Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Late Start Has Perks For Airbus  
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9319 times:

Article outlining some pros and cons of being 5 years behind.

Quote:
TOULOUSE, France -- Nobody will watch the debut this month of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner with greater interest than the 600 Airbus engineers here working around the clock to design a rival midsize jet.

The Airbus workers will be waiting for the production miscues that are inevitable in an aircraft as groundbreaking as the Dreamliner, made largely of composite materials. And they will try to steer their new plane clear of similar pitfalls when it rolls out in 2012.

That's one perk of being late, very late, to market, Airbus officials say.

Because of earlier strategic and design mistakes, Airbus' answer to the hot-selling Dreamliner, the A350 XWB, trails its counterpart by five years, a long lag time for an industry in which competing models usually debut within a year or two of each other.

Boeing has grabbed the early sales lead, racking up about 500 more orders for the 787 than Airbus has garnered for the A350. But officials at Airbus think their aircraft will be technically superior, in part because they will watch and learn from Boeing and take advantage of technological advances.

"Five years is a lot [of time], but it's a very useful lot," said Alan Pardoe, director of product marketing for the A350 and other long-range Airbus aircraft. "We've got five years more of materials, technology, development and research. Plus, we've got the airline endorsement of what Boeing is doing with the airplane to guide us."

And on the A380:

Quote:
Airbus also is trying to reclaim its reputation for top-flight engineering, which was tarnished with the embarrassing glitch that delayed production of its flagship, the double-decker A380 jet, by two years.

"The A380 is on track," said John Leahy, Airbus' chief operating officer and top salesman. "The first airplane will be delivered in October, and we're taking that production rate up to nearly 50 [planes] per year. We haven't forgotten how to build airplanes, much as the people in Seattle would like you to believe." While Boeing is headquartered in Chicago, its major facilities are on the West Coast.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...613792.story?coll=chi-business-hed

Good to hear some direct quotes. They also outline the intention to avoid any mistakes like those on the A380.

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9288 times:

It is never an advantage to be 5 years behind if the product you are behind is successful.

Can you make the best of it? Sure. Does it give your product a chance to be even better? Sure (but it's not assured). But it's just not true it's an advantage.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
But it's just not true it's an advantage.

It's the silver lining of the big dark cloud, how's that?

One important factor to bear in mind is this: even with rollout just around the corner, much of the risk in the 787 program has yet to be retired. Not to say that they haven't already retired many technical and programmatic risks (things have evidently gone rather smoothly to this point), but there could still be snafus on the way through flight testing, certification, production ramp-up and delivering 112 frames by the end of 2009. Obviously, Airbus will be watching this closely, and as the article points out, they will have the "luxury" of reacting as needed on the A350. Come to think of it, that silver lining is rather thin Big grin


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30889 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
"Five years is a lot [of time], but it's a very useful lot," said Alan Pardoe, director of product marketing for the A350 and other long-range Airbus aircraft. "We've got five years more of materials, technology, development and research. Plus, we've got the airline endorsement of what Boeing is doing with the airplane to guide us."

While it is true Airbus is also using CFRP, they are not following Boeing's direction in how it is implemented.

This will probably come across as being harsh on Airbus, but it is clear airlines have faith in Boeing's implementation with close to 700 orders on the books. Airbus had a very good week with the A350 at Paris, but the majority of those orders were conversions of original A350 orders or MoUs offered at favorable prices and delivery times (since they have waited too long for the 787).

If the RFPs for BA, LH, and/or EK go to the A350, that will be an important "endorsement" of Airbus' panel approach in my personal view.

[Edited 2007-07-01 21:49:31]

User currently offlineTomFoolery From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 529 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9086 times:

In 5 years, boeing can do alot of damage to a demanding market. Airlines who are not prepared to invest in a super-sized aircraft, yet demand modern efficient aircraft will not wait 5 additional years to see 'what the other guy will offer.´ Airlines will purchase according to their projected needs at a particular time. If the Boeing is the only A/C that fits the needs of the airline that is available when the airline needs it, that is what the customer will buy.
With proven delays, and a MAJOR false start, the A350 XWB 5 year lag may be rather toxic for the kick-off of the program. A major savior tor the XWB is that there are fleets and business plans that lend themselves well to continued Airbus loyalty (maintenance programmes, infrastrucure, certifications, tooling, etc), and this will ensure a future for the XWB indeed, but I dont see it being the industry savior that Airbus is touting.

From the report, my general opinion is that airbus is grasping at straws. The game is underway, and Airbus is not even on the field.



Paper makes an airplane fly
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8998 times:

Plus, in those years of development to 2013 when the A350XWB comes out, don't you think don't you think that Boeing might tweak some shortcomings on the 787, if, indeed, there were some and then even put one over on the 350?

User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

Quoting from the URL inthe Thread starter:

Quote:
The Airbus workers will be waiting for the production miscues that are inevitable in an aircraft as groundbreaking as the Dreamliner, made largely of composite materials. And they will try to steer their new plane clear of similar pitfalls when it rolls out in 2012.
..............................
Plus, we've got the airline endorsement of what Boeing is doing with the airplane to guide us."

..............................
There is little doubt that the statements above are applicable if Airbus were developping an aircraft essentially similar and equivalent to the B787.

But it is further stated:

Quote:
But officials at Airbus think their aircraft will be technically superior, in part because they will..........take advantage of technological advances
..............................
We've got five years more of materials, technology, development and research

This means that the aircraft will not have too many similarities with the B747 because of:

- the composuite technology applied will be widely different, as Airbus has confirmed
- the size of the family members coincide only at B789 versus A358
- the engines will be also very different
- and --as Airbus rightly assess, that coming 5 or more years late to the market with a model equivalent to the competition's makes little sense,-- they will not widely use the same compnents and technology as the B787, but try to take advantage of the technological progress of the the years differential between the design dates.

Therefore, is the following statement still applicable ?

Quote:
Airbus knows that in other ways, such as potential loss of sales, time isn't on its side.
That's why Airbus is trying to shave 30 percent to 40 percent off the development time for its new jet while it attempts a major corporate restructuring that will shed 10,000 jobs and six plants across Europe.

As mentioned, this must be achieved during the inevitable organization and labor related disruptions related with the restructuring,
It is further argued that

Quote:
Airbus intends to speed the plane's development by about 18 months by using a new process that keeps engineers, both in-house and at suppliers, working in tandem, the company said. Advances in computer simulation also mean they will have to do far less testing of aerodynamics in wind tunnels, a time-consuming process,

As far as I understand, this was from the beginning a conditio-sine-qua-non of the now very large outsourcing of work and components. In the present case, as Airbus is performing such wide outsourcing for the firsts time applied to a basic model, many snags could arise even under the best organization.

Question:

Was this spead-up of 18 months which Airbus is intending to achieve already considered when the EIS 2013 was named ?

aminobwana

[Edited 2007-07-01 22:23:24]

[Edited 2007-07-01 22:27:24]

User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8907 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Can you make the best of it? Sure. Does it give your product a chance to be even better? Sure (but it's not assured). But it's just not true it's an advantage.

I agree.

They simply have to make the best of the situation they are in. It's neither comfortable nor desperate.



The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8653 times:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
"Five years is a lot [of time], but it's a very useful lot," said Alan Pardoe, director of product marketing for the A350 and other long-range Airbus aircraft. "We've got five years more of materials, technology, development and research. Plus, we've got the airline endorsement of what Boeing is doing with the airplane to guide us."

The only way the 5 year delay works to an Airbus advantage is if there are major problems with the essentially all Composite 787 design.

Should there not be any major problems with the 787, and should Boeing figure out how to significantly increase production by 2013 (which Boeing has indicated they are looking at).... Then by and large the A350 will be passed by in many places. That is not to say that the A350 will not have some market in larger planes as it seems to be more targeted to the 777 - except I don't think Boeing will sit still with their 777. They have plenty of time to announce what they are going to do with the 777 after the 787 program starts to prove itself (assuming their are no major problems with the 787).


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8617 times:

I don't think Airbus could have (or would have) done a plastic A350 much before now.

An awkward fact of this 5 year "delay" is that it was necessary to wait for Boeing's technology. To invent the 787 was no easy feat. Could Airbus really have done the A350 by now? Given engine availability, for one thing, and the A380 story (for another), I would say no.

Airbus has done the best it could. Now, the A350 is being designed, and promises to be a wonderful jet. It is no shame to fall a little behind Boeing after its strongest and luckiest performance ever, with the 787 program.


User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airbus' claim of an advantage only holds true if Boeing's design department doesn't do anything during the next five years. We all know that's not going to be the case. Airbus might indeed produce a very good A350, but because of the A380 debacle and their futzing around with A350 to this point, they'll likely be once again reacting to Boeing innovation rather than leading the market.

User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8519 times:

Quoting Flashmeister (Reply 10):
Airbus might indeed produce a very good A350, but because of the A380 debacle and their futzing around with A350 to this point, they'll likely be once again reacting to Boeing innovation rather than leading the market.

We'll see what kind of innovation Boeing will be able to pull out of their hat in order to modernise the B777.



The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8407 times:

I think Airbus's serious strategic mistake was not so much the delay after delay of the 350 and lack of substantive technical details, but their inability to compensate by upgrading the 333 and/or 332 to longer ranges as a stop gap measure. That would seem to have provided flexibility for (and increased the number of) potential Buyers not wanting to wait 7 years for fuel efficient 2 engine 8K routes.

User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

We can only assume what could occur by looking at the past.

The only times that I recall a competitor airplane coming later than its equivalent airplane was the 707/DC-8 and the DC-10 and L-1011. By all accounts, the DC-8 and L-1011 were superior airplanes, but they both lost the sales race to their competitors. They were all equivalent to their competitors.

The A330 and 777 wiped out the A340.

The 787 is the first airliner to offer CFRP fuselage. The A-350 might offer better technology and more efficiency over the 787, but it is still late to the game. And the slight advantage it might offer over the 787 might not be sufficient to convince a lot of airlines to wait for it. After all, the 787 will be plenty more efficient than the aircraft it is meant to replace. So a 3%-10% efficiency gain over that might not be enough to convince the majority of airlines.

Of course Airbus also did the right thing by offering the A350 as more of a 787/777 competitor rather than a straight 787 equivalent. If I understand correctly, the A350 offers significant operating savings over the 777.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 13):
Of course Airbus also did the right thing by offering the A350 as more of a 787/777 competitor rather than a straight 787 equivalent. If I understand correctly, the A350 offers significant operating savings over the 777.

Agreed. Assuming Airbus will be able to deliver satisfactory A3510 without further future delays, and taking as a fact the valuable opinions of the A-netters that a low development cost B777NG could not compete, at this moment Boeing, if not reacting, would lose the market of the 400 pax sector, including the replacement of the still flying B744 and the older B773. The latter being particularly unpalatable because many of such airlines are loyal Boeing customers.

IMO, what will happen in such case that Boeing will either develop the B7810ER, with characteristic at least similar to the A3510 and even if quite different to the B789, with many common technological characteristics, which will allow them do it possibly before the A3510 is available, or simply address the Y3 earlier as they would like. Given their existing huge timing advantage generally, ,they would be able to implement timely any of these alternatives.

Both alternatives will more expensive and less profitable for Boeing as continue to sell for some years more the B773ER !! Also would complicate some the timing of the Y1. Therefore, it will be not a positive for Airbus, but more a negative for Boeing, and this seems be the reason that the latter will not decide before Airbus affirms the specs and delivery time of the A3510

aminobwana


User currently offlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7943 times:

Well the 777 came after the A340 and MD11 and would be considered by many to be a superior aircraft and has certainly sold better, so I don't see why the same would not be true for the A350. I think the main advantage of the 787 is its smaller size rather than 5 year head start. The A350 will be a fabulous aircraft and will sell in high numbers but it can't directly replace 767s which seems to be the priority for many carriers at the moment. It can of course replace the 777 but most airlines don't want or need to replace them yet.


Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7854 times:

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 15):
Well the 777 came after the A340 and MD11 and would be considered by many to be a superior aircraft and has certainly sold better, so I don't see why the same would not be true for the A350

I would not call them really equivalent aircraft. It was a 4, 3 and 2 holer.

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 15):
I think the main advantage of the 787 is its smaller size rather than 5 year head start.

Agree, that's why I already wrote in previous threads that Airbus is leaving the lower capacity WB market to Boeing, and attempting to take the higher capacity market by providing a 777 replacement also.

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 15):
The A350 will be a fabulous aircraft and will sell in high numbers but it can't directly replace 767s which seems to be the priority for many carriers at the moment

Being a fabulous aircraft is no guarantee of commercial success.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3550 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7446 times:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
"Five years is a lot [of time], but it's a very useful lot," said Alan Pardoe, director of product marketing for the A350 and other long-range Airbus aircraft. "We've got five years more of materials, technology, development and research. Plus, we've got the airline endorsement of what Boeing is doing with the airplane to guide us."

Bet he would swap products with Boeing if he had the chance !!!!!

The only way five years will be as "very useful" as claimed will be if the 787 turns out to be a total turkey; and I for one can't see that happening


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6883 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 4):
A major savior tor the XWB is that there are fleets and business plans that lend themselves well to continued Airbus loyalty (maintenance programmes, infrastrucure, certifications, tooling, etc), and this will ensure a future for the XWB indeed, but I dont see it being the industry savior that Airbus is touting.

This, and the fact that the airlines desperately want two suppliers is Airbus's main hope at this point. But they still have to come up with an aircraft that is at least the equal of the 787, and I'm not totally convinced that they will do that.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 13):
By all accounts, the DC-8

I would argue this; the DC-8 was certainly a better built aircraft than the 707, but it did not have as good high-speed high-altitude performance, and the early ones at any rate did not meet their performance goals. That is why Pan Am, who ordered both aircraft, got rid of their DC-8's early and never bought another one. I would say, however, that on balance the DC-8 ended up at least equal to the 707, and the Series 60 and 70 aircraft were spectacular, but they were outclassed by the emergence of the widebodies

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16):
I would not call them really equivalent aircraft. It was a 4, 3 and 2 holer.

What difference does that make? They still competed for the same market, based on number of seats and range. Whether it has 2 or 20 that and economics are what matter to the airlines.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16):

Being a fabulous aircraft is no guarantee of commercial success.


 checkmark 
Very true; classic example being the L-1011.
As mentioned above, Airbus's main salvation at this point is the desire, for a number of reasons, for her not to fail. I also believe it was a smart decision to make the A350 larger than the 787 to target the 777 more than the 787, but this too has its drawbacks. The larger the plane, the smaller the market, and when Boeing launches Y3 (which the A350-1000 will force them to do) it will leave the A350 in an uncomfortable place once Y3 enters service. Airbus will need to come up with at least two planes smaller than the A350 in a timely manner to compete effectively with Boeing's products (assuming Y1 follows the 787), and I'm not at all sure that they can. The overriding imperative is that Airbus simply MUST get the A350 right. If once it enters service it is perceived to be inferior to the 787 Airbus is in a very uncomfortable place; even if it is perceived to be superior the fact that it is so much later will diminish that achievement, although that will certainly revitalize Airbus's image.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've asked about reverse engineering before but I wonder how closely and through what means will AB engineers look at a completed 787? It's not lioke they could buy one and disassemble it but will they make arrangements to inspect aircraft of dual customers? Will they try to look athe assembly plants making the barrels?

User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6721 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
A350 orders or MoUs offered at favorable prices

Source?



Keep it clear of the propellers
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 20):
I've asked about reverse engineering before but I wonder how closely and through what means will AB engineers look at a completed 787?

But we already know that the A350 is a different design, so the answer is a blunt NO.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6883 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 20):
I've asked about reverse engineering before but I wonder how closely and through what means will AB engineers look at a completed 787? It's not lioke they could buy one and disassemble it but will they make arrangements to inspect aircraft of dual customers? Will they try to look athe assembly plants making the barrels?

The real key on the 787 is not to be found by reverse engineering, as it is not in the dimensions and tolerances of the parts but in the processes with which they are made. I'm sure that Airbus has plenty of industrial spies sniffing around, but if the processes are patented (which I am sure most of them are) the information is public but Airbus can't use it without license. It does, however, give them insight into how Boeing is doing it and will be helpful in figuring out a way that does not infringe on the patents. But as I understand it, Airbus went to panels partly to avoid that issue completely, as they did not want to lose more time. They do know how to work with composites; they just do not know how to make fuselage barrels at this point.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6605 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 23):
I'm sure that Airbus has plenty of industrial spies sniffing around

If this allegation is true, you think this is a practice unique to airbus?


User currently offlineHelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6578 times:

Quoting 797charter (Reply 21):
Source?

Anet myth.


25 SEPilot : Heck no; they all do it. It is only illegal if they steal confidential information, and especially if they use it. Finding out what and how the compe
26 Stitch : Source? I swear, is this forum predominately populated with parrots? I am sick and tired of people, regardless of their time on this forum or their R
27 Revelation : Yes, but the question is, which track is it on? Five years late, it will be a dull echo, not a roar.
28 Post contains images DAYflyer : Pure spin and hyperbole, and they know it.
29 Stitch : Five years late, it will be a dull echo, not a roar. Especially since people seem to think that over the next five years Boeing will not touch the 78
30 Helvknight : My apologies, Stitch. It is a bit reflexive due to the usual rubbish about "Airbus giving away planes", "6 free A330s for a weeks A380 delay" and all
31 Post contains images Stitch : Aircraft purchase deals are not the "Top Secret Umbra" classified items many believe them to be and the fact that the details on things like the "dis
32 Helvknight : Very true. Value added items such as spares, support contracts and training will make a significant contribution to the bottom line, both for the air
33 Aminobwana : Could be this is not a pertinent question. but being the main novelties of the B787: * the composite barrel construction (which Airbus is not using a
34 ContnlEliteCMH : No. Engines, engines, engines. Engines, engines, engines. In my opinion, THIS is the big question: can the engine makers come up with a powerplant in
35 BigJKU : Really all of this is not that important. Boeing is not going to put anything much into the 777 program from this point on. If they can find a cheap
36 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..no, no, no..you got it completely wrong..Airbus does give their planes away...after all, it is a jobs program... ...while I have read the article b
37 Revelation : I'm leery when anyone compares percentages. The two different companies have two different strategies on how to set the list price, and they have two
38 SEPilot : This will be no more successful than Airbus's attempts to answer the 787 with warmed-over A330 variations. It would be a complete waste of money.
39 Post contains images EI321 : Are you talking about tha Mobile Alabama plant ?  Boeing should have learned by now from the A330 lite and 747-8I. Giving the 777 a boob job is akin
40 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..and a few others...
41 Post contains images SEPilot : Either that, or Y3. I suspect they'll go with the latter, even though it means surrendering the 777 sized market for 4-5 years.
42 Post contains images Aminobwana : I do not agree that this would be a wise movement for Boeing. To release the domination of the 400 pax market to Airbus only to be able to make a goo
43 N328KF : This touches on an important point, though you did not state it as such: With the EIS of the 787-10 being similar to that of the A350-900 (its' direc
44 Aminobwana : Thanks. This is what I wanted to say, it seems that due to my bad English I was not clear enough, regards aminobwana
45 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1182...RDS=airbus&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1182...RDS=airbus&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
46 ORDFan : Just a quick not about the article source's -- the Chicago Tribune. I've noticed that more than few threads have been started with articles taken from
47 Stitch : Honestly I have never understood why some people believe if an article is sourced from a news outlet in Seattle, Chicago, France, Germany or the UK i
48 N328KF : Indeed, some of the most scathing EADS Airbus criticism over the past 2-3 years has been from French and German papers.
49 Aminobwana : Without denying the merits if the CHICAGO TRIBUNE, as somebody could say they are biased in favor of their home company Boeing, please note the the A
50 Aminobwana : True, but with exceptions. If the article comes and originates (meaning not transcribed from other) ) from the home town of one of the manufacturers
51 ORDFan : I'm not sure if you're referring to this article or others posted here on airliners.net? No doubt, the WSJ has also had very in-depth coverage of Air
52 Aminobwana : I was refering to your reply 47, I assumed the articles you mentioned were the mentioned by BoomBoom in No. 46. (there are no other nearby). These ar
53 ORDFan : No, I didn't see that thread yet, but I know what you mean. Yeah, as I said the WSJ has been covering the air shows and Boeing/Airbus pretty closely
54 AndesSMF : But there is no realistic comparison between them. Is it not more efficient to have a two engine vs. more engines aircraft? Plus the 777 did one thin
55 SEPilot : This is exactly the point. When an airline looks for a plane it wants one with X number of seats and Y range. They also want the most efficient one t
56 ContnlEliteCMH : Of what advantageous situation do you speak? If you're referring to the quality of the product in this space, this is not a valid argument because th
57 AndesSMF : But my point was that the MD-11 was already known as a dog PRIOR to the introduction of the 777, hence to say they were competitors does not reflect
58 N328KF : The 777-200ER was known from the start. They just didn't deliver it at first. It's as if the first 787s off the line were 787-3s. Boeing didn't exact
59 Aminobwana : I simply was referring to be on the way to bring to the market the B787 5 years or more before the A350XWB !! Yes, that's it. You should write "short
60 AndesSMF : I know it was always on the books to do the ER. But I don't believe the comparison between the A340/777 is completely valid. During the initial A340
61 Stitch : I can certainly by that view, though I expect Boeing will fight to try and keep a strong toe-hold in the 300+ seat long range market, be it 787HGWs o
62 Flysherwood : The difference being the fact that the 777 is so much more efficient than the MD11 or the A340. Thus, the price of fuel being the prime motivator of
63 SEPilot : Well, when the 737 was originally designed the A320 wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye, nor even when the 737-300 was designed. Does that mean that
64 N328KF : Well, there may be hidden cost differences that are not readily apparent. For instance, one could potentially find that monolithic barrels cost less
65 Flighty : The point is, the A350 will be more efficient jet at the -1000 size (773ER size) than the 787 will be. If so, that is a strong play for Airbus. There
66 Aminobwana : 1) We do assume this, but not be sure until Airbus presents firm main specs and delivery terms, as their customers are requesting after issuing order
67 Post contains images SEPilot : This is of course totally true, and I have been saying pretty much the same on most of these discussions. In this instance I was talking strictly abo
68 HB88 : Hmm, I don't know. Boeing coming second with the worlds 2nd commercial jet airliner didn't hurt the 707 a great deal. Then again, it's debatable what
69 N328KF : Well, Boeing learned lessons from both the Comet (structural) and DC-8 (size).
70 HB88 : Which could imply that Airbus may well learn lessons from the Boeing 787 experience (hopefully not of quite the same disastrous magnitude) with the n
71 AndesSMF : The A320 was originally more of a 727 replacement than a 737 replacement. The 733 does not even have the same range as the A320. It was not till the
72 Post contains images HB88 : "waiting for the demise of your competitors product" ?! are you perhaps reading (and believing) too much of Randys marketing blog or Boeings PR spin?
73 Jacobin777 : It's a philosophical question between the two manufacturers..Airbus believes planes will need to be larger inherently larger due to growth, etc....wh
74 Aminobwana : [ Not much, as I noted in former posts. There are too many differences in the concept and components Aside other arguments posted, the B707 was pax wi
75 HB88 : Nonsense. There are many areas of technical commonality and overlap. To name a few: the issues faced with hybrid composite structures, large scale in
76 AndesSMF : But we cannot say what would have occurred with the 707 had the Comet not failed. Therefore, we cannot assume that the A350 will be successful becaus
77 SEPilot : That isn't necessarily the case. The Comet disaster made a lot of people skeptical of jets; the 707 was much bigger, faster, and more efficient, so i
78 HB88 : Um, yep, but that's not the point nor really relevant to the fact of question of what was the first jet civil airliner. Neither is the pax capacity r
79 Aminobwana : As I do not use qualifications as "Nonsense", I will simply state that you have not reviewed former posts of this thread, where I wrote regarding: is
80 Post contains images Flysherwood : Making the windows smaller, for one thing!
81 AndesSMF : They certainly learned their lessons quickly with the 707. Not only the lessons from the Comet, but also the larger fuselage cabin of the DC-8. The 7
82 HB88 : Just because I haven't referred to your posts doesn't mean I haven't read them. I simply didn't find them useful. In any case I disagree. With respec
83 HB88 : Argh!! yes, yes it was!!!, in my post/response it was about who came first - it was important in the context of my comment!!! "£*!"£(*(!%)!££*"!
84 Post contains images Aminobwana : [ Its useless to continue such discussion. I never said there are no communalities, only that there are a lot of no communalities. You say I do not wa
85 XT6Wagon : No, quite wrong in fact. Might want to look up some dates for the 707 development program, specifically the dash 80. One also might note that the Ame
86 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Yes it is. The Comet IV and the B707 simply aren't comparable aircraft. Given the topic being whether there is an advantage to the A350 being later t
87 Shenzhen : This is interesting. Airbus won't really be able to obtain any significant information on "production miscues" until the airplane is "in service" and
88 Post contains images Revelation : Perfect example. And that same fuse width has lived on in 727/737/757. It's really not a question of overcoming a sales lead. Airbus needs to make a
89 Aminobwana : I failed to mention above, as I was not aware of these regulatory requirements, in my replies 74, 79 and 84, as a further support of my arguments. Ð
90 Shenzhen : Remember back when when Airbus stated they could just reduce the price of the A330 because the sunken costs had already been recouped, therefore any
91 Gbfra : Is there any evidence that the A350 will be sub par or is it just that you want it to be?
92 Shenzhen : There is more market place evidence to say that it will be sub par (how many renditions), then Airbus saying the opposite and spinning the 5 year del
93 CygnusChicago : In other words, since you cannot provide it, there is no market evidence.
94 Shenzhen : No, just because you demand evidence doesn't mean it will be provided. Nothing personal, but I've yet to see you back anything up with anything, ever
95 2175301 : That is a great question; In reality this is yet to be determined. If the 787 composite fuselage is as successful as many people think it will be...
96 David_itl : Such a sub par airplane that SQ and QR have ordered it. No doubt we should start petition both those airlines for their hierarchy to be removed, to b
97 XT6Wagon : My problem is that thus far the A350 numbers and other press that Airbus has put out makes little sense. Even worse IMO, is the Marketing the A358 aga
98 Aminobwana : Above discussion shows most clearly the main A350 problem: There is not enough evidence either way and the orders (conditioned or not, LOIs amd MOUs)
99 Jacobin777 : from the size, to MTOW, etc. the A358 basically competes with the B789....
100 Shenzhen : We know Singapore ordered the 787 and there are rumors that Qatar have also. The big question would be why would an airline buy the 787, then buy the
101 Post contains images Aminobwana : Just the opposite. If these managements are able to entertain the possibility to get an aircraft, par or not too sub-par, to a great opportunity pric
102 Shenzhen : Once upon a time I would have argued that Airbus wouldn't / couldn't allow a contract from a launch customer to have allowances for the Customer to w
103 Post contains images SEPilot : Airbus would have been wise to follow Boeing's example on this. Boeing was already building the KC-135 when Douglas released the specs of the DC-8, a
104 Aminobwana : See this from the QR, SQ or EI side: How any responsible airline can issue an order under such conditions, if there are no easy way out ?? By the way
105 Stitch : It does kind of have the look of the 777-100, doesn't it? But then, Airbus' hands are tied by the situation. The 787-8 market will soak up a great de
106 Joni : If the A350 has superior operating economics (over the B787), it can't be considered "sub-par" since there are just the two companies making passenge
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...
Dubai Aerospace Is 'likely Candidate' For Airbus posted Fri May 4 2007 17:02:15 by Clickhappy
What Next For Airbus? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 09:38:57 by Tugger
Working For Airbus In Hamburg? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 09:35:23 by Den346
Chances For Airbus To "Win" Boeing In 2007 posted Tue Jan 23 2007 16:43:33 by LHStarAlliance
What’s Ahead In 2007 For Airbus And Boeing? posted Wed Jan 10 2007 00:29:29 by BoomBoom
Open Surce Development Software For Airbus-Report posted Fri Dec 22 2006 12:23:26 by Lumberton
Who Has Ordered 152 Airbus This Month posted Thu Nov 30 2006 13:48:35 by PanAm_DC10
US Airways-Delta Merger Good For Airbus. posted Sun Nov 26 2006 12:41:37 by LHStarAlliance
Who Will Supply The Parts For Airbus? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 19:34:25 by Idlewild
Union Has Called For Strike In Ryanair posted Wed Oct 11 2006 19:33:18 by Bullpitt