Sofianec From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Aug 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12768 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, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12566 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, 943 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12495 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, 1652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12393 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, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12353 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12145 times:
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2483 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11906 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, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11635 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: 69 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11440 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, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11437 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, 621 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 10117 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, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9533 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9300 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, 544 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9131 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, 13899 posts, RR: 90 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9073 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9033 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, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8309 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, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8062 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, 1683 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7996 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 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7923 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, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7889 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: 69 Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7612 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, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7552 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, 632 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7233 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, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7200 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7192 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, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7143 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, 4800 posts, RR: 66 Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7133 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: 69 Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6965 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, 2323 posts, RR: 4 Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6672 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 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6384 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6160 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6184 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? Â Â
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?
     Â
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..... Â Â
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"????? Â Â
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"????? Â Â
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...... Â Â
If you want kindergarten argument, I'll argue it's taken Boeing 15 years to catch up. Â Â
Leahy was wrong to call the 787 a "Chinese" copy of the A330. It's not. It's a "Japanese" copy. Â Â
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.. Â Â
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...... Â Â Â
???
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, 1031 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5844 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, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5701 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, 1400 posts, RR: 7 Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5619 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5590 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, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5532 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, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5523 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, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5491 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, 933 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5487 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, 4800 posts, RR: 66 Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5504 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, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5409 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, 3108 posts, RR: 14 Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5283 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, 1031 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5221 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, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5053 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, 4002 posts, RR: 25 Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5055 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4974 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4933 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, 3108 posts, RR: 14 Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4874 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4801 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, 1569 posts, RR: 48 Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4702 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.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4800 posts, RR: 66 Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4712 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, 10756 posts, RR: 51 Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4684 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, 1569 posts, RR: 48 Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4644 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.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4570 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4389 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4349 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, 4800 posts, RR: 66 Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4191 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, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4136 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, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4130 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, 10756 posts, RR: 51 Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4072 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4054 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, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3987 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: 51 Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3991 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, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4002 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, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3973 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, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3943 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.
By the way, isn't the sonic cruiser getting to be old news by now? I'm pretty sure most people have moved past that by now.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3921 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 85): Except that the 762 suffered from lacking range and the 788 suffers from range-excess.
I am just guessing here, but I understood he ment to say with it that it will be the production version of the 787 which is going to go out first, as more and more operators get to understand its weaknesses in detail. I must say I feel the same, and I remember some other posters have said so before (Keesje), only to be name called in the face of the great sale's numbers of this particular version, yet the facts presented to us here seem as if they will proof them right over time.
Now, what is worrying to Boeing is that the 767 analogy can be continued all the way up and that history might repeat itself again.
If the 787-8 will come to its end much like the 762ER (as being perceived as a far too bony and small medium long haul plane), we might see the 787-9 as the 763ER over time, which is known to be a very fine plane, however it is completely outclassed by a superior, slightly wider product with far larger wings...
Now isn't there an all new, wider, greater winged (and I admit heavier, yet more efficient) direct competitor available??? Hmmm; I thought so... Interesting, don't you think?
And as to the 787-10...anybody who bothers to write a paragraph about the similarity with the double stretched, relatively sort ranged 7674ER product?
Somehow I don't have the feeling the 787 is going to be a timeless product which stays in production for more than 2 decades. It seems like there are showing up too many limitations to the basic concept already to make it a time less platform like the 737, the 747, the A300, the A320 or the A330 for the matter.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 1031 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3823 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 87): Somehow I don't have the feeling the 787 is going to be a timeless product which stays in production for more than 2 decades. It seems like there are showing up too many limitations to the basic concept already to make it a time less platform like the 737, the 747, the A300, the A320 or the A330 for the matter
I am just not so sure about that. Remember that the B787 has already sold so more copies (I think) then the B767, and it still is not even flying. Worse; not even first power-on has been accomplished. She will pick up more sales along the way when she starts flying commercially, although not in the numbers we have seen the last 2 years or so.
It could be that you are right, but even if that turns out to be the case, the B787 will have been a major, major success (in short term thinking and in the long run) for Boeing. As I hope the A350-XWB will be at least even great success for Airbus.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3683 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 88): Remember that the B787 has already sold so more copies (I think) then the B767, and it still is not even flying.
Not yet...the 767 popped over the 1000 mark recently and the 787 hasn't got there yet. However, the 787 order total is such that even the most pessimistic person can't credibly claim the 787 won't pass the 767 up.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3637 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 70): 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 ?
Once again you miss the point - seat configurations where there are differences in configurations is a problem when trying to compare one aircraft against another. You said so yourself.
BTW, another difference, the BMI and Swiss configurations are real life commercial configurations, I have not seen one 3 class 788 commercial configuration published.
Perhaps the Swiss and BMI configurations are that way because the aircraft isn't capable of any more?
Zeke, I've asked you a number of times now to support your assertions against me, and thus far you've jumped up and down trying to support an argument you've acknowledged is invalid and has no bearing on the point you misunderstood.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
I pity all those poor airline companies that will be left with worthless shells of carbon fibre they unwittingly got suckered into by the sales pitch and ordered an airliner which will be completely obsolete and worthless before its first flight. These airlines are so completely fooled, (maybe even hypnotized...yah...that's it), that even with the delays, they still insist on waiting for their 787's, which any fool knows is just a desperate attempt by Boeing to distract the public from their real plan; a fake Mars landing..on a grassy knoll.
That makes about the same amount of sense as most of the other doom and gloom scenarios about the 787 or any other modern airliner.
The companies who will get better performance from the 330, will order that. The ones who will benefit from the 787 will choose that. The same holds true for every product option available.
I like to think that airlines pick the product that makes the most economic sense to them. Going with hype is an expensive, yet efficient, way to go out of business. With so many companies willing to plonk down billions of dollars on the plane, I reckon the 787 will be serving the flying public well, for decades to come.
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 780 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3534 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 82): 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.
Could the 330 get a new engine and perhaps a new wing?
PlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3514 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 92): Could the 330 get a new engine and perhaps a new wing?
It could. In fact, the original A350 (non XWB) was that. Wonder if Airbus will someday restart that project, it would be a great medium/short haul big airliner.
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom"- Isaac Asimo
Briguy1974 From United States, joined Aug 2005, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3427 times:
The argument that the 787 is competeing and not going to replace the A330 is interesting. I have to dissagree....when a new big order is expected in the twin engine widebody race everyone on this forum asks the question...A350 or 787...No one asks 787 or A330. I will tell u what. AF/KL are going to order a bunch of A350's or 787...and are not looking at the A330.... This is true with every airline order in this category from now until a replacement comes along. The only orders for A330 from this point on will be fleet top offs, cargo, or someone who needs capacity until the A350....which will get delayed (It just happens to big projects like building a new airliner) is ready for production.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 94): The argument that the 787 is competeing and not going to replace the A330 is interesting. I have to dissagree....when a new big order is expected in the twin engine widebody race everyone on this forum asks the question...A350 or 787...No one asks 787 or A330.
I think your assertion may be somewhat simplistic. How many combined A350/A330 orders do we see?
The A350 competes with the 787-9 and the 777.
The A350 doesn't compete with the 787-8 - it's too big.
But the A330 does.
Hence a combination might well be attractive to a number of airlines..
Briguy1974 From United States, joined Aug 2005, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3203 times:
I just think that all the major orders for twin widebodies are 787 vs. A350 competitions and not 787 vs A330. Just like its not the 777 vs. the A350. The simple fact is from this point on its A350 vs. 787 for major widebody twin orders. The orders you see now for both the A350 and the A330 is because the A330 is available now. Its not a perfect fit for airlines but if they need immediate lift they have to get the A330 for now and the 350 for future growth and long term fleet stability. The A330 is a great plane to ride on as a pax and a great plane to work on but you have to agree that at least some of the recent success of the program is due to compensation from the A380 delays and the 787 delays and A350 delays. If both..the A350 and 787 were rolling of production lines the A330 would not be selling.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3107 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.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36): 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.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 68): 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.
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 72): 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
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 72): 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
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 72): Hence the real world weight savings in terms of component assembly structural weight are more like 5-10%
Some Facts:
The present A320 basic-fuselage-structure has a weight of 4547 kg. That is the sum of 2196 kg skin panels, 598 kg stringers, 1399 kg frames, 238 kg clips and 116 kg rivets. Would it be made from CFRP the weight would be reduced by 1000kg. If CFRP would be applied for the rest of the fuselage structure the savings would be 2500kg. Total weight savings would be 24.2%. This translates into a take-off-weight reduction of 4.5%. The resulting mission performance would lead to a fuel usage reduction of 3.7% over a 5300km range or 4.1% over a 1900km range.
So, yes there are relevant weight savings even for a simple panel+frame+stringer substitution.
We often said the new CFRP planes are not lighter because CFRP allows huge wings that gain more efficiency even if the weight doesn't scale down. The 787 does realize this concept if compared to the 767. But really interesting is the comparison to the A330. It has the same wing-size so here we should be able to see the weight gain of CFRP. But it is not there.
Let's compare the following three development paths. Each example shows a new CFRP plane that follows an earlier model WITH roughly equal wing size:
The 787 other than e.g. the A350 fails to realize relevant weight savings. Is my view just blurred or is Boeing's first CFRP shot a bit limping? An other point of view could be that the 787 is build very rigid to be on the save side.
(To prevent being reminded I have to mention that the A350 is of course a paper plane so far!)
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3066 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 97): If both..the A350 and 787 were rolling of production lines the A330 would not be selling.
Exactly the interesting question is if this is really true, provided engines can be improved. Airbus would have a giant gap between the A321 and the A358, so some of us think that the A330 is good enough to be not only produced as tanker and freighter, but also as PAX aircraft after 2015. So we assume at least the production line in the US can be fully sold long time.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 98): Total weight savings would be 24.2%. This translates into a take-off-weight reduction of 4.5%
The difficulty we now have is that we've been led to expect such large savings, that a 4%-5% reduction in OEW is seen as an "insult", when in fact, it isn't. It's a considerable achievement, and well worth pursuing.
Sadly, when one tries to argue that this considerable achievement may be limited to 4%-5% at whole aircraft level, one runs the risk of bein accused of belittling the technology, or the aircraft, or the achievement, when this is neither the case, nor the intent.
The intent is, and always has been, context.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
One point in this discussion:
There are some parts were replacement of Al by Carbon bring a large gain, and some where the gain is smaller.
The A332 with its 18% composite fraction ( and the A320 with 28% still more ) so may already have a good deal of the 0% 767 to the 50% 787 gain. When from 767 to 787 brings 4%, the A332 will have 2% of these at least already now.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 100): The difficulty we now have is that we've been led to expect such large savings, that a 4%-5% reduction in OEW is seen as an "insult", when in fact, it isn't. It's a considerable achievement, and well worth pursuing.
And, it is the total weight improvement when only the alu-fuselage got substituted. Comparing on a per-part-level (alu-fuselage vs. CFRP fuselage) the CFRP part realizes true 25% weight savings.
It seems that other considerations sometime make other material preferable so that the 50%/50% material mix as observed today could be the best. In other words instead of making a 100% CFRP plane (that would realize a whopping 25% weight reduction) it seems that for many parts CFRP is not a suitable material.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2804 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 95): I think your assertion may be somewhat simplistic. How many combined A350/A330 orders do we see?
It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of new A330 orders are for "interim lift". Is there a quick breakdown one way or the other?
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 98): - A330 ->788 -> CFRP wing+fuselage realize almost no weight reduction
As I recall, 787 has a wider fuselage, while A332 is longer. What is the surface area of both fuselages?
I think there's more to the story than meets the eyes. "fact that by introducing the most advanced technologies into the all-new 787-8, that airplane can carry a comparable number of passengers more comfortably, while burning 20 percent less fuel and costing 32 percent less per year to maintain than the A330-200." http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2005/q1/nr_050210g.html
And, "Boeing estimates that the 787 will be 30,000 lb to as much as 40,000 lb lighter than the Airbus A330-200, depending on which of the following three 787 configurations is chosen." http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2005/May/865
AFAIK, no one has sued Boeing for fraud.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 102): And, it is the total weight improvement when only the alu-fuselage got substituted. Comparing on a per-part-level (alu-fuselage vs. CFRP fuselage) the CFRP part realizes true 25% weight savings.
What some fail to realize (not you) is that drastic reduction in fuselage weight does not nor ever has translated into comparable reductions in fuel burn. If it were as simple as that, Boeing wouldn't have said from the beginning that fuel savings would be a few percent here, a few there, and that one needed to look at the total package to get the real picture. The documentation I've read suggests about a 6:1 ration of weight savings to fuel savings when using CFRP, and while that is great with high fuel prices, it's not as dramatic as some seem to expect.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Wing-size isn't the only aspect....computer technology has allowed for a "better" wing to be built-ie.-including, but not limited to flexibility, bending, warping, etc...
Where did you get that notion from (you might be correct, I'm curious however where you got it from)
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 98): The 787 other than e.g. the A350 fails to realize relevant weight savings. Is my view just blurred or is Boeing's first CFRP shot a bit limping?
If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing the huge sales (even with the delays)....almost 1,000 sales before first flight says something about the capabilities of the plane..
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): Anyway, good comments Rheinwaldner.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8937 posts, RR: 51 Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2758 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of new A330 orders are for "interim lift".
Other than SQ's order, which other orders through 2006 & 2007 have given you this impression?
As an astute observer has suggested, combined orders of A330s and A350s make a lot of sense for many airlines, whereas the a.net assumption is often that the A330 part of this order is "interim lift". Most times the word "interim" does not appear in any PR.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): Boeing estimates that the 787 will be 30,000 lb to as much as 40,000 lb lighter than the Airbus A330-200, depending on which of the following three 787 configurations is chosen.
That article is three years old and the 787 has porked-up a bit since then - instead of being 40,000lb lighter, the -8 is only 23,000lb lighter.
LAXDESI From United States, joined May 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 10 Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 105): That article is three years old and the 787 has porked-up a bit since then - instead of being 40,000lb lighter, the -8 is only 23,000lb lighter.
Wiki indicates OEW of 242,000 lb for 788, and Airbus has A332 OEW at 263,700 lb--a difference of 21,700. We will have to wait a few years, say around the 100th 788, before the long-term weight difference between the two aircrafts will be clear.
Can we expect 788 to be 25,000-30,000 lb lighter than A332 in due course?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of new A330 orders are for "interim lift". Is there a quick breakdown one way or the other?
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to construct a breakdown like that. some have undoubtedly been interim lift. But I'm pretty sure a lot are genuine long-term purchases....
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): "fact that by introducing the most advanced technologies into the all-new 787-8, that airplane can carry a comparable number of passengers more comfortably, while burning 20 percent less fuel and costing 32 percent less per year to maintain than the A330-200."
That article also says that the 787-8 "will fly 1 500 Nm further than it's competitor". It won't with a comparable payload.
Current 233 tonne A330-200's with 250 pax have a nominal range of 6 750 Nm. Next year this will be higher.
With the same pax payload, Boeing publish a range of 7 650 Nm - in other words a 900 Nm (and soon to reduce) difference (assuming the weight target is hit).
I'm pretty sure the 787-8 won't burn anything like 20% less fuel - 10%-12% will be nearer (and laudable for that).
At 20% difference, A330 sales would have nose-dived by now.
But they haven't.
The maintenance figure might well be feasible.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): "Boeing estimates that the 787 will be 30,000 lb to as much as 40,000 lb lighter than the Airbus A330-200, depending on which of the following three 787 configurations is chosen."
And yet the OEW of the 787-8 is 114.5 tonnes, and that of the A330-200 is 117 tonnes, which is only 5 000 lb difference.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 103): What some fail to realize (not you) is that drastic reduction in fuselage weight does not nor ever has translated into comparable reductions in fuel burn
What some fail to realise is that the "drastic reduction" only applies to a small proportion of the aircraft, and so the overall weight reduction is small (but still laudable for that.)
I'm not sure how dredging up these claims adds much when the Boeing's own technical documentation contradicts it.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8937 posts, RR: 51 Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2674 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 106): Wiki indicates OEW of 242,000 lb for 788, and Airbus has A332 OEW at 263,700 lb--a difference of 21,700.
I was comparing MTOW from the respective manufacturer's websites.
PolymerPlane From United States, joined May 2006, 818 posts, RR: 3 Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
So, does this mean Boeing does not have to worry about A350 ?
B777 has already more performance overall compared to the A350 and with a little tweak or new engines to match the SFC, there is going to be only marginal advantage of the A350 due to CFRP.
Maybe GE can modify GENx and slap it on GE90 and Boeing can trim a bit of structural weight due to the lower fuel burn, thus MTOW.
This means Boeing has more than 5-year lead over Airbus, considering B777 is already in the air and Airbus hasn't even finalized A350's design.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 108): Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 106):
Wiki indicates OEW of 242,000 lb for 788, and Airbus has A332 OEW at 263,700 lb--a difference of 21,700.
I was comparing MTOW from the respective manufacturer's websites.
The respective manufacturer's ACAP documents say:-
B788 OEW - 252 500lb - 114 532 kg
A332 OEW - 257 367lb - 116 740 kg (with GE CF6)
A332 OEW - 258 031lb - 117 041 kg (with PW 4068)
A332 OEW - 257 588lb - 116 840 kg (with RR Trent 700)
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1596 posts, RR: 11 Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2635 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 98): The present A320 basic-fuselage-structure has a weight of 4547 kg. That is the sum of 2196 kg skin panels, 598 kg stringers, 1399 kg frames, 238 kg clips and 116 kg rivets. Would it be made from CFRP the weight would be reduced by 1000kg. If CFRP would be applied for the rest of the fuselage structure the savings would be 2500kg. Total weight savings would be 24.2%. This translates into a take-off-weight reduction of 4.5%. The resulting mission performance would lead to a fuel usage reduction of 3.7% over a 5300km range or 4.1% over a 1900km range
You can put a lot of spin to that and put it in a different perspective.
2500 kg [4.5%] reduction in take-off weight . . . now trade that OEW weight reduction for payload: 2500 kg additoinal payload. I believe that currently max. payload for the A320 is around 17.000 kg. So 2500 kg equates to around 15% extra payload [weightwise] at no additonal operational cost.
For larger and longer range aircraft [787/350] the benefit is even bigger, as here payload typically is a smaller portion of total weight.
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
LAXDESI From United States, joined May 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 10 Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2525 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 108): Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 106):
Wiki indicates OEW of 242,000 lb for 788, and Airbus has A332 OEW at 263,700 lb--a difference of 21,700.
I was comparing MTOW from the respective manufacturer's websites.
Are you sure you have the correct figures? Boeing lists 788 MTOW at 484,000 lbs, and Airbus lists A332 MTOW at 513,700 lbs--a difference of 29,700 lbs.
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1775 posts, RR: 7 Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 65): 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.
Fantastic way of summing up your thoughts! For the record, I totally agree! Until you pointed it out, I never really thought before that up until the A330/A340, there were no other aircraft with wingspans approaching 200ft. especially in their weight and size class. A remarkable achievement by Airbus. Then Boeing came out with the 777 with a huge wingspan that proved to be very efficient and fast, and even better improvements came with the raked wingtips, and now we have evolved into the 787 composite wing which comes standard with "blended" raked wingtips. I like the argument of "design" versus sheer "materials" as a notch in technological gains. Well said Astuteman.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 52): 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?
Well you're not exactly being straight here. Boeing never designed the 787 to grow to compete with the current A350XWB, which is what you're assuming. When Boeing froze the design, they weren't expecting Airbus to come out with a plane as large as the A350XWB, but rather to compete against the A330, which the 787 should do very well.
[Edited 2008-05-27 15:46:23]
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5724 posts, RR: 56 Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 98): Is my view just blurred or is Boeing's first CFRP shot a bit limping? An other point of view could be that the 787 is build very rigid to be on the save side.
Maybe some of both. The videos out there of the fuselage ultimate load test show that they are well over their required strength, which implies a lot of margin. Better to be a lot over than a little under, at first.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8937 posts, RR: 51 Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2280 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 114): The videos out there of the fuselage ultimate load test show that they are well over their required strength, which implies a lot of margin.
Am I right in thinking this test was conducted on a test section, not a whole fuselage? If just a test section, was this a "test test", or is this test applicable for 787 certification?
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2474 posts, RR: 21 Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2284 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 113): Boeing never designed the 787 to grow to compete with the current A350XWB, which is what you're assuming. When Boeing froze the design, they weren't expecting Airbus to come out with a plane as large as the A350XWB, but rather to compete against the A330, which the 787 should do very well.
The point is that the 787 doesn't really leapfrog the A330 either (there is a very nice thread about it right now), contrary to what has been often claimed.
Sure, the 787 matches the A330 all the way and on really long missions it even beats it, but Airbus has now covered that segment far better with the A350, which also takes out most of the superimposed 777 range along with it.
The interesting point and bottom line is that more than 20 years after the A330 was launched, Boeing still can not overtake the A330 is even remotely the same way as the A330 leapfrogged the 767! And yet Boeing claims a 5 year lead over Airbus??? Ridiculous! Knowing the 787 draws 90% of its efficiency gains from its engines (to which Boeing has no merrit whatsoever), it really speaks volumes about the superior skills of Airbus as they were able to design a 787 avant la lettre almost 20 years ago.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 109): So, does this mean Boeing does not have to worry about A350 ?
If the A350 advantage over the 777 were composites only, there would be no reason to worry. If there is a minor saving in OEW and better aerodynamics and better engines and all of this integrates well and gives an optimal synergy effect, this cannot be balanced by just putting new engines under the 777.
I do not expect the A350 to wash the 777 with new engines away - but the comfortable situation the 7723 have now against the A3456 will end for sure too.
So, in 2015 I see the market for widebody
A380 vs B748 with Airbus leading 4:1
A350 vs B777 with Airbus struggling to get the A350 leading 7:6
A330 vs B787 with Boeing leading 1:2
The point is that close to a thousand 787's have been ordered by dozens of companies, which means it suits their requirements better than the 330. To them, that's the only benchmark that's important. How anyone else compares the planes doesn't matter one little bit.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 823 posts, RR: 6 Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 104): If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing the huge sales (even with the delays)....almost 1,000 sales before first flight says something about the capabilities of the plane..
The sales are phenomenal indeed and the most important figure anyway. They are so good that one hardly bears to discuss about possible 787 weaknesses. The advantages and gains of the 787 are there. That is what counts regardless whether they are big or small. The plane to be replaced (767) is outclassed by far. The comparing Airbus-product is not able to achieve overall parity -> huge sales!
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 104): Where did you get that notion from (you might be correct, I'm curious however where you got it from)
I'm sorry, my english skills struggle to translate the meaning of the question
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 109): So, does this mean Boeing does not have to worry about A350 ?
Other than the 787 (vs. A330) the A350 will be much lighter than the 777 (if it turns out as projected).
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 114): Maybe some of both. The videos out there of the fuselage ultimate load test show that they are well over their required strength, which implies a lot of margin. Better to be a lot over than a little under, at first.
If I think about it another reason is the greater performance (performance is basically range, when payload is similar and normalized). The better performance pays its tribute in the form of more weight. IIRC you were the one that mentioned this point some time ago. So to see it from another view-point: the 787 is a formidable high-performer that is even matching CASM of the less capable (range-wise) A330. Both 787 and A350 have put such emphasis on range that when compared with less capable planes their virtues shine not so bright.
We must get used not only to compare capacity (floor-space, payload) but also account the performance. Capacity, performance and efficiency are the "iron triangle" of aeronautics. Improve one, decrease the other two. When comparing different aircrafts (especially if the everything is equal except the performance) we must always limit the scope to ranges that can be done by both. In this thread this constraint is presented very well (consistent comparison 788/A332 for flights < 8hrs).
On the other hand all these considerations show clearly the strengths of the A330 as medium-hauler. A dedicated medium-range plane can not easily be dethroned by a native high-performer. If I don't use 8000nm range the efficiency margin of the 787 melts. That means for Trans-Atlantic ranges the 787 gives away efficiency that could otherwise be achieved by the implemented level of technology.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 119): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 104):
If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing the huge sales (even with the delays)....almost 1,000 sales before first flight says something about the capabilities of the plane..
The sales are phenomenal indeed and the most important figure anyway. They are so good that one hardly bears to discuss about possible 787 weaknesses. The advantages and gains of the 787 are there. That is what counts regardless whether they are big or small. The plane to be replaced (767) is outclassed by far. The comparing Airbus-product is not able to achieve overall parity -> huge sales!
I do not think we disagree on that end...
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 119): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 104):
Where did you get that notion from (you might be correct, I'm curious however where you got it from)
I'm sorry, my english skills struggle to translate the meaning of the question
No problems friend, I was basically requesting a source for your comments...
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 3163 posts, RR: 71 Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2000 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 116): it really speaks volumes about the superior skills of Airbus as they were able to design a 787 avant la lettre almost 20 years ago.
Now if only the sales team had been so superior, too - but it couldn't stop airlines from ordering masses of that "copy" while shamefully rejecting the "original"...
"The number of orders placed by lessors demonstrates how much enthusiasm there is for the -200 in the short-to-medium term. The type is now seen in the context of offering readily available interim lift until the arrival of new types. " http://www.aviationtoday.com/avn/categories/commercial/13234.html
I asked if there was a break down of the orders since I thought this was likely to have already been discussed. Is there? Just a quick look adds Air Asia X, Aer Lingus, and Jetstar to the "interim lift" airlines, and probably more. However, I'll keep an open mind.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 105): That article is three years old and the 787 has porked-up a bit since then - instead of being 40,000lb lighter, the -8 is only 23,000lb lighter.
I know the article is three years old - that was the point. However, I can simply point out that the 783 is more than 40,000lbs lighter - the article does say "depending on which version of the 787" thus this counts, albeit in a very strange way.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 107): I wouldn't have thought it was possible to construct a breakdown like that. some have undoubtedly been interim lift. But I'm pretty sure a lot are genuine long-term purchases....
I'm surprised - I would have thought the orders would have been analyzed to death proving the matter one way or the other. I could find a lot of claims about the A330 but not a complete breakdown - perhaps such doesn't exist.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 107): That article also says that the 787-8 "will fly 1 500 Nm further than it's competitor". It won't with a comparable payload.
Current 233 tonne A330-200's with 250 pax have a nominal range of 6 750 Nm.
Your point being that the comment disagrees with the preliminary data?
Fact remains the 787-8 flies further with less fuel.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 107): What some fail to realise is that the "drastic reduction" only applies to a small proportion of the aircraft, and so the overall weight reduction is small (but still laudable for that.)
I'm not sure how dredging up these claims adds much when the Boeing's own technical documentation contradicts it.
We agree on the weight point.
I "dredged" up the claims because I believe they warrant repeating as a reminder of what was originally said versus what some here have claimed. For example, there was a claim that the 787 was never compared with the A330 and only the 767. Not true, as I demonstrated. Whether reality agrees or contradicts the details of the claims is irrelevant - I don't care one way or the other.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110): The respective manufacturer's ACAP documents say:-
Are those Boeing's FINAL numbers? Are they even accurate or are they inflated, as some have said based on how the number is derived?
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8937 posts, RR: 51 Reply 124, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
With respect to leased A330s, since Jan 2006, of 282 orders for pax A330s, only 54 were from leasing companies (39 in 2006, 10 in 2007 and 5 so far in 2008), so the trend is decreasing significantly.
Quoting Khobar (Reply 123): I asked if there was a break down of the orders since I thought this was likely to have already been discussed. Is there?
Only from Airbus' O&D spreadsheets.
A330 orders (excluding freighters) since Jan 2006 are: 2006
Qantas - 2
Aer Lingus - 2
VIP - 1
CIT Leasing* - 5
Air Caribes - 1
ILFC* - 3
Air Mauitius - 1
CIT Leasing* - 5
Lufthansa - 5
Afriqiyah - 3
TAM - 6
Qantas - 4
AerCap* - 20
MEA - 4
Singapore - 19
Pegasus* - 6
Grupo Marsans - 12
UFO - 5
2007
AerCap* - 10
Avianca - 5
Air Asia X - 15
Thai - 8
Etihad - 5
Avianca - 5
Egyptair - 5
Hong Kong Airlines - 20
Air Caribes - 2
Swiss - 9
US Airways - 10
VIP - 1
Oman Air - 5
US Airways - 5
KLM - 2
Cathay Pacific - 8
Finnair - 1
Jet Airways - 5
VIP - 1
Kingfisher - 10
2008
Libyan Airlines - 4
Hawaiian - 6
TAM - 4
CIT Leasing* - 5
Air Asia X - 10
China Southern - 10
Aer Lingus - 6
Phew!
* = leasing company
Quoting Khobar (Reply 123): Just a quick look adds Air Asia X, Aer Lingus, and Jetstar to the "interim lift" airlines, and probably more. However, I'll keep an open mind.
Air Asia X - have no widebodies other than A330s on order, so that's certainly not interim lift!
Aer Lingus - half agree, the PR talks about providing additional growth until their A350s arrive to replace their existing A330s.
JetStar - difficult to call, since they haven't ordered A330s (I believe QF has ordered some for them)
So feel free to pick out other interim orders. It hardly matters in all honesty, it's still an order!
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 125, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1742 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 125): Air Asia X - have no widebodies other than A330s on order, so that's certainly not interim lift!
Aer Lingus - half agree, the PR talks about providing additional growth until their A350s arrive to replace their existing A330s.
JetStar - difficult to call, since they haven't ordered A330s (I believe QF has ordered some for them)
So feel free to pick out other interim orders. It hardly matters in all honesty, it's still an order! wink
Air Asia X came up in a discussion about interim lift - that's why I included it. Thanks for the correction.
Add Hawaiian Air, Afriqiyah Air, TAM, Thai, Libyan, TAP, etc. There are others, but I think the point has been made - SQ is not the only example contrary to what was claimed.
It matters because people here are arguing the A330 competes against the 787 on its performance when, in reality, it competes more on its availability and price.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 126, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 125): It matters because people here are arguing the A330 competes against the 787 on its performance when, in reality, it competes more on its availability and price.
In reality, it competes on performance, availability AND price. The 3 points of the decision triangle: price, speed, quality. Just about every decision comes down to balancing the three, and the closer you get to any two, the further you get from the third.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 127, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 126): In reality, it competes on performance, availability AND price. The 3 points of the decision triangle: price, speed, quality. Just about every decision comes down to balancing the three, and the closer you get to any two, the further you get from the third.
I agree, hence my point that the A330 competes more on price and availability than performance.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, RR: 89 Reply 128, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 125): It matters because people here are arguing the A330 competes against the 787 on its performance when, in reality, it competes more on its availability and price.
I think the only thing I'd say to that is, that the A330's performance has to be at least up to a certain level, relative to the 787, otherwise it wouldn't be securing orders, no matter how cheap, or available it was.
I don't see hundreds of 767's, or A340's being ordered, despite their more immediate availability, and for certain in the 767's case, price.
I think that's the crux of this discussion, just as it will be soon, when we get closer to the A350-1000's EIS, and the 773ER is still selling.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 126): In reality, it competes on performance, availability AND price
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 129, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1462 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 128): I think the only thing I'd say to that is, that the A330's performance has to be at least up to a certain level, relative to the 787, otherwise it wouldn't be securing orders, no matter how cheap, or available it was.
I don't see hundreds of 767's, or A340's being ordered, despite their more immediate availability, and for certain in the 767's case, price.
Of course A330 is going to sell over A340 or 767. Are you kidding?
The A330 is a very fine aircraft, and its performance relative to A340 or 767 demonstrates this rather well. It also helps that while "the backlog for the A330-200 may equate to nearly five years, there are still gaps in the schedule which allows Airbus to satisfy demand from those customers who are unable to obtain B787s until 2012 and beyond."
The present A320 basic-fuselage-structure has a weight of 4547 kg. That is the sum of 2196 kg skin panels, 598 kg stringers, 1399 kg frames, 238 kg clips and 116 kg rivets. Would it be made from CFRP the weight would be reduced by 1000kg. If CFRP would be applied for the rest of the fuselage structure the savings would be 2500kg. Total weight savings would be 24.2%. This translates into a take-off-weight reduction of 4.5%. The resulting mission performance would lead to a fuel usage reduction of 3.7% over a 5300km range or 4.1% over a 1900km range.
Unfortunately, it ain't that simple. First, the theoretic weight saving only accounts for equal strength. But it does not account for things like impact damage resistance, damage tolerance, lightning strike protection etc. For example, replacing all skin panels and frames with CFRP buys you hundreds of lbs extra in current return networks, embedded wire mesh, and expanded metal foils. With the 787 this is thousands of lbs. Then you have lots of heavy duty parts that cannot be replaced with CFRP at all, like heavy frames and landing gear attachments etc.
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Aug 2007, 48 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1061 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 325 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2474 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 943 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6304 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2006, 4002 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 195 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2483 posts, 
...I agree..
, as well as B748I, which will be overweight when delivered.. 
:
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2268 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 10756 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 384 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 632 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5724 posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 176 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4800 posts, 
 
  
 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3108 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 780 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 443 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2283 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
