Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GE Engine For The A350 - Any News?  
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16903 times:

The last news about this topic are from May 2009:

"General Electric is hoping the 787 flight test program will help to break an impasse with Airbus regarding a second engine option for the A350 XWB.

The US engine-maker sees an opportunity to "restructure discussions" with Airbus on the inclusion of GEnx derived engine for the XWB, once two of Boeing's six 787 flight test aircraft take part in the certification campaign and validate the performance of the powerplant."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...e-revives-interest-in-a350-xw.html

Now after suffering another delay in the summer of 2009 (side of fuselage strengthening), flight testing of GE-powered 787s is about to begin (or has it already started?).

But GE was/is still only willing to build an engine for the -800 and -900, not the -1000.


So my question is: Are there still any ongoing discussions between GE and Airbus on this topic? If yes, when can we expect an announcement about the decision?


Exceptions confirm the rule.
120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16884 times:

Quoting A342 (Thread starter):
flight testing of GE-powered 787s is about to begin (or has it already started?).

It has not started. Airplane 5 (ZA005) is the first GE powered 787. It is on the flightline in Everett, but has not flown.

Tom.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16469 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1):
It has not started. Airplane 5 (ZA005) is the first GE powered 787. It is on the flightline in Everett, but has not flown.

Thanks for the information.   

Now that still leaves the question whether there have been any new developments on the GE - Airbus front regarding an engine for the A350.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Now that still leaves the question whether there have been any new developments on the GE - Airbus front regarding an engine for the A350.

Nothing reported, though I expect discussions continue in the background.

That being said, GE and Boeing are likely also holding background discussions on improvements to the GE90-11xB family should Boeing decide to go forward with the "777-300ERX" option.

Probably the best chance for GE power on the A350XWB is Boeing launching a "787NG" with a new wing and fuselage stretches. But really, having just barely finished the 787-8 and 787-9, I am skeptical to see them effectively one-up it with a new family. It would be like launching the 737NG two years after the 737 Classic.


User currently offlineairways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 16246 times:

GE is happy with the monopoly position and cash cow engine on the 777-300ER, but, it's surely aware that the A350XWB will eat this market. However, still it doesn't offer an engine for the A350XWB.

How many A350XWBs does Airbus have to sell for GE to wake-up?

In my view, the time for monopoly engines is over. Airlines want choices, and, GE have missed out on A350XWB orders because of them hanging onto their investment on the 777-300ER (and -200LR) - a market about to be eaten up (unless Boeing does something with the 777)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even if Boeing and GE do nothing, I think the two of them can sell another ~350 77Ls, 77Fs and 77Ws (for a total of 1500) before they close the line down forever, so that's 700 additional engine sales for GE on top of the 1412 orders they have to date on the program (772/77E/77F/77L/77W). Now add in spare engine sales as well as maintenance contracts, parts, PiPs, and such for over 2000 engines and it's no wonder GE should be both happy and comfortable just sticking with the GE90 program for the time being.

GE Aviation literally prints money with the CF6-80 engine program, even though the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 smashes it in economics and has secured the bulk of current and future orders on the platforms where they compete. And yet GE won't spend a dime to upgrade it unless they win the contract to power the USAF KC-X program because they're "end of life" on the product (compared to the Trent 700) it's not worth the investment for what few sales they believe are still out there.

And that's what is going to drive their decision to support any "777NG"-style program. If they have ~350 sales "in the bag" with the current plane, I would not be surprised if they're going to want at least double that number of sales on the 777NG before they drop ≤USD 1 billion on a significant overhaul of the engine with things like contra-rotation, a new fan, IBR compressors, wide chord blade technology, etc.


User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15416 times:

As long as GE keep stating that they won't offer an engine for the A351, Airbus won't be willing to allow them to offer an engine for the other two models of the A350 family.

JL stated it clearly two year ago,more or less he said " they have to come up with a totally new engine if they want to hang it in the A350, and it has to power the whole family....." I do not see another 350 units of the 777 sold in the next couple of years, unless Airbus mess up the A350 program like they did with the A380 or Boeing with the 787.

I think GE is making a mistake giving away all this market to RR, they are risking more that 700 engines which is what they will be achieving if Stitch numbers ever happens. As up today RR has sold more than 1000 with this program, and sales are going to be better from now on, so the way I see it is that every time Airbus firms up a deal GE is losing market share and RR is gaining more %.

Bottom line is that GE to power any of the A350 family has to come up with a new engine capable to grow and power from the A358 to the A351. I do not see this happening any time soon, just my perception.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14812 times:

Airbus's reluctance to allow GE to engine the -800 and -900 is asinine. They really expect GE to spend the billions of dollars required to make a whole new engine just for 350 airframes?

The stumbling block is the 351 which will probably be the lowest selling model of the series. So they could offer their customers engine choice for the vast majority of 350's but they refuse to do so.

It seems like a much more silly decision by Airbus than by GE. Now RR can charge whatever they like for the engines and Airbus and their customers will have to eat it.

I imagine GE is already presenting their engine options for the 787-10 and larger.



What the...?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14498 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Probably the best chance for GE power on the A350XWB is Boeing launching a "787NG" with a new wing and fuselage stretches. But really, having just barely finished the 787-8 and 787-9, I am skeptical to see them effectively one-up it with a new family. It would be like launching the 737NG two years after the 737 Classic.

I think that a "787-X" follow-up (a la 777-X) is more plausible than a true "787NG." Boeing launched the 777-X (which became the 772LR and 773ER) five years after the 772A entered service. Would it be unreasonable to expect Boeing to launch a heavier 787-9LR and 787-10ER sometime in 2015 with an EIS in 2017? I don't think it's that far fetched.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14497 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
us's reluctance to allow GE to engine the -800 and -900 is asinine. They really expect GE to spend the billions of dollars required to make a whole new engine just for 350 airframes?

This is how I read it. The big 777 has sold well, but for a niche model a single engine makes sense. Engine makers need to make a profit. And the price of the niche engine can be negotiated on the basis of what the competative engines cost plus a reasonable cost difference.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
Now RR can charge whatever they like for the engines and Airbus and their customers will have to eat it.

Well RR can't go too crazy, lest they make the 777 look competitive again. That being said, GE charges more for a pair of GE90-115Bs than Boeing does for the green 77W airframe they hang off of.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
I think that a "787-X" follow-up (a la 777-X) is more plausible than a true "787NG."

If the 787's wing is as good aerodynamically as I am told the wind tunnel said it would be, then a span increase to 64-65m might be all that is needed to support say a 275t MTOW for the 787-10/787-11. As for the undercarriage, I don't know if the struts and tires can be strengthened enough or if a new geometry (triple-bogie) or a center strut will be needed.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14273 times:

Quoting airways45 (Reply 4):
but, it's surely aware that the A350XWB will eat this market

...hasn't happened yet and didn't happen even with the A330 when B787 sales started to pick up.

Quoting airways45 (Reply 4):
Airlines want choices

......really? It doesn't seem as if a lack of engine choice has stopped the B77W nor the entire A350XWB line from selling....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7379 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14215 times:

Quoting Carls (Reply 6):
I think GE is making a mistake giving away all this market to RR, they are risking more that 700 engines which is what they will be achieving if Stitch numbers ever happens. As up today RR has sold more than 1000 with this program, and sales are going to be better from now on, so the way I see it is that every time Airbus firms up a deal GE is losing market share and RR is gaining more %.

Airbus and RR are not complaining, so what really is the problem?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
Airbus's reluctance to allow GE to engine the -800 and -900 is asinine

It could also be part of a deliberate strategy.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
They really expect GE to spend the billions of dollars required to make a whole new engine just for 350 airframes?

Quite likely no, and that could very well be the point.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
Now RR can charge whatever they like for the engines and Airbus and their customers will have to eat it.

Are you suggesting that RR would gouge their customers, I thought that was the domain of Boeing.  

If RR are the only engine available on the A350 line it is a boost for European firms involved in the manufacturer, and it ensures that follow up orders will be available into the future, alos negotiating with one engine manufacturer is also much easier for Airbus. Imagine the negotiations when the next new a/c program start at Airbus if RR remains exclusive on the A350.


User currently offlineairways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14187 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
...hasn't happened yet and didn't happen even with the A330 when B787 sales started to pick up.

Fair point, but, I'd say 500+ orders for the A350XWB has dented the 777-300ER sales book. Orders for the 777-300ER recently have been mainly follow-on orders for existing customers rather than new customers taking large orders.


As for airlines wanting choice, my comment is derived from the fact that Boeing and Airbus have claimed that the future A320 and 737 replacememnts will be offered with a choice of engines. So, the replacement 737 will probably not be offered with one engine, but, two choices. Has a monopoly engine choice dented 777-300ER sales or 737 sales - clearly you are right, it's no it hasn't. But, then again, having a monpoly choice on the A340-500/600 didn't help it either (but maybe there's not enough luck in the world to help the A340!!!)


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14095 times:

Quoting airways45 (Reply 13):
Fair point, but, I'd say 500+ orders for the A350XWB has dented the 777-300ER sales book

But the A358/A359 doesn't compete with the B77W. Of the 530 XWB firm orders, 455 (86%) are for B772A/B77E/A330/B777-300A/A343 replacements and expansion.

Quoting airways45 (Reply 13):
Orders for the 777-300ER recently have been mainly follow-on orders for existing customers rather than new customers taking large orders.

Most orders which needed to be placed have been placed. There really hasn't been a need for B7W orders right now anyway.

Quoting airways45 (Reply 13):
but maybe there's not enough luck in the world to help the A340!!!

I would say the A345/A346 just didn't have a chance-particularly the A345 which really serves C-Market routes.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14094 times:

Quoting airways45 (Reply 13):
Fair point, but, I'd say 500+ orders for the A350XWB has dented the 777-300ER sales book. Orders for the 777-300ER recently have been mainly follow-on orders for existing customers rather than new customers taking large orders.

The only 350 model which comes close to competing with the 773er, is the -1000 and they have sold 75 of those.



What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15):
The only 350 model which comes close to competing with the 773er, is the -1000 and they have sold 75 of those.


I don't expect to see A350XWB-1000s as 777-300ER replacements until the mid-2020s (and that assumes Boeing and GE do nothing).

EK is said to have ordered their initial 20 to replace their 14 777-300s and 6 777-200ERs and I can believe that.

I would not be surprised if OZ ordered their initial 10 to replace their 10 777-200ERs (with the A350XWB-900s and A350XWB-800s taking care of the A330-300s, 747-400Ms and 767-300ERs).

EY's and QR's should be a mix of A340-600 replacement and expansion, so that probably cost some future 777-300ER sales, but both are sitting on 77W options.

[Edited 2010-04-03 14:39:14]

User currently offlineairways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13954 times:

Good points raised above.

I forgot to add that many 777-300ERs have been ordered as lift for now... and as 747-400 replacements. So, if you are in need of lift now, you order the 777-300ER rather than the pax 747-400, and, probably instead of the A340-600.

The 777-300ER is a fantastic aircraft at the right time with the right number of engines. The 747-400 and the A340-600 have two too many turbines, and, so, the -300ER has cleaned up the market.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13399 times:

Coming back to the original question...

Is a GP7200-derived engine still on the cards?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13351 times:

Am I right in thinking that AF specifically said they would not order any A350 unless they had GE power? I do think that engine choice can make a (small) difference to the overall sales of a particular airframe, but I doubt it's a meaningful enough number to give Airbus or Boeing too many headaches. I also recall BA and CX saying they wanted RR power on the 77W, or else no order, and look what happened there....

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 18):
Is a GP7200-derived engine still on the cards?

Current EU directives require it be mounted in sets of four, but they'd certainly rescind that to get it on the A350XWB.  

In it's current form, it might not be enough to play with the Trent XWB. It also needs to scale, as the top thrust is around 77,000 pounds from the 116" fan.

lightsaber has noted that by swapping some components between GE and P&W, he feels they could reduce SFC by an additional 4% over the 2% coming in the latest PiP. Adding contra-rotation would certainly not hurt, as well, and perhaps a fan diameter increase (the Trent XWB is 118").


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13016 times:

Let me return to a question I've posed before.

What have Aer Lingus, TAM, TAP, Afriqiyah, Vietnam Airlines, and a few others decided regarding engines for the A350s they have ordered?

Many A350 orders (most recently, the United one) specified RR in the press release. But some airlines have pointedly made no announcement regarding engines either at the time of announcing the order or subsequently.

It seemed to me that they were waiting to see what GE would do. And that made sense. There was no great rush to commit to RR.

But latterly RR have been celebrating the fact that sales of the Trent XWB have exceeded 1,000. (And that was before the UA order.) Even allowing for a few spares, those airlines that are known to have chosen RR cannot account for 1,000 engines. So at least some (and probably most) of those who were waiting must have now signed up with RR.

Firstly, I wonder why such orders have been kept quiet and, secondly, I wonder if this means that Aer Lingus, TAP and the others no longer have any expectation that GE are going to join the party.

I had always assumed that if GE did come on board the A350 it would be with a small flourish in the form of orders for up to a couple of hundred engines for the group of A350 customers who had not committed to RR. They'd have maybe 25% of the A350 market compared to RR's 75% but it would be a start - something credible to build on.

But if these 'easy' customers have now signed with RR then that opportunity has gone. And, to reiterate, if RR have sold 1,000 Trent XWBs then most or all of the 'don't know' group of airlines must have opted for RR.

And if all that is true, then GE will not be on board the A350 for many years to come.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
And if all that is true, then GE will not be on board the A350 for many years to come.

If at all.

They will want a solid RoI before they build a new engine for the A350 and with RR soaking up the orders, I expect GE will be content to let them have it all, and work to power the next generation of Boeing large widebody twin plus their share of the CFM pie on Boeing's (and Airbus') next narrowbody twin.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12925 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
with RR soaking up the orders, I expect GE will be content to let them have it all

'Content' might not be the word I'd choose but I suspect they are resigned to RR having the A350 all to themselves. You win some, you lose some. And, as you correctly note, GE have plenty of eggs in other baskets.

Quoting airways45 (Reply 4):
In my view, the time for monopoly engines is over.

I suspect the opposite may be true and that it's just starting.

Until now the TriStar and the two generations of the A340 have been the only western widebodies not to be offered with a choice of engines. The 747, 767, 777, 787, DC10, MD11, A300, A330 and A380 have all offered a choice throughout most or all of their production lives.

But three engine options on the A330 and 777 gave way to two on the 787 and just one (in reality) on the A350.

Similarly, the 747 is now available with only one engine manufacturer and, in all but name, the same is true of the 777.

A lot of airlines (allegedly) were irritated with Boeing for not giving them an engine choice on the 777-300ER but if Boeing were taking a gamble, it seems to have paid off.

Similarly, although Airbus said many times that they'd prefer an engine choice on the A350, they've racked up sales of 500+ without it.

I wonder if the 777 and A350 experiences will make manufacturers less nervous about giving customers no choice in the future.

Will Boeing want or even permit a choice of engines on their next widebody?


User currently offlineJamBrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 12706 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 23):
Will Boeing want or even permit a choice of engines on their next widebody?

As long as they decide on the RR option that sounds like a fine plan!

Who knows what defines the 777 deal between GE and Boeing when does a 777NG stop being a "Boeing's longer-range 777 aircraft" would a new wing mean a new engine competition?



Jambrain
25 scbriml : I don't know about just starting. There is, of course, a long history of single-aisle planes that never offered an engine choice. The 737 being the b
26 StickShaker : I think the 350-1000 would be more likely ordered as a potential 744 replacement for airlines that dont already have the 77W - still plenty of 744's
27 Jacobin777 : That's making a HUGE assumption that Boeing isn't going to to anything about it.
28 FlySSC : Some airlines were as well irritated with Airbus for not giving them an engine choice on the A340-600 ... Remember also that under the pressure of a
29 astuteman : Sfunny. I'm always hearing that A350's 777's and 787's are competitors for the A380 (and with a modicum of truth IMO). I wouldn't be so certain the s
30 Stitch : I believe they will still offer a choice, but it will be a choice of two. I don't see any future widebody program offering three choices as the 747,
31 timboflier215 : Don't forget that the main reason GE were sole engine on the 77W and (I think) 747-8 is that they became risk sharing partners with Boeing on those pr
32 ebbuk : Airbus "owes" RR something back for the gamble they took on the A340NG, so the tough stance with GE to supply for all A350 variants is applicable here
33 Baroque : As I was about to observe. So it might depend on whether GE is still able to offer finance and B still wants it. Probably true, but I am not sure the
34 timboflier215 : I *think* it means that when Boeing sells a 77L or 77W, GE makes more money out of it than simply the profit on the engine sales. Please someone corr
35 Post contains images Baroque : Yes that is right although I am still trying to absorb Stitch's comment on the cost of big engines. Having set that precedent B might want to go the
36 Jacobin777 : Quite possibly true, but truth be told, I'm really going by seat count/comments by manufacturing management.
37 JoeCanuck : Compete how, exactly? The 77W can carry significantly more passengers and cargo than the 350-1000 so, in my mind, they aren't direct competitors.
38 astuteman : Can it? I'd respond by asking "How is it that just about any 787 or A350 version, AND the 773ER" are supposed to compete against the A380 which is pr
39 Stitch : Soon after the 777-200ER entered service, Boeing started talking to airlines about even higher gross-weight models requiring engines of around 100,00
40 JoeCanuck : Well yes...at least on a practical for most airlines level. The extra width of the 777 makes it to many airlines a 10 abreast Y aircraft. Except for
41 Post contains images astuteman : Hopefully I didn't say you did, Joe. Lots do. And differing economics can result in different operating models And in many cases has 787's and A350's
42 hawkercamm : I do wonder that if Boeing were holding "the ace of spades of a B777 update" then why has it not been played yet. OK orders have dried up last year s
43 Stitch : Boeing recorded 186 orders for the 777 family in 2007 and 2008 (effectively one additional frame per month than they had capacity to deliver), so per
44 EA772LR : The 777s were already selling very well in 2007 and pretty well in 2008. No need to launch any upgrade at the time. I remain convinced that Boeing li
45 timboflier215 : Apart from wanting to wait to see what Airbus had in the A350, don't forget that Boeing also had their hands full with the 787 and 748. Now that thos
46 A342 : Don't underestimate the engineering on the 787-9 and likely the 737NG-RE.
47 Stitch : Engineering work on the 787-9 program has continued even as the 787-8 and 747-8 programs have soaked up resources. And the plurality of the 737NGRE p
48 timboflier215 : Precisely. With the 777 still selling well, no doubt Boeing wanted to wait before committing resources to an upgrade. It WILL happen, just not quite
49 Post contains images keesje : I think Boeing needs an new engine to power a 787-10 and/ or 777-200NG. The 300 seat segment has been taken over by Airbus in recent years (A350-900 &
50 Post contains images Stitch : I know Boeing always has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel with you, keesje, but I expect things are not nearly so dire...
51 timboflier215 : Is the GE/Boeing risk sharing partnership and exclusivity agreement limited to the current 77W and 77L? If/when Boeing offers a 777NG, would RR be al
52 keesje : ?! This is about GE, I think Boeing and Airbus both want a competitive ~90k lbs engine from them & meanwhile RR is laughing all the way to the ba
53 Post contains images CARST : There is fair reason NOT to compare the smaller A350s to the 77W and comparing jets like A350s, 787s and 777s to the A380. To start with the first co
54 Stitch : There has been speculation that the agreement covers any 777 model with an MTOW ≥700,000 pounds / 318,000 kilograms. It's also possible that with G
55 StickShaker : I'm sure Boeing will but the timeframe is probably too tight for airlines seeking 744 replacements. The current options are 77W or the 350-1000. The
56 Stitch : I think Boeing could probably get a "777-300ERX" into service in the latter half of this decade, which should be when we start seeing 747-400 replacem
57 Post contains images Hamlet69 : You can also add: D. The uncertainty of the A350-800. According to several people I've talked to at GE, they are still not convinced this aircraft wi
58 Post contains images Baroque : Yep, add that to the list.
59 Post contains images astuteman : mmmm... Or is that just GE convincing themselves not to do this? That said, Airbus have just added (by my calcs) about 5t-6t to the OEW, and 11t to t
60 rheinwaldner : Me too. The 77W is the second most modern and efficient long range aircraft. On average it will be operated 15..20 years in the fleet of the initial
61 XT6Wagon : This is the major issue, no one has said where GE is going to get the money from. Worse GE has already been burned for big money on the A350XNB versi
62 AirbusA6 : I can't help thinking that GE has missed the boat now on the A350XWB, as RR has such a head start in orders that the only way they could make money on
63 Revelation : Having read the 60+ posts here, I think it's safe to say the answer is: NO! It's all the same stuff that came out the last time we chose to have this
64 Post contains images Baroque : Yes but it is just like RLI or gherkins, they keep on repeating.
65 AA777223 : YOU'RE KDDING!!! I had no idea they were that expensive (or that the airframe was that cheap!)
66 Stitch : Seat mile costs will probably make or break the model, as they did for the 777-100X. The 777-100X had a projected OEW of ~131t (3t lighter than the 7
67 keesje : Looking at the way the A350-800 and 787-9 evolved I think they are in slightly different but overlapping segments. Probably the full passenger + carg
68 Stitch : The boost in MTOW does allow the A350-800 to become a "freight train" like the 777-200LR - moving maximum structural payload a good distance. Unfortu
69 timboflier215 : Thanks for that reply, Stitch - pretty much tallies with what I thought. Doesn't look as though GE will be on the A350 after all then. So much the be
70 Stitch : I expect AF/KL will base their decision on the aircraft that best meets their needs, but having GE power on the wings could be something that influen
71 timboflier215 : I am fairly sure that AF were quoted as saying that with regards to the A350, no GE, no order. Of course, I may be incorrect there, and they may in fa
72 EA772LR : The problem with people comparing the A333 to the 789 is that the 789 is a far more capable plane from the get go. Never mind improvements throughout
73 EA772LR : Well, the 788 could replace both AF/KL A332s, and the 789 could replace both of their 77Es when the time comes. Their 77Ws are relatively new (actual
74 Stitch : The 787-8 would offer AF and KL a bit more capacity in terms of passengers and cargo volume to their A330-200 fleet. And the 787-9 would offer a bit m
75 nycbjr : I know this has been discussed, but is the GenX really that limited? No growth?
76 Stitch : I expect anything is possible, though it will likely require a fan increase from the current 111" on the GEnx1B family.
77 Revelation : One of the advantages of the RR triple spool is that it's able to work well over a broader range of thrusts. There was a good thread about that a whi
78 Post contains links Jambrain : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rent-xwb-development-strategy.html I find it fascinating that a wing / airframe design can be optimised to suit
79 XT6Wagon : Don't forget the intial core size was selected when the A350 was smaller than the 787, and thus the 789 as exists was the edge of the planned thrust
80 Post contains images astuteman : Almost by definition, the A350-800 will have the highest seat-mile cost of its family - a sort of "duh" comment, I suppose. But it will be a VERY cap
81 Baroque : Presumably a question for Lightsaber and even more presumably it must relate to the climb phase, but would you want a high rate of climb to get there
82 Post contains links and images Revelation : The article about the RR engine in #78 says the -800 will have the same engine as the -900, only derated. That will help maint costs but reinforces S
83 Post contains images EA772LR : Agreed
84 OldAeroGuy : Topic Off Nimitz maintained that he never sent the phrase and that it was the result of the inclusion of an irrelevant phrase meant to confuse code-b
85 Baroque : CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS To be exact. And it was his signals officer on presumes, but tha
86 Carls : Even though AF is a private entity, I would like to see the pressure AF will have if they consider not ordering Airbus product just because the engin
87 Post contains images Stitch : A not-insignificant portion of the 787 is manufactured in the EU, just as a not-insignifiant portion of the A350XWB is manufactured in the US. So whe
88 Post contains links and images A342 : Good lord, maybe you should tell the French more about this bird View Large View MediumPhoto © Udo K. Haafke
89 Post contains images lightsaber : Wow, I feel like I've been part of this thread without even posting. First, RR has improved the XWB a bit since I last seriously discussed the GP7200
90 Post contains images Baroque : Now if only Halsey had given a similarly informative reply!! Fascinating about the fate of the engine for the -800. Alternatively, they could go for
91 Post contains images Revelation : While they are working out all these things for the TXWB, they are still needing to catch-up to the GenX with T1000 on the 787. Interesting. It jives
92 Post contains images Stitch : Gives a bit more weight to GE's view that the A350-800 won't be a strong seller in the end. Even if the current orderbook is strong, it's not beyond
93 EA772LR : You mean those who have ordered 788s will opt for the the 789 instead? Or are you saying they'll swap A358s for 789s? I think between the 789 and A35
94 XT6Wagon : Most airlines have figured out that if you need a A358 sized plane and already fly a A359... Just order more A359 and enjoy the savings of not operat
95 Carls : I won't make any comment about french animosity against any other country. However what I can say is that ordering the A350 they will be helping to c
96 EA772LR : True. I forgot about that.
97 Post contains links and images keesje : If you want to replace the shrink, heavy succesfull 330-200 for long routes to hot and high cargo rich destinations (Asia) this probably won't the ca
98 EA772LR : My only reservation of the A358 is that it is more plane than needed on about 98% of missions to be operated in its class. It has a standard range th
99 Stitch : Considering the number of airlines who bought the A330-300 instead of 777-200s to co-operate with their 777-200ERs... And look at SQ - they chose the
100 EA772LR : Yeah I forgot about those. However, I think it's a little unfair to compare the 789/A359 to the A333/77E. The 789 will be far more capable all the wa
101 Stitch : They did choose the 787 over the original A350 and were one of the ones who pushed Airbus to create the larger XWB model. That being said, SQ probabl
102 Post contains images lightsaber : With the -1000 fan/turbine, the -800 engine could be on wing for most of the airframe life! Great "hot/high" is another way of saying the engine is r
103 Post contains images scbriml : Define "long before". There was just 5 weeks between the announcements of the "orders". SQ signed their LOI for 787s on 14th June 2006 and signed the
104 Post contains links and images keesje : Alternatively the 787-9 might often fly around with far less containers then its able to carry volume wise.. The 777-200LRF is a heavy expensive ULH
105 Post contains images EA772LR : For some reason, I was thinking SQ ordered their 789s in June of 2005...doh! Not the 777-200LRF, but rather, the 777-200LR. It's rather versatile as
106 AA777223 : That chart doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I was under the impression that the 787-9 was supposed to have range closer to the 77L. This chart make
107 Stitch : Well you will need to unload almost a third of the 787-9's belly volume before you reach the maximum belly volume of an A350-800, so again, unless yo
108 Stitch : I believe that chart was created a number of years ago by Widebodyphotog. It is clearly out of date, as it shows an MTOW for the 787-8 and 787-9 well
109 AA777223 : Thanks. Everyone talked about that aircraft as the one that MIGHT make SYD-LHR or SYD-DFW viable. The aircraft listed in that chart would do no such
110 EA772LR : Well the 77L could do it now with serious penalties. Not even the proposed A359R could make SYD-LHR without serious restrictions. The 789 has plenty
111 XT6Wagon : Premium only or Premium heavy was the talked about configurations. We don't know much past it wasn't worth buying just a couple of frames for a airli
112 Stitch : If you offer connecting service between LHR and SYD via HKG, you save so little time, but spend so much more money flying non-stop that I just don't s
113 Baroque : As well as, by now, large "captive" passenger buses!!
114 hawkercamm : This payload range curve is the "Marketing Bullshit curve". Reply 97 gives an example of real life range (and its not the Hot & High that is redu
115 keesje : The fact that the aircraft has become heavier, GE/RR are fighting to lower SFC and the wings have gone smaller doesn't realy touch the issue. It's ab
116 Stitch : But the fact the plane is becoming lighter, GE and RR are going to meet (and then exceed) SFC and the wings have gone smaller with no loss in overall
117 Post contains images astuteman : I believe RR have said that is the plan.... Again, RR have said there will be a lot of new materials coming onto the TXWB for the 93k variant, to acc
118 Post contains images EA772LR : I think you meant to quote me I was the one that made the above statement. I think my comment needs a little context added. Once the 788 is in servic
119 lightsaber : Excellent. That should help T1000 sales. As you note, the TXWB will be a much later design. I expect the XWB-900 with the 'improved Trents' to be a *
120 Post contains links keesje : It wasn't me... Airbus specified the A350-900R a -1000 shrink. It's specified with 95 klbs engines and a range slightly further then 777 LR's. http:/
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Northeast Brasil To The USA: Any News? posted Fri Dec 21 2007 03:57:45 by Sampa737
787 Needs More Power From GE Engine For EK Order posted Thu Oct 18 2007 09:51:47 by NYC777
Is Emirate Already Decided For The A350 XWB? posted Wed Aug 15 2007 21:57:17 by Carls
No GE Nx For The XWB posted Tue Jun 5 2007 20:06:35 by BrianDromey
Airbus Sticks With Panels For The A350 posted Mon Jun 4 2007 21:30:09 by T773ER
More 717's For Aebal/Spanair, Any News? posted Tue Feb 6 2007 19:24:47 by 717fan
Airbus Gives The Go-ahead For The A350 posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:11:39 by Gh123
Is Bangkok Airways Going For The A350? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 16:40:57 by Beaucaire
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
Apparently SU Went For The A350 posted Sat Nov 5 2005 00:00:52 by Kevin