Sofianec From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Aug 2007, 45 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12435 times:
Oh wow. Wise old people used to say: "The best defense in tough times is the attack defense". Instead of talking about problems of the 787 program, the obscurity of 767 after the tanker fiasco and the ever-increasing uncertainty with both the 747-8I and recently of the 737RS, Boeing's CEO throws dust at rival. The art of war version 21st century
Fair use:
LONDON (Thomson Financial) - Boeing Co chief executive Jim McNerney said the U.S. aerospace company still has 'a five-year lead' over rival Airbus, despite the delays in delivering its new 787 aircraft, the Wall Street Journal reported.
McNerney said Boeing is making 'significant progress' in resolving the problems that have delayed the 787 by at least 15 months, adding that the company remains in talks with airlines about paying penalties for delivery delays.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2246 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12233 times:
Well, now that the 'Boeing always underpromisses and overperforms' mantra can't be used anymore, Jim McNerney just pulled out another PR one-liner from his sleeve: 'we're 5 years ahead of Airbus'!
Somebody needs to inform this gentleman that he's basically lost 2 years of his 5 year lead already....
Not to mention it is starting to look like there isn't a real advantage to be expected from the intensive use of composites on planes for the first few years, so just what technological lead is he talking about?
They are definitely doing things differently, but right now it isn't going anywhere, so to call that a lead...
Oh well, the man has to say something... but whether he actually still believes it???
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12162 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3): Not to mention it is starting to look like there isn't a real advantage to be expected from the intensive use of composites on planes for the first few years
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12060 times:
I think the best thing about this statement is to ignore it. Not worth an A vs B war. Be gentle with him. He has to say so...
@N14AZ
The 788 ( 50% composites) can be lucky if it gets the same OEW as the same size (12% composites ) 332, and will never reach the payload the 332 has now. Airbus on the 350 seems to have an overweight problem of 8 tons. So the weight reduction from composites on airliners is marginal, and it may well be that the optimum has already be reached on the A320 with its 28% weight fraction of composites - which is heavier than the same size 737 which is pure aluminium.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12020 times:
Lead in what? Orders? Deliveries?
Anyone has always the lead in something!
How about these:
- Boeing has the infinite lead (on air tankers for the Italian market)!
- Airbus has the all-time lead (for passenger VLA's) in this millennium!
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11812 times:
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11573 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 3): Oh well, the man has to say something... but whether he actually still believes it???
Well he is the "big chief" if he can't change something that he no longer believes in then there is hope for those of us Monday Morning Quarterbacks, it would mean that they are catering to us the masses rather than what they as the professionals know is good and should be done.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2246 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11302 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 12): Had they decided to go with more aluminium, how many tons heavier would it be now, and I doubt it's so much.
I think most observers will have gotten the point by now: the industry as a whole got carried away a bit too easily by CFRP technology!
CFRP technology definitely looks like it has great potential over time, but CFRP fuselages of the first generation (as found on the 787/A350) are NOT going to bring us the fabulous weight savings that have been promised to us. As such it is promising technology for the future, but it is not the holy grail of aviation it was made to look not so long ago!
Right now all that can be hoped for realistically is that these first generation CFRP fuselages are equally resistant, equally easy to fix and equally light as today's Al alloy fuselages so that they do not turn into a liability for their operators and that it turns out that they are cheaper in maintenance over time. If that's the case, then the gamble will have paid off at least a bit, otherwise it won't.
As time moves on and more is learned about CFRP fuselages, their advantages will definitely be fully exploited, but to say that Boeing has a 5 (or 3 year) lead in the domain is just wrong IMO... They definitely have started off earlier, meaning it is now up to them to make the inevitable mistakes from being the first, mistakes from which all can learn then.
Right now Boeing should hope that the basic choices they have made (barrels over shells for instance, but there are others) to start off with their learning curve do not show to be mistakes by themselves, because otherwise they will find themselves locked into a certain less than optimal concept, having paved the way for others to do better...
It definitely woudn't be the first time in aviation a 'revolutionary new plane' is seen as being a step too far.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 63 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11107 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7): Quoting Sofianec (Thread starter):
Boeing CEO Claims 5-year Lead Over Airbus
Didn't know he was that close a friend of John Leahy....
...I agree..
Comments such as his are of no value whatsoever..
As the leader of one of the largest airplane manufacturer in the world, his job is to have a vision for the future and to make sure things get done on time and within budget...unlike his B787's which are late, overweight and probably going over-budget , as well as B748I, which will be overweight when delivered.. ...
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13): but CFRP fuselages of the first generation (as found on the 787/A350)
I am quite sure that the A350 fuselage represents better what we will see for further developments. I remain with my predictions from this thread ( http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/216974 ) :
Forecast 1: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be inferior regarding crash worthiness
Forecast 2: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be more expensive in production
Forecast 3: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be heavier
Forecast 4: The B787 will be the last airliner using CFRP barrel fuselages
Forecast 5: The NG Narrowbodies from Boeing and Airbus will use CFRP panels
CygnusChicago From United States, joined Mar 2007, 617 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9784 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 14): Comments such as his are of no value whatsoever..
My opinion is that they are of tactical value in reassuring investors. It is unclear what he is referring too. Obviously, the 787 has a 5 year lead on the A350. However, let's recall the findings of Christian Streiff, Airbus' former CEO, who identified that Airbus was technologically about 7 years behind Boeing. Thus, Airbus themselves corroborate the Boeing statement.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
Swallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9200 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7): Didn't know he was that close a friend of John Leahy..
Yeah. He is beginning to sound like the JL of old...
This is what JL had to say to Scott Hamilton, 'The A350 is sold out until 2017/18 and the gap between the A350-900 and the 787-900 has been reduced to one year, Leahy says. The A350-900, the first model to enter service, is slated for delivery in 2013 and the 787-900 under Boeing’s delayed schedule now delivers in 2012. The gap between the A350-900 and the 787-800 has closed to about four years.
Like a good salesman he starts by comparing 359 with the 789 although the 789 is the second derivative off the line. The correct timeline is the 4 year gap between the 359 and the 788 assuming EIS in 09 for the latter and 2013 for the former.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8967 times:
How does that work?
The only comparable models are the 787-9 and A350-800, one of which will EIS in 2012 and one of which will EIS in 2014...
You might as well say that Airbus have enjoyed an 11 year lead over Boeing, as the A330-200 entered service in 1998, and the 787-8, which will JUST overtake it (on some fronts, and not on others)
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 16): However, let's recall the findings of Christian Streiff, Airbus' former CEO, who identified that Airbus was technologically about 7 years behind Boeing.
No he did not!
He said that Airbus were 3 (THREE) years behind Boeing technologically, and it would take them 7 years to close the gap.
(And that was before the 787 slipped 18 months or whatever......)
A little accuracy wouldn't go amiss..
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 16): Thus, Airbus themselves corroborate the Boeing statement.
GlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 459 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8798 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 21): Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 16):
However, let's recall the findings of Christian Streiff, Airbus' former CEO, who identified that Airbus was technologically about 7 years behind Boeing.
No he did not!
He said that Airbus were 3 (THREE) years behind Boeing technologically, and it would take them 7 years to close the gap.
(And that was before the 787 slipped 18 months or whatever......)
A little accuracy wouldn't go amiss.. Smile
So lets put it this way then. That comment is about two years old.Given the delay of the 787 by two years. We have two years of the three gone. If it takes Airbus 7 years to amortize the 3 years it would be little more than two years for the one left, so we are on par ..... but on a more serious side. We will only see where both companies are situated when the A350 eventually enters service.
GlobeEx
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces.
Gigneil From United States, joined Nov 2002, 13815 posts, RR: 88 Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8740 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 21): The only comparable models are the 787-9 and A350-800, one of which will EIS in 2012 and one of which will EIS in 2014...
Just because they're the same size doesn't make them the only comparable/competitive models.
Having another size available is competition in and of itself.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8700 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 23): Just because they're the same size doesn't make them the only comparable/competitive models.
Having another size available is competition in and of itself.
Better make Airbus's earlier lead 15 years then, as the A330-300 EIS'd in 1994....
Shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1066 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7976 times:
Us brits were 5 years ahead in the development of jet powered airliners
Lockheed and McDonald Douglas were many years ahead of others in pioneering wide bodied jets of a certain type
Lets not even reflect on those that were ahead in the development of SST's
And yet airbus bode it's time well when it came to narrowbodies and changed commercial aviation with the A320 series as did Boeing in the 60's with the 727
Sometimes history rewards pioneers. Sometimes it rewards those who took a look around before jumping
Its a relatively imature statement from someone who is clearly a very able industralist
Interesting read. I am still not sure why some members here still question Boeing's decision to go the composite barrel route. It would seem that before Boeing committed the billions of dollars in R&D into the 787 and the "barrel" design, they must have felt very confident in their assessment. Furthermore, their incremental-step tests on fatigue and crush testing done thus far seem to support Boeing's path of design. But let's be sure that before anyone claims the benefits of barrel construction vs. panel construction or panel construction vs. barrel construction, I think we should first wait to see the hard numbers of both flying in-service 787 and 350. Until then, it's all speculation, but I guess that's what a.net is for....
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
Travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7729 times:
Long time reader, first time reply.
I wouldn't place too much emphasis on what the CEO is saying. From what I can fathom he is just benchmarking his company with that of his rival on project milestones.
If we look at the 787 and A350XWB, Airbus are at a stage where they are starting the industrialisation process of the technologies to be used on their new plane. Boeing was pretty much in the same position 5 years ago with the 787. The exception being the Boeing CFRP Barrel fuselage design was at an advanced stage of industrialisation (technologies and production process).
Interesting topic. Industrialisation of technologies is one thing. Maturing these technologies into production processes is another. I wonder who will be judged as "getting it right" in the end.
Floridaflyboy From United States, joined Jun 2006, 1673 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7663 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 15): Forecast 1: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be inferior regarding crash worthiness
Forecast 2: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be more expensive in production
Forecast 3: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be heavier
Forecast 4: The B787 will be the last airliner using CFRP barrel fuselages
Forecast 5: The NG Narrowbodies from Boeing and Airbus will use CFRP panels
Care to shed some light on why you feel that way? Predictions are absolutely meaningless unless you back them up. I'm curious to know.
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7590 times:
I believe his assumption is that the "one-time" five years ahead will reappear as the 787 begins service at the end of 2009, and Airbus works its way through finally locking down a design; initial production; and finally a delivery (Boeing assumes Airbus will experience the same type of delays).
What is going to hurt Airbus is the great cash sucking sound that is the 380 program. Because of the decisions on the 380, Airbus probably will not have the cash needed to speed-up the 350 program.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17753 posts, RR: 57 Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7556 times:
They HAD a five year lead when Airbus dumped the A350mk1 for the A350XWB (which I still just call the A350...). Now it's 3 years on the 787-8, assuming everything goes okay now for both programs, but only 2 years on the 787-9 vs. A358, and maybe zero years on the 787-10 vs. A359, depending on how each of those progress.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 63 Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7279 times:
Quoting Swallow (Reply 19):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Didn't know he was that close a friend of John Leahy..
Yeah. He is beginning to sound like the JL of old...
This is what JL had to say to Scott Hamilton, 'The A350 is sold out until 2017/18 and the gap between the A350-900 and the 787-900 has been reduced to one year, Leahy says. The A350-900, the first model to enter service, is slated for delivery in 2013 and the 787-900 under Boeing’s delayed schedule now delivers in 2012. The gap between the A350-900 and the 787-800 has closed to about four years.
Like a good salesman he starts by comparing 359 with the 789 although the 789 is the second derivative off the line. The correct timeline is the 4 year gap between the 359 and the 788 assuming EIS in 09 for the latter and 2013 for the former.
"There was a lot of speculation that All Nippon Airlines is ready to sign for an order, but Leahy says ANA hasn’t even
sent a Request for Proposal yet."
So much for the "so-called" upcoming NH A380 order..
???
Seriously, whatever corporate spokesmen say publicly is largely window dressing unless it is a formal statement. Airbus stubbed its toe bigtime with the A380, and Boeing, not to be outdone, has followed suit with the 787. If Airbus succeeds in getting the A350 in the air on schedule and it meets all its performance targets, then they will have gone a long way to restoring the parity that was upset by the 787, although they will probably still be behind. But, as Astuteman says, it's now time for the popcorn.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17753 posts, RR: 57 Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7219 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 32): "There was a lot of speculation that All Nippon Airlines is ready to sign for an order, but Leahy says ANA hasn’t even
sent a Request for Proposal yet."
So much for the "so-called" upcoming NH A380 order..
Well, it's the "worst kept secret in the history of aviation," don't you know.
Sure, NH has repeatedly said the RFP would go out later THIS YEAR but that hasn't stopped certain people from claiming that the deal was signed first last year, then a few months ago, and the RFP is all for show.
In the real world, the RFP hasn't gone out yet, according to Airbus and NH, which should be enough of a verification as any that no deal has been signed or even negotiated at this time. (which is not to say that Boeing and Airbus don't routinely pitch their aircraft to NH, just that the negotiation stage is still ahead of us.)
So, "then why were Airbus officials and those from French government in Japan recently, huh, huh?" some will bluster. Answer: "gee, I don't know, maybe because Airbus is securing partners for the A350 program and there are some pretty big potential partners in the land of the rising sun?"
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
BillReid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6900 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30): They HAD a five year lead when Airbus dumped the A350mk1 for the A350XWB (which I still just call the A350...). Now it's 3 years on the 787-8, assuming everything goes okay now for both programs, but only 2 years on the 787-9 vs. A358, and maybe zero years on the 787-10 vs. A359, depending on how each of those progress.
Of course you assume that the A350 is 100% on time. This is about as likely as any of us becoming CEO of an airline by midnight. The A380 is still dragging its ass, so we can also assume that the A350XWB is at least five years out and maybe longer.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17753 posts, RR: 57 Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6867 times:
Quoting BillReid (Reply 35): Of course you assume that the A350 is 100% on time.
I have to assume that until told otherwise. At least within 3 months, as there HAVE been programs in the past that have met their EIS within 3 months or so.
With the "restart" of the program and the LONG lead time, I think at least the A350-900 will be on time within 3 months. The A350-800 ditto. The one that may be late is the A350-1000 if they want to come close to meeting promised specs.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6859 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 13): CFRP technology definitely looks like it has great potential over time, but CFRP fuselages of the first generation (as found on the 787/A350) are NOT going to bring us the fabulous weight savings that have been promised to us.
It's only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330, not 20% *weight*. The major benefits of CFRP fuselage are increased cabin altitude and humidity, bigger windows, and massively lower maintenance cost.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 15): Forecast 1: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be inferior regarding crash worthiness
How do you figure? They're certified to the same requirements as Al fuselages.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 15): Forecast 2: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be more expensive in production
Almost impossible, given the amount of touch labour required for an Al fuselage. The raw material cost is higher but the buy-to-fly ratio on CFRP is much much better and the amount of labour required is hugely less.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 15): Forecast 3: CFRP Barrel fuselages will turn out to be heavier
Again, how do you figure? The initial 787 CFRP barrels appear to be over their *target* weight, but nothing I'm aware of has come out to suggest they're heavier than an Al equivalent. Don't forget, when they say the 787 is overweight they're comparing against the *787 target weight*, not a 767 or A330 or the like.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 15): Forecast 4: The B787 will be the last airliner using CFRP barrel fuselages
Forecast 5: The NG Narrowbodies from Boeing and Airbus will use CFRP panels
Why would you use panels on a narrowbody? The only known advantage of panels over barrels is lower infrastructure costs, but those are much less of an issue for narrowbodies.
Banjo76 From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6810 times:
Quoting Sofianec (Thread starter): LONDON (Thomson Financial) - Boeing Co chief executive Jim McNerney said the U.S. aerospace company still has 'a five-year lead' over rival Airbus, despite the delays in delivering its new 787 aircraft, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Didn't read all the posts but for me, this just useless PR with the purpose to give confidence, BTW it's totally worthless when it comes to technology.
With the Comet De Haviland was something like 4 years ahead of Boeing with the 707.
We all now how it ended.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 61 Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6800 times:
Boeing actually had a 54 year lead over Airbus, (1916 vs 1970), it is amazing that they both now share about 50/50 share of the sales and delivers of aircraft over 100 seats.
Statements like this really show a shallow assessments of the ability Airbus has has to design/build/produce aircraft that customers want/need, if he is saying that Airbus has been able to catch up 49 years on Boeing, it is only a small lead, and the momentum seems to be in the hands of Airbus, it is only a small overall competitive advantage looking at the big picture.
Cathay Pacific wins �Airline of the Year 2009� Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 63 Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6632 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 34): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 32):
"There was a lot of speculation that All Nippon Airlines is ready to sign for an order, but Leahy says ANA hasn’t even
sent a Request for Proposal yet."
So much for the "so-called" upcoming NH A380 order..
Well, it's the "worst kept secret in the history of aviation," don't you know.
Sure, NH has repeatedly said the RFP would go out later THIS YEAR but that hasn't stopped certain people from claiming that the deal was signed first last year, then a few months ago, and the RFP is all for show.
In the real world, the RFP hasn't gone out yet, according to Airbus and NH, which should be enough of a verification as any that no deal has been signed or even negotiated at this time. (which is not to say that Boeing and Airbus don't routinely pitch their aircraft to NH, just that the negotiation stage is still ahead of us.)
So, "then why were Airbus officials and those from French government in Japan recently, huh, huh?" some will bluster. Answer: "gee, I don't know, maybe because Airbus is securing partners for the A350 program and there are some pretty big potential partners in the land of the rising sun?"
1-"happy birthday"
2-
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 36): With the "restart" of the program and the LONG lead time, I think at least the A350-900 will be on time within 3 months. The A350-800 ditto. The one that may be late is the A350-1000 if they want to come close to meeting promised specs.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 39): Boeing actually had a 54 year lead over Airbus, (1916 vs 1970), it is amazing that they both now share about 50/50 share of the sales and delivers of aircraft over 100 seats.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 39): Statements like this really show a shallow assessments of the ability Airbus has has to design/build/produce aircraft that customers want/need, if he is saying that Airbus has been able to catch up 49 years on Boeing, it is only a small lead, and the momentum seems to be in the hands of Airbus, it is only a small overall competitive advantage looking at the big picture.
Its when a plane first gets developed and built by a manufacturer....Your "54 years" is irrelevant at the very least.
WarRI1 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 1810 posts, RR: 2 Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6339 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 39): Boeing actually had a 54 year lead over Airbus, (1916 vs 1970), it is amazing that they both now share about 50/50 share of the sales and delivers of aircraft over 100 seats.
One must remember, it is the one who does the preliminary work, who gets copied, Russia is a Master at it, watch China and I suspect everyone is guilty of a little reverse engineering including Airbus.
Oasis From Canada, joined May 2008, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
I don't understand why Boeing says it is ahead of Airbus, when Airbus already has a plane in the air that was released around the same time as Boeing's plane.
Aeroflot can fly Moscow to LA, I bet your airline can only fly half way
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5827 times:
Quoting Oasis (Reply 42): I don't understand why Boeing says it is ahead of Airbus, when Airbus already has a plane in the air that was released around the same time as Boeing's plane.
Which one are we talking about? A380 development predates 787 development by several years.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5851 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 40): Its when a plane first gets developed and built by a manufacturer....Your "54 years" is irrelevant at the very least.
It's about as relevant as EVERY other comment on this thread.
Why do we insist on measuring "Technology" with one single, almost barely relevant measure?
If Douglas had put effing CFRP barrels on the effing DC3, would that make it a more advanced aircraft than the A350 or the A330?
Come on, guys.
If the 767 had a CFRP barrel fuselage, do you think it would have continued selling in quantity against the A330?
No. It wouldn't.
So why is that? What "technology" has the A330 got that has put the 767 away?
It's made the same way, out of (pretty much) the same materials. It has the same engines.
And yet CFRP barrels wouldn't rescue the 767.....
15 years ago, Airbus made an aerodynamic paradigm shift, by putting wings that were as big (in span) as a 747's on an aircraft only 60% of the weight.
You don't think that's a "technology"?????
It has a far greater impact on aircraft performance than most of the things we seem to meaure technological maturity by...
It also has a "more optimum cross section".
You don't think that's a "technology"?????
Between them, they've stopped the 767 selling, and would do so even if it had a CFRP fuselage.
So much for the technology that matters.
Have you had a look at a 787?
Spotted which plane it looks like? That's the one. An A330......
If you want kindergarten argument, I'll argue it's taken Boeing 15 years to catch up.
Leahy was wrong to call the 787 a "Chinese" copy of the A330. It's not. It's a "Japanese" copy.
Boeing have taken the A330 and made some key improvements to it.
In this order of importance (IMO) ....
Better engines
More optimum cabin cross-section
CFRP wings
CFRP fuselage
There's a lot more than one technology which improves the 787.
There's a lot more than one technology that goes into defining an airliner.
Across the spectrum of technologies that define an airliner, there'll be some where Boeing is a few years ahead. There,ll be some where Airbus is a few years ahead. There'll be many where there is technological parity.
Across that spectrum those leads will continually change..
That's it. End of story
Statements (even from the respective CEO's) suggesting otherwise are utterly meaningless, IMO.
As a parting shot, take a good look at the A380 and the A350, and see if you can spot the next paradigm shift which might, just might, end up demonstrating that, just as Boeing have caught up with Airbus, Airbus are in the process of moving on again......
???
Seriously, whatever corporate spokesmen say publicly is largely window dressing unless it is a formal statement.
You missed the "Much" out and that was important but you also altered my observation (that he has been much maligned) into your value judgement - which is your right. However remembering that malign means: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/maligned To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of.
I have to ask, how many more evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about him do you need?
He may irritate at times, but is he evil and harmful, and are the criticisms of him often untrue?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5511 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44): As a parting shot, take a good look at the A380 and the A350, and see if you can spot the next paradigm shift which might, just might, end up demonstrating that, just as Boeing have caught up with Airbus, Airbus are in the process of moving on again......
Again a very good post Astuteman. I could not agree more. I am a little bit puzzled though about your remark I quoted. With so many aspects of the B787 and the A350 debated on this forum, which paradigm shift do you have specifically have in mind? To me they do not look that much different. If I would have to guess you are "targeting" the again much larger wing of the A350. But that is just my guess. Can you shine some more of your light on this issue? Thanks in advance.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 37): It's only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330, not 20% *weight*.
"Compared to the 767, a current model with similar dimensions, the 787 will enjoy a 20 percent reduction in weight, 20 percent fuel savings, have 30 percent lower maintenance costs, carry 45 percent more cargo, go faster, fly 2,500 nautical miles further, and offer much greater comfort-all at a 10 percent lower seat-mile cost."
Wingman From United States, joined May 1999, 1376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5286 times:
Just have to pop in to again remind people to read and interpret an article before frothing off at the mouth. Quite clearly Mr. McNerny is saying that despite the 787 delays they are now much closer to resolving the production issues and that the platform will fly 5 years ahead of the 350...is this a blatant lie somehow? Some of you react as if the guy was hurling an insult to Airbus or to Europeans at large. Read the article for yoursleves, don't just simply react to the childish interpretation of the poster and commentators ahead of you. Good lord.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 49): The 788 is about 30% heavier in OEW over the 763ER and about 25% heavier in OEW/seat (in 3 class pax config).
It also has more than 30% more range.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 49):
By which metric is the 788 (224 pax 3 class) even close to being lighter than the 763ER (218 pax 3 class) ?
lbs OEW per seat per mile of range.
Plot the specific weight of any airliner against maximum range and you get a nice increasing curve. You have to be heavier to fly farther. The 788 compares favourably with all the other Boeing's with 8000+ nm range.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5199 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 49): The 788 is about 30% heavier in OEW over the 763ER, and about 25% heavier in OEW/seat (in 3 class pax config).
By which metric is the 788 (224 pax 3 class) even close to being lighter than the 763ER (218 pax 3 class) ?
I was responding to the claim that it's " only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330, not 20% *weight*." That claim is incorrect.
Your 224 comes from a different Boeing source. I mention this as it is relevant to the accuracy of any information currently available to the public.
767-300 has a max. capacity of 290 and an exit limit of 290. 787 has a max capacity of 375 and an exit limit of 440. Therein lies a huge difference between the two aircraft.
Also, the specific OEW quoted is: "Weight of structure, powerplant, furnishing systems, unusable fuel and other unusable propulsion agents, and other items of equipment that are considered an integral part of a particular airplane configuration. Also included are certain standard items, personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary for full operations, excluding usable fuel and payload." So the weight is NOT just the bare structure itself as some seem to think.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2246 posts, RR: 17 Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44): There's a lot more than one technology which improves the 787.
Indeed and the 787 is just another evolutionary product, but we all know that Boeing absolutely needed to present it as a revolutionary product after the unseen Sonic Cruiser fiasco. It was a matter of survival for them really!
The Sonic Cruiser would have been a total revolution indeed, yet it completely failed on the commercial stage and so Boeing was forced to go back to their drawing boards to come up with something much much more conventional.
It did (with the 787), however, it didn't want to say it was less revolutionary than the Sonic Cruiser and so whereas they clearly aimed at the A330, trying to overtake it with a copy of that plane incorporating all possible new technologies which had become available since it first took to the skies, Boeing spent unseen budgets on public advertising of their newest plane to make sure it was perceived as a revolutionary product as well, which came out of the blue!
First the bleedless engines were singled out as THE key differentiator to proof the revolution the 787 was to bring, but that attempt failed soon after it was kicked off as the engine manufacturers didn't like the idea that any of their bleeding products were incorrectly going to be depicted as inferior in a full blown propaganda war of Boeing, so they quickly shot it down;
Boeing then turned around and selected the CFRP barrels of the 787 fuselage as key differentiator to put that aspect of the 787 under the spotlight and this time the manufacturers didn't mind at all, as they obviously had no interest in the more traditional aluminium constructions.
This time the propaganda trick worked fine and so for about 2 years, almost everybody truly believed the 787 would be an almost monolithic lightweight barrel, as smooth as a coffee pot (dixit EK's CEO), but bit by bit everybody found out that the fuselage of the 787 would in fact be far from monolithic and would be built from a large number of (sub)barrels (one could call them circumferential panels, but that would make it too obvious now, wouldn't it?) which make up the different sections of the plane's fuselage. With the fastener fiasco Boeing had to burst the PR bubble for once and for all that the 787 would be monolithic... And what is more: reports are indicating and widely accepted by industry observers that the 787 is not going to be lighter on a weight per seat basis than the A332 is right now, and most observers now also admit that today's technology does not allow CFRP fuselages to bring any significant weight savings over Al alloys yet.
In short: the 787 comprises a million small innovations and improvements, most of them taken from other concepts, some designed especially for the 787, but none of them is such a really big leap forward on itself. It is why the PR guys at Boeing had no choice but to focus on two differentiators which have shown NOT to be making a difference at all.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44): Airbus made an aerodynamic paradigm shift by putting wings that were as big (in span) as a 747's on an aircraft only 60% of the weight!
Indeed!
Now THAT is a key differentiator which the PR guys at Boeing could only dream of when they looked at the 787!
An aerodynamically advanced wing like with a superspan like that is easily visible, clearly understandable and aesthetically pleasing...
To bad Airbus did it 15 years before Boeing.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44): As a parting shot, take a good look at the A380 and the A350, and see if you can spot the next paradigm shift which might, just might, end up demonstrating that, just as Boeing have caught up with Airbus, Airbus are in the process of moving on again......
I remember very well some insiders from Airbus telling us that the 787 has everything a new plane of today should have, but for a really really innovative wing. Looking at the huge wings of the A350/A380, I think I have an idea as to what it takes to be 10 years ahead in time for real, as opposed to just thinking you are...
In this context it is interesting to see how soon the 787 concept is hitting a wall when Boeing tries to grow it, isn't it?
AFAIK it DOES NOT have that range at 224 pax, more like around 190 pax, the 767 still looks good. I think the 763ER also has better runway performance as well.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5158 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 54): The original quote was clear, "the 787 will enjoy a 20 percent reduction in weight", it is obvious the 787 has NO weight reduction over the 763ER.
Tdscanuck's claim is crystal clear, and whether the 787 is lighter or heavier than the 767 is irrelevant to his claim and my response.
SSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 873 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 1): Besides i didn't know the A350XWB being behind schedule??
I believe what he was referring to is the fact that Airbus initially did not take the 787 seriously, and first planned a revamped 330 to counter it. When the airlines balked, Airbus scrambled to create the 350 program, which went through several incarnations to catch up, technologically, until it was finally green lit, and therefore has an EIS anticipated to be years later than the 787. I think that is the lead he is talking about.
No, it doesn't address the delays of the 787 compared to the 380, nor the disappointing sales of the 747-8, nor the loss of the 767 tanker account. And it ignores the fact that most 787/350 variants are not in direct competition anyway.
He is obviously not an independent analyst, so this P.R. needs to be taken with a shaker of salt... I think the investors have to be given a "half glass full" picture, do they not?
Because the 787 and 350 serve largely different markets, I don't think the Boeing lead in projected EIS is significant.
I think the bigger challenges facing the two companies are
1) Production delays
2) For Airbus, the strength of the Euro, and production cost cutting.
3) For Boeing - lack of next generation, high capacity product. I know there are those who don't agree with me on this, but the largest and second largest new A/C are both Airbus (380/350). The 747-8 seems dead in the water. Large A/C sales are the most lucrative, and Boeing has dominated here for decades. That has changed. When the 350 flies the 777 will be almost 25 year old technology - is that correct?
So I hope he realizes that his statement is a lot of hot air, because he has bigger challenges ahead that actually mean something.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 61 Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5171 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 52): I was responding to the claim that it's " only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330, not 20% *weight*." That claim is incorrect.
The 788 NEVER had a "20% *economic* advantage" over the A332, the A332 is a few % heavier (about 2000 kg more OEW) than the 788, and the A332 lifts about 6000 kg more payload.
Your 224 comes from a different Boeing source. I mention this as it is relevant to the accuracy of any information currently available to the public.
Incorrect, I quoted from the "787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning", i.e. 787 ACAPS document dated Sept 2007, Boeing Doc number D6-58333.
You have linked the "Airport Compatibility Brochure", which would be abbreviated as ACB, not ACAPs. Table 2.1 in the ACAPs document states "224 THREE-CLASS; 12 FIRST CLASS, 42 BUSINESS CLASS, 170 ECONOMY CLASS (SEE SEC 2.4)"
Quoting Khobar (Reply 52): So the weight is NOT just the bare structure itself as some seem to think.
I did not suggest at any stage that it was the MEW/MWE, however the magnitude of the weight increase of the 788 vs the 763ER would still be in favor of the 763ER by a significant amount.
Cathay Pacific wins �Airline of the Year 2009� Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5076 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 57): The 788 NEVER had a "20% *economic* advantage" over the A332, the A332 is a few % heavier (about 2000 kg more OEW) than the 788, and the A332 lifts about 6000 kg more payload.
Irrelevant.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 57): Incorrect, I quoted from the "787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning", i.e. 787 ACAPS document dated Sept 2007, Boeing Doc number D6-58333.
You acknowledge that you quoted from a "different Boeing source" - exactly as I said you had.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 57): I did not suggest at any stage that it was the MEW/MWE, however the magnitude of the weight increase of the 788 vs the 763ER would still be in favor of the 763ER by a significant amount.
The claim is that CFRP offers no weight savings, and OEW of the 787 is cited as so-called "proof" even though OEW clearly doesn't directly compare CFRP to aluminum. You've cited seat counts of 224 and 218 to support the contention, yet when the aircraft are configured apples to apples, the picture is vastly different, a fact you and others have completely ignored.
The bottom line here, of course, is that you are barking up the wrong tree. Tdscanuck made a specific claim that a.net was the source of information regarding the 787 and I simply pointed out that it wasn't. Any argument regarding the specifics of the 787 in comparison to the 767 or A330 or any other aircraft is completely irrelevant to the point made.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 2447 posts, RR: 7 Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 28): Predictions are absolutely meaningless unless you back them up.
No, not quite true. A prediction is basically nothing more than an opinion, or an educated guess.......you don't require 'facts' to back up an opinion.
Quoting BillReid (Reply 35): Of course you assume that the A350 is 100% on time. This is about as likely as any of us becoming CEO of an airline by midnight.
Okay, then using your own logic, on what basis are you implying that it won't be on time? I'm not saying it will be, but you seem very clear cut, so on what basis? As Ikramerica correctly replied, we have not been told otherwise
Quoting BillReid (Reply 35): so we can also assume that the A350XWB is at least five years out and maybe longer.
We can naturally 'assume' nothing of the sort so, again, on exactly what is your assumption based?
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44): It's about as relevant as EVERY other comment on this thread.
Excellent and superbly structured post Astuteman.
Quoting Wingman (Reply 48): despite the 787 delays they are now much closer to resolving the production issues and that the platform will fly 5 years ahead of the 350...is this a blatant lie somehow?
If one is going to look at PR releases for discrepancies of the past for comparison purposes, I'd think one should include them for all the items one wishes to compare.
If you're going to poo poo the barrels, why not include how Airbus were forced to follow Boeings's lead with a CFRP fuse. Regardless of construction, it would be pretty easy to go back and recount more than a few comments about the dangers of CFRP. Airbus led with fly-by-wire for airliners and Boeing followed.
It's a piece of cake to scour the archives to look for dirt on either of these companies. Wouldn't it be more interesting to look at their successes?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4888 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 59): Quoting BillReid (Reply 35):
Of course you assume that the A350 is 100% on time. This is about as likely as any of us becoming CEO of an airline by midnight.
Okay, then using your own logic, on what basis are you implying that it won't be on time? I'm not saying it will be, but you seem very clear cut, so on what basis? As Ikramerica correctly replied, we have not been told otherwise
Quoting BillReid (Reply 35):
so we can also assume that the A350XWB is at least five years out and maybe longer.
We can naturally 'assume' nothing of the sort so, again, on exactly what is your assumption based?
@AirNZ: anything I have read so far coming from BillReid is about him barking against Airbus (no matter what aircraft type of them), uplifting anything which comes from Boeing, and also making ridiculous and unproven statements. The general public knows such statements as lies.
I have asked him a couple of questions on this forum and made some remarks when he was clearly wrong. I never got a reply. IMHO he is just here on A-net to frustrate the debate or to ignite a fire where there is none. As long as it is negative about Airbus, he will write about it. I am sorry to say that I have yet to see the first serious and verifiable remark on airliners made by him.
Sadly enough that is how it is, at least in my opinion. But fortunately the majority on A-net is responding here with arguments. They might show bias, I am sure I have shown bias also, but always with respect for competing products and respect for almost everyone's opinion. Unfortunately BillReid still has to write the first post which might lead me to believe he has to be a respected member here.
What exactly is irrelevant, that the A332 has a lower OEW/seat than the 788, or that the A332 can have an "*economic* advantage" over the 788 ?
Quoting Khobar (Reply 58): The claim is that CFRP offers no weight savings, and OEW of the 787 is cited as so-called
"proof" even though OEW clearly doesn't directly compare CFRP to aluminum.
I was one of the very few people who stepped up and said that a metal airframe can be made efficiently when the A330OG was put to the market, I am not one that needs to be converted.
My objection is to the comments made is that the 788 provides a 20% weight reduction over the 767, it clearly does not.
The majority of the weight saving n the 787 comes from the engines, not materials, lower SFC means lower fuel volume for a given range, means lower MTOWs, and hence lower OEW/MEW/MWEs.
"7E7’s engines will be “right at the edge of the technology that’s available for entry into service in mid-2008,” he says. By themselves, Gillette adds, they will provide 7-8% of the plane’s improved efficiency. However, because the aircraft and engines are being designed as a single entity, Boeing sees an additional 2-3% gain. That comes from a process called cycling, in which engine improvements lead to airframe and wing improvements, and vice versa.
In other words, if an engine is more fuel efficient, the plane does not need to carry as much fuel, which means the wings do not have to lift as much weight, so they can be smaller. That, in turn, means the engine can be a bit smaller, allowing a smaller wing, and so on until the right balance among engine, wing, and airframe is reached. "
Quoting Khobar (Reply 58): You've cited seat counts of 224 and 218 to support the contention, yet when the aircraft are configured apples to apples, the picture is vastly different, a fact you and others have completely ignored.
Please show me an apples to apples comparison, I am yet to see one. Also throw the A332 in the picture with 253 seats in 3 class. Keep in mind that Boeing uses a smaller pitch than Airbus in their 3 class marketing numbers for F/J seats.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 58): The bottom line here, of course, is that you are barking up the wrong tree. Tdscanuck made a specific claim that a.net was the source of information regarding the 787 and I simply pointed out that it wasn't.
All I have done is call you on your incorrect assertions on the percentage of weight reduction and the "*economic* advantage", you may have been trying to help someone else, but in the process have used incorrect assertions.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 58): Any argument regarding the specifics of the 787 in comparison to the 767 or A330 or any other aircraft is completely irrelevant to the point made.
So why did you use them ?
Cathay Pacific wins �Airline of the Year 2009� Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4720 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): What exactly is irrelevant, that the A332 has a lower OEW/seat than the 788, or that the A332 can have an "*economic* advantage" over the 788 ?
Yes, per the point made.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): I was one of the very few people who stepped up and said that a metal airframe can be made efficiently when the A330OG was put to the market, I am not one that needs to be converted.
My objection is to the comments made is that the 788 provides a 20% weight reduction over the 767, it clearly does not.
And this is relevant to my response to tdscanuck's assertion...how exactly, especially in view of your own comment that you were "calling me out."
Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): Please show me an apples to apples comparison, I am yet to see one. Also throw the A332 in the picture with 253 seats in 3 class. Keep in mind that Boeing uses a smaller pitch than Airbus in their 3 class marketing numbers for F/J seats.
It still doesn't make a hill of beans difference to the point being made. But since you insist - Swiss puts 196 seats in 3 class on their A332. Perhaps I should take a page from your play book and use that as the A332 baseline, eh? Source: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Swi...irlines_Airbus_A330-200_3class.php
And what about your claim that Boeing uses smaller seat pitch. Let's take a look:
Airbus A332-200 (per Airbus site) 12Y @62", 36B @40", and a whopping 205Y @32" (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/cabin_layout.html)
Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): All I have done is call you on your incorrect assertions on the percentage of weight reduction and the "*economic* advantage", you may have been trying to help someone else, but in the process have used incorrect assertions.
Please, by all means, show me where my assertion that it's not "only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide fabulous weight savings" was in any way incorrect.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): So why did you use them ?
Obviously because it proved that it's not "only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide fabulous weight savings."
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3746 posts, RR: 17 Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4722 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 45):
I have to ask, how many more evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about him do you need?
I was just poking fun; I couldn't resist distorting your quote. And to be honest, I have to say that in spite of being quite abrasive at times, it appears John Leahy does his job very well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 53): The Sonic Cruiser would have been a total revolution indeed, yet it completely failed on the commercial stage and so Boeing was forced to go back to their drawing boards to come up with something much much more conventional.
It did (with the 787), however, it didn't want to say it was less revolutionary than the Sonic Cruiser and so whereas they clearly aimed at the A330, trying to overtake it with a copy of that plane incorporating all possible new technologies which had become available since it first took to the skies, Boeing spent unseen budgets on public advertising of their newest plane to make sure it was perceived as a revolutionary product
The 787 uses all of the same technologies as the Sonic Cruiser (some are more advanced, actually). So how is the 787 evolutionary but the Sonic Cruiser revolutionary? You really think a speed bump using all the same technology is revolutionary?
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 53): Boeing then turned around and selected the CFRP barrels of the 787 fuselage as key differentiator to put that aspect of the 787 under the spotlight and this time the manufacturers didn't mind at all, as they obviously had no interest in the more traditional aluminium constructions.
This time the propaganda trick worked fine and so for about 2 years, almost everybody truly believed the 787 would be an almost monolithic lightweight barrel, as smooth as a coffee pot (dixit EK's CEO), but bit by bit everybody found out that the fuselage of the 787 would in fact be far from monolithic and would be built from a large number of (sub)barrels (one could call them circumferential panels, but that would make it too obvious now, wouldn't it?) which make up the different sections of the plane's fuselage.
If you thought the 787 would be a monolithic barrel you weren't listening to what Boeing was saying.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 53): And what is more: reports are indicating and widely accepted by industry observers that the 787 is not going to be lighter on a weight per seat basis than the A332 is right now, and most observers now also admit that today's technology does not allow CFRP fuselages to bring any significant weight savings over Al alloys yet.
If the 787 were built with the same pressure altitude, windows, and fatigue life as an A332 it would be considerably lighter. You're comparing apples to kumquats.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 54):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 51):
It also has more than 30% more range.
AFAIK it DOES NOT have that range at 224 pax, more like around 190 pax, the 767 still looks good. I think the 763ER also has better runway performance as well.
No, it doesn't have that rate at full pax, but neither does a 763ER. The fact remains that airplanes with more range capability consistently weight more than shorter range, even at the same size. That's the cost of the capability. No matter which payload you choose, a 788 is going to either fly farther at the same weight or fly lighter for the same range than a 763ER.
767 was initially built as a medium-haul domestic aircraft that had to work out of La Guardia and a couple of other short runways at full payload on a hot day...it's got better runway performance because it was designed for that. As far as I'm aware, the 787 doesn't have any odd runway performance requirements.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 57): Quoting Khobar (Reply 52):
I was responding to the claim that it's " only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330, not 20% *weight*." That claim is incorrect.
The 788 NEVER had a "20% *economic* advantage" over the A332, the A332 is a few % heavier (about 2000 kg more OEW) than the 788, and the A332 lifts about 6000 kg more payload.
Weight had no inherent economic advantage...it's only the fact that weight impacts fuel (and, to a small extent, landing fees). The 788 burns much less fuel for the same mission as an A332 and requires far less maintenance. If it's not 20%, how much do you think it is?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4600 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65): If the 787 were built with the same pressure altitude, windows, and fatigue life as an A332 it would be considerably lighter.
I'd be interested to know how you define "considerably" in that respect.
At the end of the day we're still talking about a structure that constitutes a very small proportion of the Operating Empty Weight of an aircraft.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65): The 788 burns much less fuel for the same mission as an A332 and requires far less maintenance. If it's not 20%, how much do you think it is?
Fuel? - I would guess the 787-8 will burn around 10%-13% less fuel than an A330-200 on the same mission, of which 8%-10% can be attributed to better engine SFC, and 2%-3% to lower drag.
Maintenance? Dunno. But as with all other A-net thinking related to the 787's CFRP barrels, I suspect it's smaller than we might think.
At the end of the day we're still talking about a structure that constitutes a very small proportion of the aircraft as a whole....
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46): If I would have to guess you are "targeting" the again much larger wing of the A350.
I was, but in fairness, I have to point out that, rather than make extravagant claims on behalf of Airbus, I was attempting to persuade readers to consider the possibility that there are "technologies" involved in airliner manufacture that aren't related to the material from which the fuselage is made from, but are very capable of having an equally large, or even greater impact on aircraft performance than the materials themselves.
I wan't to make it very clear that no issues whatsoever with CFRP barrels, and think they're the way to go. The list of advantages is too great to ignore
I question the validity of making those barrels the sole denominator on A-net of the state of technological advancement of any airframe - a behaviour which, for me, leads to extravagant claims being made, which are unlikely to be borne out in practice.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 2447 posts, RR: 7 Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4541 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 55): Tdscanuck's claim is crystal clear, and whether the 787 is lighter or heavier than the 767 is irrelevant to his claim and my response.
I have to agree with Zeke here although, not being an aeronautical engineer I admit to some slight confusion (and I do learn a lot from Tom's excellent posts). However, irrespective of weight/range curves and OEW/seat/mile figures you cannot have two entities sitting on the ground at particular weights, one markably heavier than the other, and then state that the heavier one is 'actually' lighter because it has the ability to fly further.
I'm sorry, but the exerpt quoted in reply 47 unequivocably and stated "the 787 will enjoy a 20 percent reduction in weight"
That statement was both "crystal clear" in it's meaning and interpretation and has been proven as incorrect......and I agree with Zeke on that.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 55): Tdscanuck's claim is crystal clear, and whether the 787 is lighter or heavier than the 767 is irrelevant to his claim and my response.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 58): The bottom line here, of course, is that you are barking up the wrong tree. Tdscanuck made a specific claim that a.net was the source of information regarding the 787 and I simply pointed out that it wasn't
This I think is the 'misunderstanding' (for want of a better word) but I also think it's far from being irrelevant. I am not for one minute disputing Tom's prowess and technical knowledge but, as you correctly pointed out he made a claim that only a.net was a source of 'misinformation' and which you then provided a source to disprove.
However, that source itself clearly stated the 787 enjoys a 20% weight saving over the 767......which, in itself, is at odds with Tom's response.
Please, his response/explanation is not in question at all....it is the original claim (and seemingly supported by the source you provided) which is incorrect and sorry, but questioning that difference is hardly "irrelevant".
I have to ask, how many more evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about him do you need?
I was just poking fun; I couldn't resist distorting your quote. And to be honest, I have to say that in spite of being quite abrasive at times, it appears John Leahy does his job very well.
Indeed and it was there to be distorted and I appreciated your distortion with, of course, the point (which you probably share I think) that heaping piles of derision on someone who is so successful is not necessarily a move that advances the debate a great deal. He does appear abrasive at times, but I wonder how many of us would achieve his level of accuracy and lack of abrasion if most of our thoughts in public were reproduced, edited, turned into grabs and generally modified beyond our control.
But he is always good for a rant on a.net, I just think he should get his full title, of MM John Leahy. In reality it does him no harm as he seems to be using the same teflon as was used to build Clinton W.
Just as all the engines on planes so far other than those on the 787 (so far) should be referred to as bleeding engines, with the emphasis on the bleeding. As in "how far are the bleeding engines for the XWB defined?"
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4468 times:
A couple of further thoughts.....
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65): If the 787 were built with the same pressure altitude, windows, and fatigue life as an A332 it would be considerably lighter. You're comparing apples to kumquats.
And if a 787-8 were built to accommodate an MTOW some 6% higher, and to be able to lift 15% more payload, it would be considerably heavier.... Which presumably means your kumquats are now being compared to something else again. Squashes maybe..
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 37): It's only on a.net that CFRP was going to provide "fabulous weight savings." The 787 has 20% *economic* advantage over the 767/A330
Which is it to be? Their economics are miles apart...
I can quite believe that the 787-8 burns 20% less fuel per seat than the 763ER......
As to "the 787-8 having a 20% "economic" advantage over the A330-200.....
Firstly, I'd be astonished, as I said above, if the 787-8 gets anywhere near 20% better fuel burn. 10%-12% maybe..
Secondly, fuel burn, even in these high fuel-cost days, is still around 40% of total cost.
Even the fanciful 20% fuel burn difference would result in an "economic" advantage of only 8%. A 12% fuel burn difference accordingly results in about a 5% "economic" difference.....
Adding in a maintenance advantage might add 1% or so to the economic advantage (generously 2%).
A 787-8 might be expected to cost about 6%, generously 7% less to operate than an A330-200.
That said, an A330-200 can physically lift 7 tonnes (15%) more payload than a 787-8, even if the passenger capacity, based on cabin size, is similar.
Up to around 4 500Nm to 4 750Nm, the A330-200 can generate more revenue than the 787-8. Above that, it can't, which sort of adds a cloud to the whole issue.
It's quite possible to argue that, on medium range sectors, the 787-8's "economic" advantage over the A330-200 is negligible, and that the true advantage of its ownership is that it DOES have the flexibility to be more "economically" deployed on longer sectors.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 47): "Compared to the 767, a current model with similar dimensions, the 787 will enjoy a 20 percent reduction in weight
It doesn't help that the 767 and 787 are nowhere near the same dimensions.
I'm prepared to listen to arguments that CFRP saves 20% of weight where applied.
Planes like the 787 and A350 will be structurally roughly 50% CFRP by weight.
But the structure is probably only 50% of the OEW of a plane anyway.
Even if true, that 20% saving per component will translate at most into 5% saving in OEW. That the 787-8 is only 2%-3% lighter than the A330-200 can probably be attributed to a) bigger engines, and b) learning curve.
The day that someone shows me an AIRCRAFT whose OEW is 20% less than that of a near-identically sized competitor, I'll believe the hype.
Until that time, people can link as many articles as they like. They mean exactly squat.
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1457 posts, RR: 40 Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4369 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69): Firstly, I'd be astonished, as I said above, if the 787-8 gets anywhere near 20% better fuel burn. 10%-12% maybe..
That's exactly were you get when you do the math with the current empty weight. If you factor in that the street price of an A330 is roughly $20m less than a 787, the economics at medium ranges are quite close. Of course, range will be the unique selling point if only Boeing can get the weight straight.
While we are at it...anyone noticed that at the investor conference Shanahan hinted at the wing being redesigned because 'that's where the weight is'? The new wing will be introduced around LN20, he said. I have two reliable sources telling me that this redsign is not only for weight, but connected to the wing center box issue as well. Contrary to what Boeing spokespersons say, my sources claim that the center wing box issue DOES have a major impact on production. Any hiatus in wing shipments from MHI will be indicative.
So the first 20 or so 787 may end up as somewhat unique structurally...hope they don't call them "Wave 1"
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69): It's quite possible to argue that, on medium range sectors, the 787-8's "economic" advantage over the A330-200 is negligible, and that the true advantage of its ownership is that it DOES have the flexibility to be more "economically" deployed on longer sectors.
Time is a valuable thing - watch it fly by as the pendulum swings
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 61 Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4379 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 63):
And what about your claim that Boeing uses smaller seat pitch. Let's take a look:
Airbus A332-200 (per Airbus site) 12Y @62", 36B @40", and a whopping 205Y @32" (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/cabin_layout.html)
You have just demonstrated that I was correct yet again.
If you put the Swiss 83"F and 55"J and the same seat to isle access in each class in a 788, with the same number of premium seats, what seat number do you end up with ?
Take a good look at that Swiss A332 configuration, you will note 3 rows of F class @ 83", 7 rows of J configuration @ 55", and 14 rows of Y configuration at 32 ". The Boeing 788 marketing configuration, 2 full rows of F at 61", 7 full rows of J @ 39 ", 20 full rows of Y @ 31/32", give them the same isle access, and you will end up with about the same configuration as BMI have on their "3 class" A332
You will note that in the BMI configuration, their seat pitch in J is better than the Boeing marketing F configuration, and their premium economy is better than the Boeing marketing J configuration, and their Y configuration is 32", whereas the 788 is a 31/32" mix.
BTW, another difference, the BMI and Swiss configurations are real life commercial configurations, I have not seen one 3 class 788 commercial configuration published.
Still no apples for apples comparison.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65): If the 787 were built with the same pressure altitude, windows, and fatigue life as an A332 it would be considerably lighter. You're comparing apples to kumquats.
The cabin altitudes I see on the A330/A340 when I fly it medium/long haul are normally always below 6000 ' cabin altitude. As for window size, I was of the understanding that other airliners have had bigger windows before, the 787 windows are the biggest ever seen on an airliner.
I doubt the 787 would have been "considerably lighter", the easiest way to make the 788 lighter is to make the cross section narrower.
"Boeing 787 launch customer Jetstar is concerned that operating costs for its new fleet will be significantly higher than expected after receiving the first batch of bids for aftermarket support.
Speaking at the maintenance master class during last week's Asian Aerospace Congress in Hong Kong, Seb Mackinnon, acting general manager of procurement at the Qantas low-cost subsidiary, said that the figures Jetstar has calculated so far for 787 per hour operating cost is "quantum higher than what the Qantas Group was expecting and that's obviously pretty alarming". "
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9892 posts, RR: 46 Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4351 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69): That said, an A330-200 can physically lift 7 tonnes (15%) more payload than a 787-8, even if the passenger capacity, based on cabin size, is similar.
Up to around 4 500Nm to 4 750Nm, the A330-200 can generate more revenue than the 787-8. Above that, it can't, which sort of adds a cloud to the whole issue.
It's quite possible to argue that, on medium range sectors, the 787-8's "economic" advantage over the A330-200 is negligible, and that the true advantage of its ownership is that it DOES have the flexibility to be more "economically" deployed on longer sectors.
Which rather raises the question that I have pondered before without much of an answer, what is the average stage length going to be that is flown by the 787-8?
Sticking with Qantas which is about as long distance an airline as there is aside from ANZ. Starting with Sydney (about as far from most places as you get) even Tokyo is just outside the 4750 nm mark. OK non stop to LA is a bit further, but what percentage of QF routes is that going to be? Certainly not more than 50% I suspect, and for Jetstar possibly not more than 20%.
Which might mean according to the Astute line of thought that for a high proportion of the QF routes, the A330-200 is going to be as or more economic than the 787-8. The "cheap compensation for late A380s", is it going to be the more suitable plane, at least for the routes to Asia from Australia?
(A side question here, does anyone really understand how and why QF made such a meal of introducing the A330s, were they not paying attention, or what?)
And then of course, there is the Lightsaber suggestion (and I am sure it will be correct) that up to about 4000 nm the Rollers are going to be more efficient than the GEnxs due to the characteristics to 3-shaft engines in the climb which adds the question of why they went the GE way for the 787s (and the A330s come to that)?
Or phrasing it another way, how much extra cost is being loaded onto routes under about 4500 nm by equipping an airline entirely with planes that are optimised at longer stage lengths? In these days of slightly higher fuel costs (wording is to allow for another 6 months when the current ones will be seen as slightly higher!!!) is this not a significant penalty to the whole operation? Can single type fleet advantages possibly cover the considerable additional trip costs of flying long range planes on medium length stages?
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1457 posts, RR: 40 Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4311 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69): The day that someone shows me an AIRCRAFT whose OEW is 20% less than that of a near-identically sized competitor, I'll believe the hype.
The common (mis)understading is that an aerospace aluminum structure (how's that for a generalisation?) can be made 20-30% lighter by using CFRP. So will a CFRP wing be 20-30% lighter than a metal wing? No, because for starters it's only the wing box which is substituted, and not the wing leading and trailing edge, and usually not even the ribs. Same for the fuselage: The skin, stringers, and most frames (composing the shell) are substituted with CFRP, but the shell is only a fraction of the overal fuselage structure weight. Hence the real world weight savings in terms of component assembly structural weight are more like 5-10%. And that is BEFORE the weight savings are partially traded in for structural simplification to get manufacturing cost down to affordable levels.
In summary, the theoretic 20-30% weight savings potential may apply to parts level, but it is certainly not applicable to component assembly or aircraft level.
Time is a valuable thing - watch it fly by as the pendulum swings
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 71): Which might mean according to the Astute line of thought that for a high proportion of the QF routes, the A330-200 is going to be as or more economic than the 787-8. The "cheap compensation for late A380s", is it going to be the more suitable plane, at least for the routes to Asia from Australia?
I would be at pains to point out that I'm not trying to suggest the A330-200 is generally "as good as or better than" the 787-8. I'm trying to get underneath some of the hype so as to get a better understanding of their relative strengths or otherwise in the marketplace.
The 787-8 will inevitably become the better plane.
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 69): If you factor in that the street price of an A330 is roughly $20m less than a 787, the economics at medium ranges are quite close
It appears to me that in these circumstances, that with a combination of a sharper price, and earlier availability, the economics of the A330 can be near enough to make it attractive enough to be purchased as a long-term proposition (as measured by NPV of the ROI for the airline). I dare say we'll make the same comment about the 773ER - something I wouldn't once have accepted, but do now.
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 72): In summary, the theoretic 20-30% weight savings potential may apply to parts level, but it is certainly not applicable to component assembly or aircraft level.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4056 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 66): I have to agree with Zeke here although, not being an aeronautical engineer I admit to some slight confusion (and I do learn a lot from Tom's excellent posts). However, irrespective of weight/range curves and OEW/seat/mile figures you cannot have two entities sitting on the ground at particular weights, one markably heavier than the other, and then state that the heavier one is 'actually' lighter because it has the ability to fly further.
Any time you compare aircraft you need to normalize by something. For example, it's completely legitimate to say the A380 burns less fuel than a 717, provided you're talking on a per-seat basis.
My point on this (separate from the 20% weight discussion) is that you shouldn't do weight to weight comparsion, or weight per seat comparison, without looking at range as well.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 66): I'm sorry, but the exerpt quoted in reply 47 unequivocably and stated "the 787 will enjoy a 20 percent reduction in weight"
Yep.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 66): That statement was both "crystal clear" in it's meaning and interpretation and has been proven as incorrect......and I agree with Zeke on that.
Yep. I hadn't seen that NIST thing before and I was wrong. I should have said that higher up in the thread.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68):
Firstly, I'd be astonished, as I said above, if the 787-8 gets anywhere near 20% better fuel burn. 10%-12% maybe..
Secondly, fuel burn, even in these high fuel-cost days, is still around 40% of total cost.
Even the fanciful 20% fuel burn difference would result in an "economic" advantage of only 8%. A 12% fuel burn difference accordingly results in about a 5% "economic" difference.....
Adding in a maintenance advantage might add 1% or so to the economic advantage (generously 2%).
I'm in total agreement with you on the fuel. I think you're massively underestimating the maintenance advantage.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 70): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65):
If the 787 were built with the same pressure altitude, windows, and fatigue life as an A332 it would be considerably lighter. You're comparing apples to kumquats.
The cabin altitudes I see on the A330/A340 when I fly it medium/long haul are normally always below 6000 ' cabin altitude. As for window size, I was of the understanding that other airliners have had bigger windows before, the 787 windows are the biggest ever seen on an airliner.
It's rare for any airliner to be at maximum cabin altitude unless their up near maximum possible cruising altitude. Both Airbii and current Boeings and the 787 ramp from takeoff cabin altitude up to cruise cabin altitude on a schedule. The 787 has a different schedule. As a result, as I understand it, for any given cruise altitude the 787 will support a lower cabin altitude. The major limiting factor on cabin altitude is fuselage fatigue, which is why the 787 (and A350) can do better on this front than Al fuselage airliners.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 70): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 65):
requires far less maintenance.
Looks like some people did not get that memo....
"Boeing 787 launch customer Jetstar is concerned that operating costs for its new fleet will be significantly higher than expected after receiving the first batch of bids for aftermarket support.
This particular article is old and has been discussed, relatively, to death. The estimate that Jetstar was talking about was from their MRO, not Boeing. I have a tough time believing that an MRO knows more about 787 maintenance cost, prior the release of the aircraft, other than the OEM. There also considerable press at the time, which the MRO did not dispute, that the MRO was padding their estimate up to cover the risks of making maintenance bids on an aircraft they have no past history with.
There is also the mistake, which is really common throughout this forum on all new programs, of not stating what you're comparing with. The maintenance cost estimate from the MRO was significantly higher *than what Jetstar was expecting for the 787*. You need to know what the actual number was in order to know if it's actually more expensive than another aircraft. For example, suppose I offer to sell you a car that goes 300 mph but, when you get it, it actually only goes 250 mph. That's a significant performance shortfall *relative to what you were promised*. Compared to competitors, it may still be a huge performance gain.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4016 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 74): I think you're massively underestimating the maintenance advantage.
It's not my area of expertise, Tom, for certain.
Airbus's 2007 General Market forecast contained a breakdown of aircraft operating costs which showed maintenance in total over the airframe life as 10% of total cost. Given that the fuselage skin only is a pretty small proportion of the aircraft, I presumed that the total maintenance cost of the fuselage skin alone could only be of the order of 20%-30% of all maintenance, i.e. 2%-3% of "CASM". Hence a 1%-2% reduction in that maintenance (a big proportion of it) didn't seem unreasonable.
I'd love to have some real numbers to sense check against.
I'd certainly welcome, and probably defer to, your opinion.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 61 Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3858 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 74): It's rare for any airliner to be at maximum cabin altitude unless their up near maximum possible cruising altitude. Both Airbii and current Boeings and the 787 ramp from takeoff cabin altitude up to cruise cabin altitude on a schedule. The 787 has a different schedule. As a result, as I understand it, for any given cruise altitude the 787 will support a lower cabin altitude. The major limiting factor on cabin altitude is fuselage fatigue, which is why the 787 (and A350) can do better on this front than Al fuselage airliners.
That is correct, however until an airliner can maintain a sea level cabin at cruising altitude, passengers/crew will suffer altitude effects, and I doubt any passenger can make a quantitative assessment of the altitude effects they felt on a flight if they saw a 4000, 5000, 6000' cabin. In my view this is more marketing drivel which the most discernible passenger/crew member would not be able to tell the difference.
Realistically, most metal fuselages do not ever see their fatigue limits for cycles.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 74): You need to know what the actual number was in order to know if it's actually more expensive than another aircraft. For example, suppose I offer to sell you a car that goes 300 mph but, when you get it, it actually only goes 250 mph. That's a significant performance shortfall *relative to what you were promised*. Compared to competitors, it may still be a huge performance gain.
The QF/JQ numbers were originally based upon the OEM numbers plus some padding, like they do with every other type like they introduced recently like the A320/A330/A380.
We have not seen them make public comments about the OEM estimate costs for those new frames to their fleets, only the 787. In my view, like many aspects of the 787 program I am of the firm view that Boeing has significantly underestimated the costs of maintaining the aircraft when introduced.
When introduced the aircraft will require more training for maintenance staff, as well as a whole new set of spares and ground equipment/tooling. I actually see the 767/A330 with QF/JQ being cheaper to maintain per hour for some time in the future. While I think long term the 787 will have some maintenance advantages, I do not see those advantages being realized on day 1.
What the OEM says is irrelevant, it is what the customer has to pay in the end that counts, and that goes for airframes or engine OEMs alike. I would take the MROs costs over the OEM costs any day, they are in the business of maintaining, OEMs are in the business of building and selling aircraft, they have a conflict of interest, and it is their advantage to low ball maintenance costs. MRO costs are set by market forces, something an OEM has no control over.
Cathay Pacific wins �Airline of the Year 2009� Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, RR: 53 Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3803 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 75): Airbus's 2007 General Market forecast contained a breakdown of aircraft operating costs which showed maintenance in total over the airframe life as 10% of total cost. Given that the fuselage skin only is a pretty small proportion of the aircraft, I presumed that the total maintenance cost of the fuselage skin alone could only be of the order of 20%-30% of all maintenance, i.e. 2%-3% of "CASM". Hence a 1%-2% reduction in that maintenance (a big proportion of it) didn't seem unreasonable.
Hmmm...interesting take on it. I hadn't analyzed it this way before and what you say makes sense. I need to do some more thinking. One factor in it may not a directly benefit from the fuselage skins...the 787 has longer check intervals than the alternatives, which pulls down a whole bunch of costs, not just structural. However, I'm not sure how to put a number on that yet.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 76): That is correct, however until an airliner can maintain a sea level cabin at cruising altitude, passengers/crew will suffer altitude effects, and I doubt any passenger can make a quantitative assessment of the altitude effects they felt on a flight if they saw a 4000, 5000, 6000' cabin. In my view this is more marketing drivel which the most discernible passenger/crew member would not be able to tell the difference.
I have not seen the actual papers but, apparently, Boeing did a lot of testing on how people perceive their comfort after flights at varying cabin altitudes. Supposed, the 787's cabin altitude was chosen specifically because there was a "break point" in how passengers perceived the cabin environment around that cabin altitude. Any lower than that and people didn't seem to notice, higher than that it gets progressively worse.
I agree that passengers can't make a qualitative assessment but, apparently, they can make statistically valid qualitative assessments that actually do show a difference.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 76): What the OEM says is irrelevant, it is what the customer has to pay in the end that counts, and that goes for airframes or engine OEMs alike. I would take the MROs costs over the OEM costs any day, they are in the business of maintaining, OEMs are in the business of building and selling aircraft, they have a conflict of interest, and it is their advantage to low ball maintenance costs. MRO costs are set by market forces, something an OEM has no control over.
This is a good point. I would take MRO costs for an in service aircraft over the OEM any day, definitely. For an airplane that the MRO's have yet to touch, it's a little more complex. As you correctly note, the OEM has an incentive to lowball the maintenance costs. However, the MRO has an incentive to overestimate them to lock in contracts before the true maintenance costs are known. As with so many things, the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.
Briguy1974 From United States, joined Aug 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
Just remeber that Airbus is still early on in the development of the A350....Airbus will have teething problems when the first A350 is rolling..floating down the assembly line. Lets give Airbus another year or two to find the delays they will have in the A350 project. At that point we will have a better idea of just how far ahead..or behind Boeing is in relationship to Airbus.
One thing has to be clearly apparent to anyone who is paying attention. About 10 years ago a group of suites in Seattle and a group of suites in Germany decided on two directions. One to build an ultra modern twin engine replacement for the 767, A330. A300, Md-11, A-340 and the other group decided to create a whole new category of aircraft.
Both aircraft will enter market delyed and over budget. One of the planes will still make a huge profit for its manufacturer the other will cost its manufacturer 100's of millions of dollars.
So in terms of market understanding and planning Boeing is at least 5 years ahead of Airbus.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9892 posts, RR: 46 Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 78): Both aircraft will enter market delayed and over budget. One of the planes will still make a huge profit for its manufacturer the other will cost its manufacturer 100's of millions of dollars.
So in terms of market understanding and planning Boeing is at least 5 years ahead of Airbus.
Assuming the huge profit is the 787 and the cost 100s of millions of dollars is the A380, how about you compare cash flow for these two planes for 2008. (It cannot be the A350 as the cost of that will be billions not millions.)
It is more like "in about 5 years Boeing will be ahead of Airbus in cash flow", but not at present. WADR this seems an odd definition of being ahead.
The TDsc - Astuteman discussion of maintenance costs highlights that there are many parts to an airplane and its overall costs so even major improvements in one particular area may have minor overall effects. To get a major overall improvement you need to address many areas and give improvements across a range of aspects. On the 787 fuselage itself, the shell might be low maintenance but the connections still seem relatively complex and it is not all that evident that their schedules have been greatly extended. And as has been pointed out, testing Al structures is a relatively well defined art, but Airbus as well as Boeing presumably has had to demonstrate that it knows how to test its composite structures.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 77): One factor in it may not a directly benefit from the fuselage skins...the 787 has longer check intervals than the alternatives, which pulls down a whole bunch of costs, not just structural. However, I'm not sure how to put a number on that yet.
I managed to dredge up this FI article for the 787 maintenance details
It shows 787 line (A) checks at 1 000 hours vs 600 for the A330
Base Maintenance (C) checks at 36 months vs 18 for the A330
Heavy (D) Check after 12 years vs 6 for the A330.
And then I find this, entitled "A330 could see 6% drop in maintenance costs", dated May 15th this year. (My thanks to Aviationbuff )
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 28): Care to shed some light on why you feel that way? Predictions are absolutely meaningless unless you back them up. I'm curious to know.
We discussed my claims in the linked thread. There you find many pro- and contras. It was fun to propose such "hot" thesis and I am fully aware that I could be wrong on each and every one of these. I am quite relaxed to see how it turns out in the future. If the second shot of Boeing will be "CFRP barrels" again I will admit my error.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 74): My point on this (separate from the 20% weight discussion) is that you shouldn't do weight to weight comparsion, or weight per seat comparison, without looking at range as well.
I think you are right about this. That is exactly the reason why all the long range planes planed in this millennium (A380, 787, A350) will not excel on medium ranges. The 783 just has lousy prospects on short-ranges. I see no plane clearly dethroning the A333 as CASM leader on medium ranges.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2563 posts, RR: 47 Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3658 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68): As to "the 787-8 having a 20% "economic" advantage over the A330-200.....
Firstly, I'd be astonished, if the 787-8 gets anywhere near 20% better fuel burn. 10%-12% maybe.
Besides, fuel burn, even in these high fuel-cost days, is still around 40% of total cost, so even the fanciful 20% fuel burn difference would result in an "economic" advantage of only 8%. A 12% fuel burn difference accordingly results in about a 5% "economic" difference.....
Secondly, Adding in a maintenance advantage might add 1% or so to the economic advantage (generously 2%).
A 787-8 might be expected to cost about 6%, generously 7% less to operate than an A330-200.
That said, an A330-200 can physically lift 7 tonnes (15%) more payload than a 787-8, even if the passenger capacity, based on cabin size, is similar. Up to around 4 500Nm to 4 750Nm, the A330-200 can generate more revenue than the 787-8.
It's quite possible to argue that, on medium range sectors, the 787-8's "economic" advantage over the A330-200 is negligible, and that the true advantage of its ownership is that it DOES have the flexibility to be more "economically" deployed on longer sectors.
You're pretty good at this, aren't you? You should come work for us!
Let me add this:
Taking into account ownership costs and the reduced maintenance program which is soon to be certified, we can successfully demonstrate to airlines (using THEIR figures, not ours BTW) that an A332 won't cost them more in operations AND will make them more money on all flights under 8 hours...
At the start of the demonstration we take a bet for a free lunch over it, and I must say I have had free meals on each occasion so far... :-p
To put into perspective the meaning of this all: it means that for the fragmented transatlantic market, as well as for most intra-asian routes, you're actually better of with the A330 iso the 787-8...
The 787-8 really is tomorrows 767-200, you can write it down already.
Now, on longer flights (10 hours or more) the 787-8 has the advantage indeed, but let's be realistic: who'd want to be on a cramped 9-abreast configured 787-8, if he or she could be on a much more comfortable A350XWB with a lower cost/seatmile?
The A332 nicely fits into the long haul product line up of Airbus for the foreseeable future and isn't outclassed by any Boeing product in its core of intended operations either, so it will remain a hot seller. I know that in the coming months, many people who thought the 787 would quickly take care of that game-spoiling A330, are going to see a very stunning demonstrated that the A330 is far from out of the picture indeed. If it wouldn't be for the uncertain economic outlook, last year's superb A330 sales would only have been a start really.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2246 posts, RR: 17 Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 78): About 10 years ago a group of suites in Seattle and a group of suites in Germany decided on two directions. One to build an ultra modern twin engine replacement for the 767, A330. A300, Md-11, A-340 and the other group decided to create a whole new category of aircraft.
That is just BS.
In a perfectly balanced out duopoly, BOTH groups try to span the ENTIRE market and BOTH work on planes in segments of the market where they had lost out. They just happen to work in a different order on them!
Airbus happened to be strong in all of the market segments apart from the VLA, so they decided to do something in that only segment (VLA) they didn't have the lead in yet (which became the A380), Boeing on the other hand had many weaknesses in their product line and decided to act on their most urgent one (the 767 replacement, which first became the SC and then after its total commercial failure, the very conservative 787).
With work on all-new projects underway at BOTH groups, they realised that as they were trying to overtake the competitor in one segment of the market, they were being pushed out in a different segment, so BOTH tried to react by re-doing the product under attack. Airbus looked at the A330NG (aka A350), but then decided to do an all new frame, whereas Boeing simply went with the 748, which isn't doing great really.
In the end it means that in less than a decade Airbus will have a complete range of brand new long haul planes, whereas Boeing will have only 1 new and 2 old long haul planes in urgent need of replacement. Add the short haul segments to it, and it looks like Boeing has pushed out into the future a lot and I stress a LOT more than Airbus has (2 possibly 3 vs just 1 all-new program).
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 82 Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 78): One thing has to be clearly apparent to anyone who is paying attention. About 10 years ago a group of suites in Seattle and a group of suites in Germany decided on two directions. One to build an ultra modern twin engine replacement for the 767, A330. A300, Md-11, A-340 and the other group decided to create a whole new category of aircraft.
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 78): So in terms of market understanding and planning Boeing is at least 5 years ahead of Airbus.
If I play "Devil's advocate", the only problem with the simplistic "Airbus went big quad and Boeing went medium twin", is well illustrated in this very thread, which is well worth a read at some time..
When you take a damned good look at the 787-8, it is very much an "improved" A330-200, benefitting in particular from a big SFC advantage from its new engines.
When you look at the 787-9, it is very much an "improved" A330-300, only this time the improvement goes deeper - the plane is heavier and substantially more range-capable.
There's no question 767's, A300's, MD11's etc will gt replaced, but the A330 is already doing that, and has been for some time.
I suspect the A330 is much less likely to be replaced, if current healthy sales are anything to go by..
It's entirely possible to construct an argument that, in 80% or more of cases, the A330 has already been doing what the 787 is going to do, for some 15 years or so, now, (and is still improving) which sort of contradicts your argument.
An even more compelling argument, for me, following on from this, is that, the reason that Airbus "went big quad" is because ..
they thought they already had "medium twin" covered with the A330
This argument I (very strongly) believe.
Airbus have publicly said the 787 surprised them in this respect, and hats off to Boeing for that.
Airbus got complacent.
But IMO using the simplistic "big quad" vs "medium twin" argument to justify Boeing being 5 years ahead of Airbus in marketing, is a fundamentally flawed argument.
Maybe, perhaps not, but just maybe, Airbus had already been there between 10 and15 years before....
Who would be "ahead" then?
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1589 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
Considering the 380 hasn't been burning up the order books lately and is still years behind schedule, the 'very conservative' 787 will be in service, (taking current delays into consideration), years ahead of the 'almost identical' 350, I don't think Boeing is getting the 'out of business' signs painted up just yet.
Both companies have great planes in the air and in the pipeline. Both companies also have plenty of egg on their faces.
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Aug 2007, 45 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1029 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 316 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2246 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5660 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3746 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 165 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2008 posts, 
...I agree..
, as well as B748I, which will be overweight when delivered.. 
:
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1899 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9892 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 318 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 602 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 4960 posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 131 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4360 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 2447 posts, 