: Yes, I would think so. Adding in the support income from each frame, and other benifits above and beyond the sticker price 700 would make it very suc
45 BigJKU: The 747-8 is an improvement to an already existing product. Were I in Boeing's position you use that to basically bleed off business from the A380 fo
46 BigJKU: As an investor I would not qualify the A380 a success unless it could bring me at least a return equal to what I could have gotten just sitting my mo
47 Jacobin777: ...actually, its up to $18-$20 billion dollars now....
48 AirbusA6: Competition has spurred on the manufacturers well. Airbus pioneer the WB twin market with the A300 and A310, but are outsold by the 767. The A330/343
49 DeltaDC9: That is why I am saying the real break (point of success) even is much higher that the recovery of the expenses, hense the grey area that will be arg
50 Danny: Only because dollar is so weak. But you shoulkd not revalue costs incurred in the past It makes zero sense.
51 Pygmalion: It has nothing to do with revaluation of the dollar... It is the additional 6-7billion dollars that Airbus has poured into the program to recover that
52 EI321: How much of that figure is the inclusion of compensation, ie how much of it actually accounts for upfront development costs of the A380?
53 DL021: The 777 did more to kill the 744 than anything else out there. The A-340 doesn't match it for performance or economics. A-340 did replace a goodly nu
54 Astuteman: There's absolutely no guarantee that the A350-1000 or 787-10 will beat the CASM of the 747-8 or A380 Watch Zvezda's postings specific to the A380 and
55 Jacobin777: ....true, but those loans to have to be repaid eventually... ....not to mention, the A380 fiasco has caused a majour hit to Airbus bottom line...and
56 Astuteman: It may be me making a semantic distinction in my own mind between "investment" and "penalties/delay costs"... Regards
57 WingedMigrator: Oh come on, you're holding back, Zvezda... Why do you presume that the A388 would have to break even before derivatives are developed? The go / no-go
58 Astuteman: Indeed. Such equivocation is .... unusual That'll be 500 frames for break-even, then... Regards
59 Atmx2000: In fact I assume that the A380 won't break even without a follow on model. I just don't know if that model will sell well to recoup total costs.
60 Jacobin777: ...I think that very well might be the case........which would mean lower numbers for Airbus' "costs" on the A380 program.... ..but I'm of the former
61 Ravel: To me it sounds like airlines are interested in A350, very much so. Another thing is if it is actually a better choice than Boeing 787 for most of the
62 BigJKU: I do not assume break even is necessary before a derivative is developed. I do assume that Airbus has to finish a couple of things though. 1. They ha
63 PM: If it's the only 650-800 seat plane on sale (and it will be) and pax growth continues to outpace runway construction in places like LHR, SIN, SYD and
64 DAYflyer: I would think so too, but with the very slow sales, it is doubtful it will see those numbers.
65 AirFrnt: No, the elevated costs are a reflection of the cost overruns in the A380 program.
66 Scouseflyer: Give it a year or two and then, if they're still stuck on c150 then I'll agree with you but I reckon once planes start rolling out to customers, pros
67 Stitch: No, the elevated costs are a reflection of the cost overruns in the A380 program. I imagine it is a mixture of both, as the Euro has strengthened dur
68 EI321: ...........The cost of compansation accounts for most of the difference. Is that difference an actual cash payout, or is it written off as a paper lo
69 Stitch: Depends on how it is disbursed and accounted for. Either way, it's going to affect future profits for those customers who applied their compensation
70 EI321: Does it? Considering that airlines dont pay for the bulk of an aircraft until its given to them, I suspect that the money is just accounted for as a
71 SSTsomeday: So the 787-10 does not compete directly with the 350-1000? The 350 is a larger and has more range, am I understanding that correctly? It seems that Bo
72 SEPilot: That is my opinion, and the fact that new orders had dried up BEFORE the major delays were announced just comfims it. The 747 was the first really lo
73 WAH64D: IMO its blatantly obvious that the A350-1000 will effectively kill the 772 stone dead. Boeing should be looking at improving the range and efficiency
74 EI321: I think that the A350-900 * 787-10 are closer to the 777-200ER. The A350-1000 will be the deathblow to the 777-300ER. But I am refering to new orders
75 BigJKU: I think what will happen is Boeing will start looking at upgrading the 777 and arrive at the conclusion that it would be better to just build a new p
76 Stitch: The 777-200, 787-10 and A350XWB-900 are all relatively in the same category, as are the 777-300, A340-600 and A350XWB-1000. The A350XWB is expected to
77 Karan69: Is there any news on upgrades Boeing intends to do on the 777 family, i know they were successful in reducing the weight of the 772 LR by about 7 ton
78 Jacobin777: ..and they are still getting some new orders....
79 SEPilot: I agree with almost all of your analysis. I think the reason why the A350XWB ended up where it did is that its size was never properly thought out; i
80 Stitch: I'm not sure Boeing actually reduced the 772LR's weight by that amount. I believe it was more a design study by Boeing and QF to see if they could lo
81 EI321: I said the A350 will kill the 777. The 777 will do fine for at least another few years as not all airlines are able to wait for the nearest slots. It
82 Stitch: Well even if they did knock it down all seven tons, the 787-8's OEW is 67,000lbs lighter beyond that, so QF would be remiss to not ask for that, even
83 Astuteman: If you'd have said that about the "old" A350, I would have agreed. It's almost certainly NOT true about the A350XWB. It's size is extremely well thou
84 Atmx2000: It certainly is not sized to be a 744 replacement. The 777 can never be stretched into the same size class as the 744 without becoming too long. The
85 Astuteman: I would have thought an 80m long 9-abreast aircraft would readily match a 744's capacity. Being nearly as tall in cross-section as the 777, AND made
86 Atmx2000: It looks to fall about 20 pax short. Well if it is 232", it falls a bit short of both the 787 (235") and the 777 (244").
87 Astuteman: But it isn't 232" is the side-to-side measurement. The a350 is ovoid, like the 787. I don't know the measurement, but it were "in proportion" with th
88 Zvezda: I would find efficiency discussions limited to aerodynamic efficiency and propulsion efficiency unproductive, if not misleading. There is absolutely
89 Astuteman: Whilst definitely only part of the picture, they're far less misleading than efficiency discussions which are limited only to Operational Empty Weigh
90 Zvezda: OEW is tossed around A.net as a surrogate for structural efficiency, which can be measured in several different ways, but most commonly as payload/OEW
91 Stitch: Aye, aye. But every pound of non-revenue-generating structure you do not have to lift into the air and ferry 5-8000nm helps, even if you have very ef
92 Astuteman: There's only one way to measure structural efficiency, and that's MTOW/OEW. The structure isn't clever enough to know whether it's hauling a large pa
93 Keesje: I think that if the A350 is not defined it is difficult to conclude that it will not be as economical to operate as the 787. As you say, it may just
94 Stitch: Thank you for the detail, Astuteman. And yes, it would be cool if somebody with specific knowledge could hold a symposium on the TechOps section. I've
95 SEPilot: Just consider if someone else can figure out how to get those more efficient engines or wings without the extra weight. But your point is valid. I ha
96 Astuteman: INDEED! That would be the win-win, and CFRP wings, and CFRP nacelles etc, are all in pursuit of that holy grail. I was just concerned that our OEW "m
97 SEPilot: This is one of the unfortunate aspects of the A380. If they had optimised the -800 it would perhaps be selling better; but since the structure and wi
98 Brendows: The A350XWB is more like a flat ovoid, its fuselage is not as tall as the 787. This is what its shape looks like:
99 Stitch: I'm not sure a PR CG image should be used as a definitive statement. After all, look at how the 787 evolved as the design was tested more and more tho