Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21158 times:
.
Some bits and pieces
The A350 completed internal Milestone 5 review (weight status, schedule and ramp-up rates), Next stage : parts design, set up component production. The focus is on A350-900, Airbus is eager to maintain 2013 EIS.
Several structural demonstrators have produced all over Europe, including barrels. Final wind tunnel checkout : completed in the late summer. Airbus plans to break ground on the final assembly facility at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse on Jan. 14.
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21156 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Several structural demonstrators have produced all over Europe, including barrels. Final wind tunnel checkout : completed in the late summer. Airbus plans to break ground on the final assembly facility at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse on Jan. 14.
could they not use the old 300/310 lines? or did they turn them into 330/340 lines?
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21018 times:
The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late
This of course is the man who predicted in June 2007 that the 787 would fly on time, and enter service on time.
Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3118 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20707 times:
Good to hear of some progress with the A350
To answer Delta's question - from what I remember the A300/310 line weren't really a line more a hanger where the planes were built "on the spot" so a new building is definitely required.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15615 posts, RR: 90 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 20555 times:
Hloutweg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20510 times:
NoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 498 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 20458 times:
Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style? Given Boeing's experiences here, I wonder if they would still feel that way?
MarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 574 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 20395 times:
Ah yes... the infamous mr Aboulafia....
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1944 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 20041 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
To be extra clear, Aboulafia does not work for McVitie as your sentence could imply.
McVitie is the go-to guy for counterpoint quotes in news articles about Airbus. He always has the dissenting angle that journalists need in order to claim fairness and balance. That's a big reason why they keep going to him.
By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8071 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 19869 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
Yep, I found this one interesting:
Quote: Officials within the A350 supply chain and financial community don't expect the aircraft to come to market until at least 2015, says Doug McVitie, managing director of consultancy Arran Aerospace.
This was similar to what John Leahy was saying at a similar point in the 787 development process. I wonder if McVitie is just a copycat, or has some real data.
Quote: Moreover, he notes that the failure to unload production facilities in France and Germany means EADS has to foot more of the A350 development bill than initially planned.
Really? I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18916 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8): By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.
Indeed it is.
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late...
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 6): Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style?
Yes they did.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9): I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?
I suspect the journalism has fallen apart far more than the sales have.
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350
Although the counterpoise quote from the AviationWeek correspondent (who presumably isn't paid to cast doubts on the A350 programme is:-
Quote: An executive with a supplier working on the A350 says Airbus is eager to maintain the 2013 date and is even looking to see if there are opportunities to get the aircraft out earlier, in part to take advantage of Boeing's problems with the 787
I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 18325 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8): McVitie is the go-to guy for counterpoint quotes in news articles about Airbus.
That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that he's a bitter, twisted, Airbus-hater, who never misses an opportunity to stick the knife in his ex-employer.
Given that it could, just about, be argued that Airbus missed this milestone by at most three months, claims the A350 will be two years late would seem to be based more on some perverse hope rather than cold facts.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 18049 times:
Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 1): could they not use the old 300/310 lines? or did they turn them into 330/340 lines?
The old A300/310 line, which was previously used to build the Caravelle IIRC, was only just wide enough to hold the A300. The A350, with its larger wingspan, would never fit in there.
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late
Gotta love good old Richie! Though he appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years regarding Airbus, it's been going on for a while. Still remember him stating how the 767-400 (the original one, not the later proposed re-engined one) was 'clearly the better choice' compared to the A330-200, and how Boeing would easily sell several hundreds of them...
A three month slip should not be reason for alarm because the whole A350XWB development schedule was always much more conservative than that of the 787. It's likely that some other development have proceeded in parallel and Airbus might be able to make up some or all of those three months before 2013. Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.
Tim Clark, president of the Dubai-based carrier, said the design for the aircraft, a competitor to the 777 offered by Boeing Co. (BA), should be ready within "a month or two."
The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.
Emirates' rapid growth and huge order book have made Clark and his colleagues among the most influential executives in the airline industry, particularly on aircraft design.
The carrier operates a 122-plane fleet, has 246 aircraft on order from Boeing and Airbus, with plans to use the aircraft for expansion or to replace older planes over the next five to eight years, Clark said.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17405 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2): The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late
This of course is the man who predicted in June 2007 that the 787 would fly on time, and enter service on time.
Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350
These quotes need to be read with a jar of salt in close proxemity. They just sound so very jealous on the progress the A350-XWB program is making. To EIS there is still almost 4 years to go. And four years was the initial target for the development and EIS of the total B787 program. Airbus has planned 7 years for developing three versions of this new airliner (after struggeling a couple of years with the initial A350 design) where Boeing planned only 4 years for three new versions. Now Boeing ditched one version already (B787-3), and it still way off there initial schedule.
Maybe this detailed design freeze on the A350 is three days or three months late. But the program is appearantly running at full speed, and is much and much further then the B787 ever was at this stage. To predict at least a two year delay for this program, which at present is based on absolutely nothing, is wishful thinking which makes the predictors, also at this stage of the program, a bunch of very, very sad people.
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8): By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.
That is the same way as I understand the information in this article. So a bit late? Yes! Dramatically late? No! And remember that in this phase you can win or loose basic structural performance on the airframe. As some have suggested (like SUH) two to three years ago, Airbus should squeeze the maximum benefit out of the delayed program compared to the B787. It will be later on the market, but has the chance of incorperating the latest in technological or aerodynamic advantages which were not available to the B787 program. It looks to me they are doing just that.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?
I suspect the journalism has fallen apart far more than the sales have.
I think so too. That is a very striking statement by you Astuteman.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): Although the counterpoise quote from the AviationWeek correspondent (who presumably isn't paid to cast doubts on the A350 programme is:-
Quote:
An executive with a supplier working on the A350 says Airbus is eager to maintain the 2013 date and is even looking to see if there are opportunities to get the aircraft out earlier, in part to take advantage of Boeing's problems with the 787
I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....
I think so too. Airbus was and is conservative with their development schedule for the A350-XWB. And so far there are no strong indications that they will not meet their deadlines regarding the EIS. This three days or even three months late "freezing of the detailled design" is not a thing one should be particularly worried about.
On the other hand Airbus should not rush anything in my opinion. The A380 production ramp-up fiasco is still fresh in our memories. As it will be fresh the memories of the customers. They better get it right, do a solid job and start with an overperforming and overdelivering product (just as the A380 is doing already) then to rush the plane to the market if that would mean an heavily overweight and underperforming airliner (at least the 20 to 100 copies of it ).
But I guess some are extremely worried that Airbus will be more or less on time with the A350-XWB where Boeing screwed up dramatically with the B787 development program. The flight testing program is still not on-going for that airliner (which I also like very much and I would love to see it fly its test program this year, do not get me wrong here) making the EIS of the B787 even now still uncertain. And I write "even now" because the plane should have had its EIS under the original schedule some time ago already.
Let us hope the production ramp-up will be better for the B787 so that another +2 year delay can be avoided. That is still not certain at the moment since like I said even the flight test phase has not started yet. And who knows what could come from that phase. I hope only good news, but it could also be bad news. So even now there are a lot more uncertainties on the B787 program then there are on the A350-XWB program. No matter how much these "famous" sad commentators might dislike it.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 12): That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that he's a bitter, twisted, Airbus-hater, who never misses an opportunity to stick the knife in his ex-employer.
Given that it could, just about, be argued that Airbus missed this milestone by at most three months, claims the A350 will be two years late would seem to be based more on some perverse hope rather than cold facts.
Like I said: sad people who probably do not really love or like their business, which is aviation, but only like aircraft from a specific OEM? I hope from now on both the A350-XWB and the B787 have a smooth run to EIS. And both will perform better than anticipated. I would love to fly on both to experience their qualities and their specific differences. That has been always a goal for me, and I can not wait to fly on both of these airliners. Sadly enough I still need to be patient about that.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.
Me too. But at this stage of the A350-XWB program, still 6 years to go before EK will get their first plane, that could of course still change. I do not hope so. And there are no strong indications yet that it would be late, except the wishful thinking of the forementioned sad and sorry people, but at this stage it can also not be ruled out. A lot might still happen, like nice developments, but also unpleasant developments.
We will have to wait and see, but so far all is looking good for the A350-XWB program. The sales are there (they are at least on par with the B787 sales at this stage of the program, which is surprising since the A350-XWB is a bigger aircraft which usually sells less copies then a smaller aircraft) and the development progress is there. The manufacturing progress is underway regarding the new assembly line, so it all looks good at the moment.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17388 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 10): Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
chart courtesy of Flight Global
Who appear to believe that the -800 will be a stretched version of the -900. Good old FLIGHT - still plagued by sub-editors who know nothing!
Glad to see the New Years celebs did not dent the acuity of your eyesight PM.
Hands up all the others who had to look back to check!
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.
Indeed it is.
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late..
Shocking slippage there, but just a taste of things to come - I hope!
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17159 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17): The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.
Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?
Airbus EIS for the A350XWB was always 2013, so how is 2014 two year late? I think the reporter is confusing the XWB with the original A350.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17076 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20): Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?
Airbus EIS for the A350XWB was always 2013, so how is 2014 two year late? I think the reporter is confusing the XWB with the original A350.
The journalist is not being as clear and careful with attribution as he arguably should be, but bounding the statement on either side by quotes from Tim Clark attributes it to Clark in the absence of any other attribution. Journalists often do that to avoid repeating "according to XXX" over and over again.
I agree with your explanation of how the journalist counts 2014 as two years late. Most likely he is counting from the announced EIS of one of the earlier A350s.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6159 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 16951 times:
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 6): Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style?
Define outsourcing "more agressively" Outsourcing has always been an inherent feature at Airbus. Roughly 50% of every Airbus airplane is built by outside contractors and it's been that way for a long time. Boeing is only now catching up to it, so I don't think Airbus will have the same type of supply chain problems that Boeing has had with the 787.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16855 times:
Things seem to be on time within a couple of months. Airbus has given themselves more time from this point to EIS than Boeing did with the 787, so can't see a few months being so bad right now.
Can't really trust much of what Tim Clark says. He's not paid to accurately portray what is happening at Airbus or Boeing. He's paid to get his airline in the news. If he does that by saying the A350 won't fly for his airline until a year late, then he'll do so. Nobody will care when (if) he's wrong…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16793 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): Airbus has given themselves more time from this point to EIS than Boeing did with the 787, so can't see a few months being so bad right now.
Airbus have left more time from now until EIS than Boeing budgeted for the entire 787 development period from announcement to EIS.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): Can't really trust much of what Tim Clark says. He's not paid to accurately portray what is happening at Airbus or Boeing. He's paid to get his airline in the news. If he does that by saying the A350 won't fly for his airline until a year late, then he'll do so. Nobody will care when (if) he's wrong…
Good point, but I count Clark less biased than Airbus or Aboulafia. I'll continue to expect 2014 and if Airbus manage late 2013, it will be a pleasant surprise.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 25, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16626 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 15):
Is EK saying that their first A350 will EIS in 2014 or will the first A350 customer (Qatar) also be in 2014?
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
Tim Clark, president of the Dubai-based carrier, said the design for the aircraft, a competitor to the 777 offered by Boeing Co. (BA), should be ready within "a month or two."
The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20):
Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): The journalist is not being as clear and careful with attribution as he arguably should be, but bounding the statement on either side by quotes from Tim Clark attributes it to Clark in the absence of any other attribution. Journalists often do that to avoid repeating "according to XXX" over and over again.
In that case, its a false attribution and is probably done deliberately - for example, the same style of attribution by proxy also leads you to accept that Tim Clark commented on the total number sold and the forced redesign, which is unlikely that he actually did - its quite obviously a bit of editorial comment added to the article by the WSJ themselves.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 26, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17253 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 25): In that case, its a false attribution and is probably done deliberately - for example, the same style of attribution by proxy also leads you to accept that Tim Clark commented on the total number sold and the forced redesign, which is unlikely that he actually did - its quite obviously a bit of editorial comment added to the article by the WSJ themselves.
That's possible, but it's far from obvious. You could contact the journalist and ask for an explanation. If you ask politely, there is a good chance he'll answer and he may appreciate learning something from you.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 27, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17206 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8): By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): October to January is three months.
As far I was aware, it was slated for Q4 2008, Oct-Dec, EADS/Airbus referred to it as "late 2008" in its communications with customers.
"Design freeze is planned for late 2008, with the first A350 variant, the -900, scheduled to make its first flight in 2012. Airbus is targeting a mid-2013 in-service date for the 314-seat -900 model with launch customer Qatar Airways. The smaller, 270-seat -800 will follow in 2014 and the 350 seat -1000 in 2015. In the longer term, ultra-long-range and freighter variants of the A350-900 are planned for 2016 and 2017, respectively."
Also the article written on Jan 2, said
"The A350 program was recently subjected to a far-reaching internal Airbus review"
"Before the December meeting, Airbus CEO Tom Enders characterized the event as a "major review" in which a range of matters, such as weight status, schedule and ramp-up rates, will be scrutinized."
i.e. the review (MG5) was last year, not the date the article was written.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 15): Is EK saying that their first A350 will EIS in 2014 or will the first A350 customer (Qatar) also be in 2014?
Quoting Bill142 (Reply 16): Maybe 2014 is when EK plan their EIS.
The EK A350XWB aircraft were ALWAYS due to have an EIS with EK in 2014
From the official EK press release
"The agreement with Airbus comprises firm orders for 50 A350-900s and 20 A350-1000s, plus 50 options for the A350-900s. The first A350 will be delivered to Emirates in 2014."
"The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB is currently the only engine available on the A350 XWB family. Emirates has ordered 50 firm A350-900 and 20 A350-1000 aircraft, with 50 option rights, due for delivery from 2014."
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 28, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17127 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 26): That's possible, but it's far from obvious.
I disagree - to me, its quite obviously an editorial comment added by WSJ to add information and context to Clarks quote, I would never assume Tim Clark said that from the article as posted.
AirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 233 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17038 times:
Does anybody have information about the design freezes of the various aircraft systems? The structural and aerodynamic part is only half of the picture. If they have still to do electrical tests on the fuselage demonstrator, there can't be really a frozen electrical system design, for example.
Although, as I see it now, the A350 program is in a good state, so no need to worry. Of course, the usual FUBARs and SNAFUs in aircraft development are still to come. But anything less than a half year delay in delivery is perfectly OK, which should be possible with that schedule.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 6559 posts, RR: 67 Reply 30, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 16956 times:
Anyone who is claiming to have enough hard evidence at this point to predict a substantial delay in the EIS of the A350 is following some agenda - and not an honorable one.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 31, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 16710 times:
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 29): Does anybody have information about the design freezes of the various aircraft systems? The structural and aerodynamic part is only half of the picture. If they have still to do electrical tests on the fuselage demonstrator, there can't be really a frozen electrical system design, for example.
Part of Power8 was the restructure the aircraft development process and to reduce the cycle time of new aircraft development from 7.5 to 6 years (that is 6 years from the design freeze which was in Jul 07, not 6 years from industrial launch).
In the A330 for example it was only after MG5 where they selected the electrical subsystems, work packages etc, on the A350XB a lot of that is done already. The number of electrical work packages has reduced from 9 on the A330 to 5 on the A350XWB, and they have already selected the suppliers/risk sharing partners for some of those work packages (first ones selected in Q4 2007).
Going back in history a little, this old Flight Global article goes a fair way to describing the organisational/process changes with the A350XWB.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 32, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16371 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 30): Anyone who is claiming to have enough hard evidence at this point to predict a substantial delay in the EIS of the A350 is following some agenda - and not an honorable one.
Which is very much true. As I wrote before:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18): Like I said: sad people who probably do not really love or like their business, which is aviation, but only like aircraft from a specific OEM?
It is truly sad such unfounded assumptions are being made, but if someones favorite OEM is in trouble, it is a strategy to over-dramatise possible problems with the competitor. Even when there is no indication whatsoever that this competitor is having problems. It is not a perfect unbiased world out there, so expect some more of this trash journalism when the problems at Boeing with the B787 get even bigger! I really hope that will not happen, but if it does, more articles of the same very much doubtful quality will appear.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 34, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15932 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 32): if someones favorite OEM is in trouble, it is a strategy to over-dramatise possible problems with the competitor. Even when there is no indication whatsoever that this competitor is having problems. It is not a perfect unbiased world out there, so expect some more of this trash journalism when the problems at Boeing with the B787 get even bigger! I really hope that will not happen, but if it does, more articles of the same very much doubtful quality will appear.
Not to mention there's also a commercial aspect for these publications to it.
Remember that a large portion of the readers of English language publications is American, so it not a wild guess to say that most of the readers of these magazines have a clear preference for Boeing, yet for the past 1 and a half year there has not been much reason for any flag waving for them.
Now, people tend to have a habit of not wanting to read bad news week after week after week, so I think it is a safe bet to say that many publications are actually starting to feel the consequences of the complete mess Boeing's 787 program is in on their weekly sales numbers.
Even on this site, it seems the topic with bad news for airbus (even if just conjecture) get far more hits than the topics about confirmed bad news for Boeing, so I dare to bet that an aviationweek publication with the title : "A350XWB possibly to be delayed by 2 years" will get more hits than "787 to be delayed by another 2 years", so journalists are quickly tempted to come up with more such 'good' news...
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 15797 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.
Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?
Airbus EIS for the A350XWB was always 2013, so how is 2014 two year late? I think the reporter is confusing the XWB with the original A350. confused
I thought it was obvious that he was refering to the original 350 EIS from before the XWB redesign.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14038 posts, RR: 55 Reply 36, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 15644 times:
I dunno. Airbus is too cold and calculating to allow themselves to mess this one up. And they're really good at making planes now. I think this bird is at least flying in 2012 if not EIS.
This man is without even a shade of respectability.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 24): Good point, but I count Clark less biased than Airbus or Aboulafia. I'll continue to expect 2014 and if Airbus manage late 2013, it will be a pleasant surprise.
However, my experience with journalists is that numbers and dates are to be doubted. It is where they usually get it wrong. In particular when the number or date itself is not the main story - that would be the case if the article as such was about the program being delayed.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23610 posts, RR: 79 Reply 38, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15326 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 30): Anyone who is claiming to have enough hard evidence at this point to predict a substantial delay in the EIS of the A350 is following some agenda - and not an honorable one.
Why? I think we learned with the 787 that "worrying information" starts to leak out from "official sources" through "unofficial channels" long before it is formally released via "official channels".
It's true Aboulafia has an apparent pathological dislike of Airbus, but then one would think that would make him a prime candidate to receive information about any actual problems with the A350XWB, wouldn't it?
He may very well just be blowing smoke to blow smoke, but two years ago Boeing Boosters were absolutely convinced the 787 would be in regular revenue service today even as people - including John Leahey, who was accused of spreading F.U.D. - said that the program wasn't tracking perfectly to the GANNT chart.
It might behoove Airbus Aficionados to not dismiss this out of hand as just another example of "American muckraking" and proclaim the A350XWB will launch not just on time, but possibly early, and end up looking as foolish if it does neither...
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 39, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15232 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): He may very well just be blowing smoke to blow smoke
For now it is clear he is doing just that. There is no reason for the A350-XWB to be late at this time. It is a 7-9 year program where Boeing only planned 4 years which will be at least 6 years that we know of today. So far all looks to be on track. Unless news breaks which we sadly enough had to hear from the B787 program all to much, there is no need to state "at least two years late" and "earliest EIS in 2015".
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): It might behoove Airbus Aficionados to not dismiss this out of hand as just another example of "American muckraking" and proclaim the A350XWB will launch not just on time, but possibly early, and end up looking as foolish if it does neither...
Like I said Airbus should imho not push for earlier EIS. Better they stay on track and deliver a mature and over performing airplane that to rush to the market a plane which is severely overweight and under performing (which at least the first 20 B787's will be, possibly the first 100 are affected by this).
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15144 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): It's true Aboulafia has an apparent pathological dislike of Airbus, but then one would think that would make him a prime candidate to receive information about any actual problems with the A350XWB, wouldn't it?
If you think this should be true for Airbus as well
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): Why? I think we learned with the 787 that "worrying information" starts to leak out from "official sources" through "unofficial channels" long before it is formally released via "official channels".
then one should not think that Aboulafia is to be a prime candidate to recive information about problems in Airbus. Most likely, the official sources at Airbus would use someone as an unoficial channal who was not as much against them as Aboulafia.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 41, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15164 times:
Aboulafia has about z e r o credibility left with me, just like (the rest of?) Boeing's marketing department. The media shouldn't give that "expert" a stage.
Most interesting to see that the first flight seems to be 18 month before the EIS. That sounds better than what Boeing plans for the 787.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): Indeed it is.
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late... Wow! biggrin
Holy cow. Will they ever be able to catch that delay up?
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 12): Given that it could, just about, be argued that Airbus missed this milestone by at most three months, claims the A350 will be two years late would seem to be based more on some perverse hope rather than cold facts.
No, it shows a simple mindset, they say the A380 has been late, the A400 will be late, the 787 is late, so the A350 must be late, too. They don't expect Airbus to be able to learn from past programs.
Quoting PM (Reply 10): Who appear to believe that the -800 will be a stretched version of the -900. Good old FLIGHT - still plagued by sub-editors who know nothing! Big grin
That from an aviation magazine, that is just poor. I'm used to the media telling bs about aviation (makes me wonder how bad it is in fields that I know less about), but a specialist magazine??
Hloutweg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14918 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): A three month slip should not be reason for alarm because the whole A350XWB development schedule was always much more conservative than that of the 787. It's likely that some other development have proceeded in parallel and Airbus might be able to make up some or all of those three months before 2013. Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.
It isn't but the Wall Street journal who's saying that the EIS will be 2014. Not EK. Just clearing the Facts. None the less, that it is quite early to say how later if any will the A350 be.
What EK does say is: Tim Clark, president of the Dubai-based carrier, said the design for the aircraft, a competitor to the 777 offered by Boeing Co. (BA), should be ready within "a month or two."
This is from an article posted on the WSJ on Dec 12. This info now can be read in more than one way. Either it is complete early (less than a month), or that tere's some aspect of it that will demand a bit more of time.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 27): As far I was aware, it was slated for Q4 2008, Oct-Dec, EADS/Airbus referred to it as "late 2008" in its communications with customers.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 27): The first A350 will be delivered to Emirates in 2014.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): I suspect the journalism has fallen apart far more than the sales have.
This is a more accurate description of what happened. Although some of their (two i believe) did not sell in 2008, they're still marketing the sale of the sites and that's what they will ultimately want to achieve.
Kire From Austria, joined Mar 2008, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14887 times:
In the development business (at least in those humble development projects I did and do, and some engineers and managers at A or B may share this experience ) things get f****d up from time to time, since it is not so easy to do new stuff.
I think any A350 delay discussion is quite worthless at this point of time (you never know who will mount the fasteners), the only thing we know is that the A350 time schedule is more relaxed than the 787's one, which reduces delay risk but can never bring it to zero.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 44, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14120 times:
Quoting Kire (Reply 43): I think any A350 delay discussion is quite worthless at this point of time (you never know who will mount the fasteners), the only thing we know is that the A350 time schedule is more relaxed than the 787's one, which reduces delay risk but can never bring it to zero.
I think you are correct on this and we all here on A.net all know this. So the real question is: why is there now, at the peak of sad and disappointing problems at Boeing with their partly competing product, an article which puts so much emphasis on a possible delay of the A350-XWB? Especially while there is no clue whatsoever at this time that there are grounds for such a delay?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 45, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14101 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44): Especially while there is no clue whatsoever at this time that there are grounds for such a delay?
Shared pain is lessened ? I referred from quoting Richard and McVite opinions because IMO they were predictable.
During the last two yrs Airbus had internal troubles while factories were being sold. I have the impression the devlopment teams were not influenced too much. Spirit missed the boat not being able to buy an Airbus factory. However they still got lucky when they got the section 15 contract, a large barrel section between the cockpit and the wing.
The experience they have with the 787, along with parties like Alenia will help avoiding hick-ups. 25% of the A380 also gained experience, its more composites then e.g. a 787.
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 6559 posts, RR: 67 Reply 46, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13955 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 41): That from an aviation magazine, that is just poor. I'm used to the media telling bs about aviation (makes me wonder how bad it is in fields that I know less about), but a specialist magazine??
I've read FLIGHT every week since 1971 (and have many boxes of past issues in the attic to prove it) and I've lost count of the small and unnecessary errors I've seen. In fact, in the late 'eighties I wrote to the editor (Alan Winn?) to moan that in each of the past half dozen issues there had been irritating mistakes such as giving a photo of an F.27 the caption '737'. Its annual airliner census was always full of stupid errors. It just seemed like it was staffed by people who neither knew nor cared.
No-one at Reed Publishing had the courtesy to reply.
Oh well. I continued to buy it - and still do - as it's the best weekly out there. But it still exasperates me that little things like the A350-800 above weren't picked up and corrected by someone.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1944 posts, RR: 57 Reply 47, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13887 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18): To predict at least a two year delay for this program, which at present is based on absolutely nothing
Nothing?? I'll tell you what it's based on: every new (non-derivative) airliner development program since 1995 has been 2 years late
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 6559 posts, RR: 67 Reply 48, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13761 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 47): Nothing?? I'll tell you what it's based on: every new (non-derivative) airliner development program since 1995 has been 2 years late Big grin
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 49, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13376 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 47): Nothing?? I'll tell you what it's based on: every new (non-derivative) airliner development program since 1995 has been 2 years late
But they are all late due to different causes and the general perception is, also here on A-net , that these delays mainly are caused by bad management from the OEM's. So far there is no indication here that it is the case for the A350-XWB development.
Although apparently when reading the article some would like to see Airbus in the same problematic situation again. And that is sad behavior imho.
Chiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 793 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13070 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36): I dunno. Airbus is too cold and calculating to allow themselves to mess this one up. And they're really good at making planes now. I think this bird is at least flying in 2012 if not EIS.
Hmmm ... and I thought I was the only one thinking the same thing.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 51, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13149 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): So far there is no indication here that it is the case for the A350-XWB development.
Actually, talking "bad management" then the A350 is already late because the bad management launched a plane a few years ago that nobody really wanted, then had to relaunch it, then replace it. The current A350X program is so far on time, but the A350 idea is years behind schedule due to the same bad management that put the A380 behind, and similar bad management that put the 787 behind…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 52, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13083 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 51):
Actually, talking "bad management" then the A350 is already late because the bad management launched a plane a few years ago that nobody really wanted, then had to relaunch it, then replace it.
200 sales seems awfully high for a plane 'nobody really wanted'....
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 53, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13027 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 51): The current A350X program is so far on time
And that is what it is all about. Some in the article are specifically stating that the A350-XWB program will at least be 2 years late. By no means is there any indication for that conclusion.
And like Moo already pointed out, 200 sales already for a plane nobody wanted (the original A350) is a bit off the mark as well, don't you think?. I presume Airbus could have sold 300+ of them by now. But in the end I think the decision to go for the A350-XWB is the better one, especially if they combine that with the continues improvements on the A330 airframe. That combo is very strong in the current civil aviation market.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 54, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13017 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 51):
Actually, the A350 is already late because the bad management launched a plane a few years ago that nobody really wanted
Quoting Moo (Reply 52):
200 sales seems awfully high for a plane 'nobody really wanted'....
If you absolutely want to go down this path, then the 787 is already more than a decade late even, because the really 'bad management' at Boeing decided not only to launch but also built a plane that almost nobody -and I really do mean almost nobody- wanted: the 767-400ER...
Not to mention they also screwed up their second chance to get it right; still remember the sonic loser?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 55, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13019 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 52): 200 sales seems awfully high for a plane 'nobody really wanted'....
200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000.
If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar charge? Just to waste time and money?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 56, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12965 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): 200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000.
Like I wrote before, it would have sold at least 300+ by now. And if you take away some of the (unexpected) A330 sales, it could also easily be 400+ copies, also well before EIS. So it would for sure have reached a 1,000 copies for the whole program. But since the A330 has done this already, it is probably not enough. That is probably also a factor why Airbus changed het strategy on the A350 and turn it into an A350-XWB.
But, also like I wrote before, the A350-XWB is the better program for Airbus with already nearly 500 copies sold 4.5 years before EIS. It is a totally new airliner with a new fuselage which has a greater growth potential. That is the main reason I guess that Airbus switched her strategy. Also the comments from possible large customers that the old A350 was not enough, persuaded them to this decision.
But now we know that the B787 will not beat even the A330 on short(er) stretches, so those comments were also driven by the hype that the composite B787 was going to bowl over everything that has ever flown before. We know now that in the end it most likely be a very good plane, but also just another step in the evolution of airliner development. Not the extreme revolution which will make all other planes obsolete. Not so long ago that was all we could read here on A-net.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23610 posts, RR: 79 Reply 57, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12952 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 52): 200 sales seems awfully high for a plane 'nobody really wanted'....
It is, but we also need to remember that a number of customers - especially customers many on this board view as "top tier" or "super important/influential" - told Airbus in private and in public that the original A350 design was not impressing them to the level the 787 was and they would place the large bulk of their orders for the Boeing product.
So it might indeed have 300-400 orders, but the 787 could be pushing 1200 or 1300 which still would make the totals look "lop-sided" to many. And more important, the 777 program would be something Boeing could look forward to saving their bacon on the 787 program's delays (thanks to another 1000 orders over 20 years) as opposed to a program that will itself need replacing due to a lower future order outlook (more likely 300 orders over 10 years).
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8071 posts, RR: 13 Reply 58, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12835 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 39): It is a 7-9 year program where Boeing only planned 4 years which will be at least 6 years that we know of today.
I'm not singling you out, but it's hard to make this kind of comparison. The challenges they both faced are quite different.
Airbus seems to have a conservative schedule, but that makes me wary: it's almost unheard of to have a truely conservative schedule. A longer schedule means a longer time from the start of investment to payback, so there is immense pressure within the company to have as short a schedule as possible. Perhaps Airbus faces less capital pressure than does Boeing, or perhaps Airbus had enough concerns they could use to justify the conservative schedule. Time will tell.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): It's true Aboulafia has an apparent pathological dislike of Airbus, but then one would think that would make him a prime candidate to receive information about any actual problems with the A350XWB, wouldn't it?
As we see here, it also make it so no one believes him, so he wouldn't be a great person to give the information to.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49):
But they are all late due to different causes and the general perception is, also here on A-net Big grin, that these delays mainly are caused by bad management from the OEM's. So far there is no indication here that it is the case for the A350-XWB development.
Now we are on the same page. Very different challenges.
Not sure if I agree totally about the bad mangement from OEMs. When Boeing was bidding out the contracts, it should have had a good idea about the relative experience levels of the contractor's employees, and should have factored that in, but clearly they didn't. The original fastener delay also should have been dealt with by a contract that penalized the vendor for late delivery. The current fastener delay also seems to be that Boeing presumed a certain level of experience on the part of the floor workers, and that any confusion would be dealt with in a timely fashion.
I think clearly we're at the point in the 787 fiasco that will cause business school textbooks to be written. I think the general theme will be "How to get outsourcing wrong!", or perhaps, "Is outsourcing really worth it?".
Note also that a late schedule can have knock-on effects. For instance, Boeing knew when the labor contracts were due, but perhaps thought they'd come at a less significant phase of the project, which presumably would be true if the 787 was already flying when the strike hit.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 59, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12736 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58): The challenges they both faced are quite different.
Yes they are, even when in the end they both want to sell as many airliners as they possibly can. Of course with a decent profit.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58): A longer schedule means a longer time from the start of investment to payback, so there is immense pressure within the company to have as short a schedule as possible.
I think after the A380 problems and the launch and cancellation of the original A350, Airbus was not going to take any risks anymore. Their credibility was very much at steak, and it still is. So they adopted a different strategy with a very cautious time schedule. Maybe they were too cautious, but on the other hand they had burned themselves at least one time too many.
So a bit of caution is not a bad idea, especially since they drastically changed their strategy on the A350 changing it into what we now know as the A350-XWB. Taking on the new B787 upper models, and the B777 at the same time is for sure not an easy task. And if you rush to the finish line trying to accomplish this, I believe you will fail. And probably fail big time.
I think Airbus realised this in time. And also the customers realised this and bought a surprisingly high number of A330's. Now the A380 problems might have had some influence here, but the majority of the later A330 sales have nothing to do with the A380 imho. That gave Airbus enough breething space to take on the A350-XWB program. The current B787 delays are not hurting Airbus either of course.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58): I think clearly we're at the point in the 787 fiasco that will cause business school textbooks to be written. I think the general theme will be "How to get outsourcing wrong!", or perhaps, "Is outsourcing really worth it?".
That is a very difficult question, that last one. I think the answer can not only be different per branche (cars, electronics, aviation, ship building), but also per company. The structure of a company with which you start a program can be a critical factor in answering these outsourcing questions. I do not think that there is a "one answer fits all" solution possible here.
It is clear that Boeing was too ambitious with their combination of new design, new technology, new tooling and a new production process involving heavily outsorting elements. If they had planned 7-8 years for the whole program at the start, the chances that they would have run into these delays we now know, are clearly much and much lower. But then again, we have the luxury of hindsight here. So it is an easy comment to make without any responsibilities tied to it. But maybe your earlier point regarding "a longer time from the start of investment to payback" also played a role here. It must have been an appealing picture to the stockholders when the program was presented to them.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 60, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12555 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55):
200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000.
Excuse me? What plane, ever, *needs* to sell 1000? I thought the break even point for twin widebody aircraft was accepted on here to be around the 500 mark? 1000 sales is nothing more than a marketing victory, a nicety, its not a requirement of any airliner project - if it *was* a requirement, than thats one hell of a badly managed program!
And secondly, even if your 1000 number wasnt fantasy, remember that the A350 gained the 182 orders that it did over a period of just 10 months - again, sounds awfully lot in a short period of time for an aircraft that 'noone wanted'...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar charge? Just to waste time and money?
That sounds awfully like spin there - I never said 'people wanted it so much', I just disagreed with you saying 'bad management launched a plane a few years ago that nobody really wanted'. 182 sales in 10 months. Thats a lot for any widebody program...
To answer your point, they changed it because they wanted the new plane more than the plane on offer. That still doesnt make your original statement valid in any sense of the word.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 61, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12528 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 65): I thought the break even point for twin widebody aircraft was accepted on here to be around the 500 mark? 1000 sales is nothing more than a marketing victory, a nicety, its not a requirement of any airliner project
Correct. And the original A350 would have had an even lower break-even number since it basically was a heavily redeveloped A330. The total program was much cheaper then the current A350-XWB program. And I do not mean this "heavily redeveloped A330" as a disqualification since the A330 which is was based on is still very, very good and selling very well.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23610 posts, RR: 79 Reply 62, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12524 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 66): And the original A350 would have had an even lower break-even number since it basically was a heavily redeveloped A330.
Airbus was throwing around figures of around $5 billion for the final iteration of the A350, which is close to what Boeing's original direct cost on the 787 program was projected to be.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20613 posts, RR: 91 Reply 63, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12433 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar charge? Just to waste time and money?
Oh, lots of reasons, perhaps. There was a power vacuum at Airbus at the time - remember CEO Humbert? - and there was an internal rift at Airbus.
I agree it is difficult to recall Humbert because he was such a blancmange, but Stephen Udvar-Hazy used that vacuum to his advantage. It is difficult to know what SUH's real motives were, but I assume he wanted what was best for ILFC, not necessarily for Airbus.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8071 posts, RR: 13 Reply 64, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12283 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 70): Oh, lots of reasons, perhaps. There was a power vacuum at Airbus at the time - remember CEO Humbert? - and there was an internal rift at Airbus.
I agree it is difficult to recall Humbert because he was such a blancmange, but Stephen Udvar-Hazy used that vacuum to his advantage. It is difficult to know what SUH's real motives were, but I assume he wanted what was best for ILFC, not necessarily for Airbus.
Loosing to the 787 at QF shortly after loosing to the 787 at AC was the straw that broke the back for the A350-not-XWB.
Airbus wanted the QF deal very badly, and pulled out all the stops, and still came up short.
Indeed SUH was already agitating in the press at that point, and I think it's fair to presume his criticisms had greatly undermined the program, but those key losses were what finally killed the A350-not-XWB. At least that's the spin they put out at the time.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 66, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12198 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar charge? Just to waste time and money?
In my opinion, because the market saw them as becoming "second-best" in both the mid-size (A330/787) twin market AND in the large twin (A340NG/777), and wasn't prepared to accept that. I think the A350XWB is the result of more than just a reaction to "old" A350 critique, though this would obviously have been significant.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 72): Quoting Revelation (Reply 71):
Loosing to the 787 at QF shortly after loosing to the 787 at AC was the straw that broke the back for the A350-not-XWB.
I thought it was the other way around. From memory, the Qantas 787 order was at the end of '05 and that SUH spat the dummy at Istat in '06?
IIRC Gustav Humbert himself said the turning point was the loss of the QF order in December 05. This led to the product review we all discussed in 2006.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8071 posts, RR: 13 Reply 67, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12172 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 72): I thought it was the other way around. From memory, the Qantas 787 order was at the end of '05 and that SUH spat the dummy at Istat in '06?
You are absolutely right - I stand corrected!
But I do recall reading that internally the QF order is what doomed the old A350.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20613 posts, RR: 91 Reply 68, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12150 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 73): IIRC Gustav Humbert himself said the turning point was the loss of the QF order in December 05. This led to the product review we all discussed in 2006.
Maybe, but in early '06 they were also getting pressure from Singapore (Humbert: "Airbus listens to its customers"), and by the time of Istat ('06) the decision had not been made, there was still a division of opinion.
Seattle Times '06: "In an interview afterward, Udvar-Hazy indicated some Airbus executives are contemplating the extreme step he advocates."
GE supported SUH: "His remarks were endorsed by Henry Hubschman, president of the world's No. 1 lessor of airplanes. In an interview, he said he "completely" agreed with Udvar-Hazy's message."
And I've never been sure exactly where John Leahy stood in the debate:
"Sitting in the audience was top Airbus sales executive John Leahy, who earlier had given a confident and rosy presentation of Airbus' competitive position."
I assume Humbert was on the side of change - because of the Qantas decision - and that his side won.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 69, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12006 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 75): I assume Humbert was on the side of change - because of the Qantas decision - and that his side won.
But it is only an assumption.
But in the end I think everybody at Airbus is quite happy that "he won". The company looks to be back on track and is working very hard to get the A380's out the door and to get the A350-XWB in the air on time. Let's hope they succeed with that. So far, they seem to be on track with the A350-XWB and I hope it stays that way.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14038 posts, RR: 55 Reply 70, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11915 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 76): So far, they seem to be on track with the A350-XWB and I hope it stays that way.
They gave themselves plenty of time. Few customers are going to complain if they get their deliveries early. But I think A decided to do this one at a relaxed pace that wasn't going to make everyone work non-stop 12-hour days (you can't do that to people for 2 years like Boeing has been doing... that's my theory as to why all these sloppy mistakes have been happening of late).
I think Airbus is doing far better than Boeing in general at this point as far as corporate culture, philosophy, and productivity. They have their act together now and it's showing. Now, if only they can ensure that the A320RS isn't as butt-ugly as its predecessor...
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 71, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11925 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 74): Maybe Airbus didn't want to give SUH the credit?
Quoting Mariner (Reply 75): Maybe, but in early '06 they were also getting pressure from Singapore (Humbert: "Airbus listens to its customers"), and by the time of Istat ('06) the decision had not been made, there was still a division of opinion.
I think Mariner is right, in that, Jan 2006 might well have been the first time that an alternative Product Strategy was put forward, and preliminary work started on a wider body, but I would harbour a suspicion that there was a lot of internal politicking to work through before such a far reaching (and financially significant) decision could be made.
A number of us thought at the time of ISTAT 06 that S U-H was actually "recruited" by John Leahy in supporting the drive for the new model.
I recall the FI article on the A350XWB launch at Farnborough 06 started with the words
"John Leahy looked like the cat that had got the cream"..........
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20613 posts, RR: 91 Reply 72, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11716 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 76): But in the end I think everybody at Airbus is quite happy that "he won".
Oh, that may be.
But because, from all I can tell, Humbert was the primary agent pressing for "change" - and the A350XWB represents that change - I think of it as the Humbert Solution.
I don't know if it was the only solution available to them, however, and it intrigues me that Humbert got the chop at about the same time that XWB was announced as a go.
In this great game of super-ego's (which is my interest), it suggests to me that there were very powerful forces aligned against Humbert.
But - who?
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 78): I recall the FI article on the A350XWB launch at Farnborough 06 started with the words
"John Leahy looked like the cat that had got the cream".......... Â
And in this great game of super-ego's, Leahy position in it all continues to intrigue me. Was XWB the Leahy Solution as well?
Leahy was on the front line, getting the most direct feedback, and if Leahy was onside with Humbert - then who was against them?
Or was Leahy just smarter at the game then Humbert?
In that Seattle Times link there is a comment by Richard Aboulafia (whom I tend to think of as dick):
Seattle Times: "Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said Udvar-Hazy was asking for "a massive turnaround, a total redirection of Airbus resources."
"No airplane company is good at admitting that everything is wrong and that their whole strategy is so flawed it needs a fundamental rethink," said Aboulafia. "That's tough."
Aboulafia was right about the politics but wrong about the result - Airbus did it tough.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 73, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11661 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): In this great game of super-ego's (which is my interest), it suggests to me that there were very powerful forces aligned against Humbert.
But - who?
Maybe in a couple of years the history of this turnaround at Airbus will be disclosed to us. Until that time we can only speculate.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Or was Leahy just smarter at the game then Humbert?
Well, he is a survivor and he still brings in the orders. As COO and CCO he still holds a very strong position inside Airbus.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Aboulafia was right about the politics but wrong about the result - Airbus did it tough.
They sure did. So let us wait and see if they can deliver in the same way as they have done with the A380. I sure hope Airbus can as I am also hoping that Boeing will overcome their current troubles with the B787 and start delivering that airliner from 2010 on.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20613 posts, RR: 91 Reply 74, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11649 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 80): Maybe in a couple of years the history of this turnaround at Airbus will be disclosed to us. Until that time we can only speculate.
I'm not sure what point you are making.
I'm a historian, my interest here is in the the politics, it is what I do. Call it speculation, but the challenge to me is to try and work out what went on - and what goes on.
By putting out a question here - who was aligned against Humbert and the role that Leahy played - I may, always may, get some answers or some clues.
It has happened before. There are people here with surprising knowledge of the inner workings, much greater than my own.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 80): As COO and CCO he still holds a very strong position inside Airbus.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 75, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11566 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 81): I'm not sure what point you are making.
I'm a historian, my interest here is in the the politics, it is what I do. Call it speculation, but the challenge to me is to try and work out what went on - and what goes on.
By putting out a question here - who was aligned against Humbert and the role that Leahy played - I may, always may, get some answers or some clues.
It has happened before. There are people here with surprising knowledge of the inner workings, much greater than my own.
The point I was trying to make is that I have no inside knowledge whatsoever about what was going on inside Airbus at the time. But maybe someone with better information could come forward or maybe write a book about it.
Off topic: That is interesting work that you do. I believe only through knowing the history we can understand and hopefully solve today's and tomorrows problems.
[i]Well, he is a survivor and he still brings in the orders. As COO and CCO he still holds a very strong position inside Airbus.
Yeah. He has gone 'AWOL' lately. I miss the old JL! Of late, he seems to limit his public utterances to airshows. Either he was muzzled or he slowed down after heart surgery.
He certainly knew how to get a flame fest going on A.net
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 78, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10596 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): 200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000.
This is pure flame bait, I cannot think of any aircraft Airbus EVER budgeted to build 1000 aircraft for, even the A320 was back around 400 aircraft mark.
The aircraft needed less development work than the 748F/I, I don't see anyone, including yourself saying that the sales of that aircraft as needing to sell "1000" or any other arbitrary figure.
The original was an A330/A340 with a new wing, and integrating 787 engines, something which it supposed to cost Boeing "4 billion" for the 747-8.
This would have been a "simple" change, like the A340NG, and something I still see as happening mid next decade. In terms of structural efficiency, the A330 is not that far away from the 787 as it stands today, and engines are only getting better. Depends on your frame of referance.
Even 100 aircraft at $80 million, would be over double the development cost that people have associated with the more complex 787-8, and no one was suggesting that sort of price for the original A350.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar charge? Just to waste time and money?
Because the A350XWB hits the A330/A340/748/767/777/787 lines all with one hit, it is a "low cost" response to a larger market.
It is a "multi-billion dollar" response to a "multi-trillion dollar market" segment.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 79, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10471 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 78): and something I still see as happening mid next decade
I hope to see that too! Â
Quoting Zeke (Reply 78): In terms of structural efficiency, the A330 is not that far away from the 787 as it stands today, and engines are only getting better.
That seems to be the case here. But the B787, though heavier, has more development potential since it is an all new airframe. But on the short(er) stretches the A330 will most likely stay more attractive for airliners. Depending on the further developments on the B787 that stretch will become shorter and shorter over time.
When that happens we still might see the "original" A350 as a real A330-NG. Like you said, mid of next decade or even a bit earlier, at the end of this decade?
But for now I will concentrate on the A350-XWB which I hope we see taking off for the first time in 2012! Only 2.5 years away, so it is getting excited already!
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 80, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10281 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11): I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....
Airbus is recruiting extensively to gain talent to keep the A350 on schedule; they are opening up new engineering offices to attract 'the right talent.' I've had the pleasure of working with a few 'who's who' of Aviation... and more than one have been approached by Airbus to lead design teams on the A350. Some have said no (they would only want to lead the program), others are 'in negotiation.' One who's name is on many of Boeing's expired patents is *very* interested. The only 'sticky whicket' seems to be his extensive side projects that he won't drop. (He certifies 'one off' or limited production modifications to existing aircraft as a "Hobby...")
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5906 posts, RR: 39 Reply 81, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10147 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....
As an avid Boeing partisan, I wish no ill on Airbus with the A350. And as an avid Boeing partisan, it appears to me that Airbus has learned from both their own and Boeing's mistakes on recent programs, and have set a conservative schedule for the A350. And as one who maintained until the bitter end that Boeing's track record of being on time merited more weight than the rumors of delays, I will state here and now that Airbus, even without such a record, deserves the benefit of the doubt and I hereby state that at this point I believe their schedule. There are many, many things that can go wrong, and some of them probably will, but let's give them a chance and stock up on the popcorn. If Boeing manages to avoid further delays and Airbus keeps their schedule, then we are in for some healthy competition in the next decade, which will be good for the whole industry.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 82, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9963 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 55): 200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000.
On what basis does it need to sell 1000, and I naturally assume this to be your opinion as I certainly have seen no-one, or any official figures, quoting such a number and please correct me if I'm incorrect in either?
As I very much doubt you have access to such very propriatary Airbus financial information to definitively state (as you have not said it is just an opinion) what the A350, or anything else, needs to sell, I'm certainly very interested in what forms the basis of your judgement.
Joecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4321 posts, RR: 24 Reply 83, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9915 times:
People must be almost terminally bored to be talking about 350 delays already.
As of now, there is no reason to suspect Airbus will be late with the 350...none. It's way to early for that...even for the most ardent Airbus loather. Odds are, there will be some problems with the development, (if not, it would be the only major project in the past few decades to go perfectly and on budget), but whether or not they will be serious enough to cause delay, is speculation...nothing more.
Shouldn't we be talking about something much more important like Team Canada winning the Junior hockey tournament...?
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 6559 posts, RR: 67 Reply 84, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9859 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 82): On what basis does it need to sell 1000
I understood it to mean that any new widebody should really be expecting sales of that magnitude to achieve credibility. For example, had Airbus sold 200 A340s and 400 A330s they'd probably make a profit on the programme but combined sales of 600 would look like a failure (or at least a disappointment) compared to 1,000+ 777s. So it means 'need' not in the sense of do-or-die but 'need' in the context of it being hardly worthwhile otherwise.
(Which is not to say I do or don't agree with the statement. I'm merely trying to understand it.)
Abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9200 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 79): But on the short(er) stretches the A330 will most likely stay more attractive for airliners. Depending on the further developments on the B787 that stretch will become shorter and shorter over time.
Wonder how much potential the 330 has as an NG version if (or when) the provisions for the 340 within its design is taken out. Something that will be relevant if a new wing is to be developed.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9162 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 86): Quoting EPA001 (Reply 79):
But on the short(er) stretches the A330 will most likely stay more attractive for airliners. Depending on the further developments on the B787 that stretch will become shorter and shorter over time.
Wonder how much potential the 330 has as an NG version if (or when) the provisions for the 340 within its design is taken out. Something that will be relevant if a new wing is to be developed.
A GENX (or new Trent) powered A330 would save about 20% fuel on a CF6-80E1 version, according to GE. I think the wing and the rest is ok apart from small tweeks. Maybe a stretch.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9114 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 86): Wonder how much potential the 330 has as an NG version if (or when) the provisions for the 340 within its design is taken out. Something that will be relevant if a new wing is to be developed.
Something that struck me with regard to a recent post here detailing where the 787s planned enhanced economics were gained was that the composite structure, or use of advanced materials, was only supposed to contribute 2% to the overall better economics, with the lions share of the rest due to the engines.
There was nothing, other than the advanced materials at 2%, in the 787s lineup, that really couldnt also be achieved on a traditional build airliner through improvement packages by the airframer.
So, it wouldn't at all surprise me if an NG version of the A330 could be put within enough percentage points of the 787 that Airbus doesn't need an all new design for the lower end of their market...
Swallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 507 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9102 times:
Quoting Abba (Reply 86): Wonder how much potential the 330 has as an NG version if (or when) the provisions for the 340 within its design is taken out. Something that will be relevant if a new wing is to be developed.
There has been talk about a re-engine with the GEnx or T1000, but this has cost implications since the wing and pylon would require modification and there is also time taken up by flight testing.
Airbus seems to have opted for incremental improvements: improved SFC for the T700 and increments in MTOW to make the plane more competitive. RR seems content to back fit T1000 tech to the T700.
Compared to the original 330, the current new build planes are practically NG versions with increases in range and reduced fuel burn. They are a much more efficient product than the original.
And as the saying goes, it if ain't broke...... Airbus is having no problems offloading 330s and this provides much needed cash flow for the 350.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 90, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9037 times:
Quoting Swallow (Reply 89): And as the saying goes, it if ain't broke...... Airbus is having no problems offloading 330s and this provides much needed cash flow for the 350.
Bingo!
I suspect the aforementioned new engine, wing and pylon will come, once current orders start to dry up, and it rises in the heirarchy of engineering priorities.
But for now, in addition to retaining cash, I'm pretty sure that Airbus's engineering resources have a day job already...
As evidenced by....
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 80): Airbus is recruiting extensively to gain talent to keep the A350 on schedule; they are opening up new engineering offices to attract 'the right talent.'
With regard to engines..
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): A GENX (or new Trent) powered A330 would save about 20% fuel on a CF6-80E1 version, according to GE
I understood the difference in total between the 787 and its predecessor to be 20%, and the difference in SFC to be around 12%.
I'm not sure I'd expect a 20% improvement in fuel burn from a re-engined A330.
Could be wrong though.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 91, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9061 times:
Quoting Swallow (Reply 89): There has been talk about a re-engine with the GEnx or T1000, but this has cost implications since the wing and pylon would require modification and there is also time taken up by flight testing.
Thats rights, the wing attachments / pylon would have to be redesigned. I think it is doable.
Airbus has build up a lot of knowledge on this part of the wing installing & certifying CFM56-5, PW4000, Trent 700, Trent 900 and GE CF6-80's on that location.
The rest of the aircraft seems up to date with the A340-500/600 cockpit improvement being installed etc. An optional A380 upperdeck style new cabin wouldn't seem be to much of an issue too.
Big question is if it would hurt A350 XWB sales. I think the payload-range figures are far enough apart. The A330 is more medium then long haul.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 92, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8681 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 90): Bingo!
I suspect the aforementioned new engine, wing and pylon will come, once current orders start to dry up, and it rises in the hierarchy of engineering priorities.
That would seem to be the right and logical time to make this move for Airbus. So when will this happen. I would guess at the end of this decade (2019-2020) could be the time that this moment arrives.
Well we have heard rumors about both the GE-nx and the RR Trent-1000 series not reaching the initially achieved SFC targets. So that GE might have adjusted their numbers 5% down would seem to be in line with those rumors.
Now over time they both (GE & RR) will reach and probably improve on the initial SFC numbers, but the first year or two of production of these engines for the B787, and in RR's scenario maybe also the first A350-XWB, could be a little bit less performing then Boeing and Airbus would like.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 93, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8644 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 92): That would seem to be the right and logical time to make this move for Airbus. So when will this happen. I would guess at the end of this decade (2019-2020) could be the time that this moment arrives.
I expect we'll see more efficient engines for the A330 long before that. I would guess 2012 to 2015 would be more likely.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 94, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8548 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): A GENX (or new Trent) powered A330 would save about 20% fuel on a CF6-80E1 version, according to GE.
doesn't sound right if a 787 is 20% better than a 767 and half of that is from the engines.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 15 Reply 95, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8388 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 93): I expect we'll see more efficient engines for the A330 long before that. I would guess 2012 to 2015 would be more likely.
I am not so sure. The orderbook is still very good for the A330 program, and is expected to remain OK for quite some years to come. (if the crisis does not last too long). In 2012-2015 Airbus is still developing and ramping up production of the several A350-XWB versions. Also the A400M could still be worked on in production ramp-up.
To fit the new engines on to the A330 requires possible system adaptations, pylon redesign, aerodynamic, structural and performance tests and certification of all that. So it is not a change which is made in a very short time. Also one can expect some aerodynamic tweaks to the airframe and the wings since the complete aerodynamics of the airframe will change slightly due to the bigger engines and the new pylons.
So it will probably be the biggest change to the continuesly improving airframe already. I think they want to go there from 2016 on at the earliest. With the A350-XWB development and ramp-up I think 2019-2020 would be the ideal moment for this. If the airframe falls back with new orders well before that time, they could push this moment up to 2016, right after the EIS of the A350-1000. But that is pushing it imho.
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 94): doesn't sound right if a 787 is 20% better than a 767 and half of that is from the engines.
The engines are good for a 12% better SFC. See what Astuteman posted earlier:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 90): I understood the difference in total between the 787 and its predecessor to be 20%, and the difference in SFC to be around 12%.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 96, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8389 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 93): I expect we'll see more efficient engines for the A330 long before that. I would guess 2012 to 2015 would be more likely.
As in "new" engines?
It would be great to see.
Certainly it possible that the passing of the A350XWB peak engineering, and the slackening of demand for the current A330 may well have happened by then.
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 94): doesn't sound right if a 787 is 20% better than a 767 and half of that is from the engines.
IIRC WBP's charts imply c. 12-13%, and Boeing themselves claim that 8% of the 787's improvement comes from the engines.
I also suspect the A330's current engines are also a moving target in this equation - adding a nice bit of complexity into the finger/air interraction..
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23610 posts, RR: 79 Reply 97, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8371 times:
Don't the new-spec Trent 700's for the current A330 family see a not-insignificant reduction in SFC?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 99, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8349 times:
.
I think to fuel price will "recover" faster then many hope.
With more efficient engines like GP7000, GENX, Trent 1000 coming into service and proving their efficiency I think airlines will tell Airbus they want more A330's, with these modern engines.
I expect EIS not to far away. Maybe Airbus will introduce the GENX on the delayed A330F and offer it to the USAF for the KC-X. GE played with the idea.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 7671 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 2575 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 6559 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2829 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8143 posts, 
, 20630 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2980 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 233 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 5884 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 919 posts, 
From Austria, joined Mar 2008, 35 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 793 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20613 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 507 posts, 
Some have said no (they would only want to lead the program), others are 'in negotiation.' One who's name is on many of Boeing's expired patents is *very* interested. The only 'sticky whicket' seems to be his extensive side projects that he won't drop. (He certifies 'one off' or limited production modifications to existing aircraft as a "Hobby...")
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4321 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
