Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air France - KLM Looking For 100-150 Wide Bodies  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 36441 times:

Air France-KLM has its eye on the Boeing 787-900 version and the Airbus A350-900 to replace its A330s, A340s, 777-200s and MD11s, the paper said.

The carrier is also weighing up the A350-1000 and the new version of the 777-300 to replace its existing 777-300s and 747-400s, La Tribune said. .


Interesting. GE will be asked what's their position on the A350-1000 no doubt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64P04O20100526?type=marketsNews

[Edited 2010-05-26 03:02:02]

114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 36288 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Air France-KLM has its eye on the Boeing 787-900 version and the Airbus A350-900 to replace its A330s, A340s, 777-200s and MD11s, the paper said.

I'm so certain that this order Will be a split close to 50/50.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 35958 times:

There was a recent thread about this. Nothing new it seems to me, except the confirmation that they are looking at the 789 and not the 788.


L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3388 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 35593 times:

I have a feeling this will be like the SU A350 / 787 order - will be talked about for literally years and then end up being split exactly 50/50. Checking the fleet of AF KLM and amazingly if all the types mentioned in the report are to be replaced 1 for 1 they will need the 150 mentioned in the article (didn't realise that they had so many wides in the two fleets )

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 35399 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 2):
There was a recent thread about this. Nothing new it seems to me, except the confirmation that they are looking at the 789 and not the 788.

If not for the 787-8, why would they not standarize on the slightly newer and bigger A350 XWBs ?

They are talking about up to 150 airframe now, including replacement of the new 777-300ER.



I wonder what GE thinks.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 35139 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
I wonder what GE thinks.

Or one can say "I wonder what RR thinks"..  ...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 34829 times:

Keesje,
Is the cockpit shown on the 350 model in your first post the 380 cockpit, which as far as I know Airbus are going to go with..
If so it is amazing how different (and better) it looks on another type.

If I had to guess I would expect a prudent board not to put all their eggs in the one basket for a total fleet replacement in case their selected aircraft did not come up to expectations.
So my bet is a close to 50 50 mix of 789 and 359. I see serious risk in the 1000, firstly because Airbus are setting an extremely ambitious performance for it, and secondly because Boeing have so much potential to improve the 777.
For what it's worth, and I have said this before, I think the fuselage width of the 350 is a mistake. Xtra weight and drag for the same number of albeit wider seats across, as the 787. I know some airlines have said they may put 10 abreast in a 350, but I don't think this will catch on.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 34794 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
Or one can say "I wonder what RR thinks"..


Maybe:

"GE should focus on recapturing their investments on the GE90/777. Nobody even knows how the A350-1000 will look. GE have a lot of time left to take the right decision. Only a few A350-1000s have been sold. The A350 is an additional risk, no time to panic"

 


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5403 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 34753 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
If not for the 787-8, why would they not standarize on the slightly newer and bigger A350 XWBs ?

Because the 787-9 will probably be lighter and better for cargo than the A358, and they don't have any routes needing the A358's extra 400 nm of range. They are ordering enough aircraft that having both the 787-9 and the A359 won't present any problem for them.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 34470 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):

"GE should focus on recapturing their investments on the GE90/777. Nobody even knows how the A350-1000 will look. GE have a lot of time left to take the right decision. Only a few A350-1000s have been sold. The A350 is an additional risk, no time to panic"

I do believe it will be an "excellent battle" between the B77NG and -1000....unlike the B77W/A346 battle....

One thing to keep in mind however, AF's 10-across on the B77's does help with CASM.....I'm not so sure if the -1000, though in theory can fit 10-across would work with AF.

Of course, there are a multitude of other factors as well.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5403 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 32247 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
One thing to keep in mind however, AF's 10-across on the B77's does help with CASM.....I'm not so sure if the -1000, though in theory can fit 10-across would work with AF.

I'll be very surprised if anyone but charter operators goes 10Y on the A350. There seems to be a threshold of pain at 17" for mainstream operators.

The 777's ability to do 10Y with 17" seats is what gives a 777NG a fighting chance against the A350.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 31826 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
One thing to keep in mind however, AF's 10-across on the B77's does help with CASM.....I'm not so sure if the -1000, though in theory can fit 10-across would work with AF.

I'll be very surprised if anyone but charter operators goes 10Y on the A350. There seems to be a threshold of pain at 17" for mainstream operators.

The 777's ability to do 10Y with 17" seats is what gives a 777NG a fighting chance against the A350.

Possibly, but even Airbus have stated that 10-across on an A350 (especially the -1000 IMHO) would have excellent CASM-even possibly as good as the current iteration of the A380... Wow!

So far, only AirAsia-X have gone with the 10-across on the A350 (A359).



"Up the Irons!"
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5403 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 31643 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
So far, only AirAsia-X have gone with the 10-across on the A350 (A359).

Air Asia X is also one of the very few willing to do 9Y on an A330. I fervently hope more airlines don't start to breach the 17" threshold, although my understanding of passenger behavior in the face of booking engines leaves me pessimistic.      


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 31450 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):

The A350 has turned out to be a very nice looking aircraft. I love the new nose, and those wings. Beautiful.

Back on topic, I think AF/KL will go for the 788/789 for A330/340 replacements, and A359/3510 for replacement of MD11/77E and eventually 77W. Just my   

[Edited 2010-05-26 08:29:24]


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 31257 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 17):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
So far, only AirAsia-X have gone with the 10-across on the A350 (A359).

Air Asia X is also one of the very few willing to do 9Y on an A330. I fervently hope more airlines don't start to breach the 17" threshold, although my understanding of passenger behavior in the face of booking engines leaves me pessimistic.

I agree...scary thought...   

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):

Possibly, but even Airbus have stated that 10-across on an A350 (especially the -1000 IMHO) would have excellent CASM-even possibly as good as the current iteration of the A380... Wow!

Here is the quote:

"“This is an opportunity that looks at the very highest levels of operating cost efficiency,” he (Airbus’s vice president marketing Colin Stuart) adds. “In this configuration, the operating cost per seat could not be matched by any other aircraft. We’d have to go to an 11-abreast A380 to achieve similar levels."*

*Flightglobal.com-19/05/08



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 30398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A350 and 787 will both handle 9-abreast Economy Class seating pretty indistinguishably, IMO. I do not believe folks are going to consciously notice 7.5 millimeters / three-tenths of an inch in cushion width. The A350 will probably offer better shoulder room, but again, we're very likely looking at under two centimeters / one inch.

I expect it will be much the same with a 777NG and A350-1000, where 10-abreast on the 777NG (with thinner walls) and 9-abreast on the A350 are effectively identical.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 30145 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
and you already starting the Airbus is NEWER technology crap

Do you think it's older?

No, I don't. They are the same level of technology. (I was poking fun at Keesje's inference that there was)  

I don't know if it qualifies as the same thing, but the CEO of Qatar airlines described the A350 as "even more sophisticated than the 787".

More sophisticated? You mean like more sophisticated shear ties?   

Either way, the difference shouldn't be great

On that Sir, we agree

Quoting mffoda (Reply 12):
The design freeze for the A350-9 was back in 2009... The 787-9 is still to be determined..

That's ok, but of course design freeze for the aircraft that the 787-9 is based on was a few years ago. There will be no wholesale technology paradigm shift between the 787-8 and 787-9.
Updates, perhaps..
 As there will be no wholesale technology paradigm shift between the A350 and the 787-8

Rgds



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10006 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 29848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 16):
Either way, the difference shouldn't be great

On that Sir, we agree

Sadly, our referenced posts went the way of all flesh at some point....     

Rgds


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6601 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 29718 times:

Quoting ruscoe (Reply 6):
Keesje,
Is the cockpit shown on the 350 model in your first post the 380 cockpit, which as far as I know Airbus are going to go with..
If so it is amazing how different (and better) it looks on another type.

It will not be the nose of an A380 put on an A350, like the nose of the 767 on the 777, for obvious reasons. So, inside, it will be quite the same layout (what's important for commonality) but outside they can do what they want. They added black paint to make it look more "bad ass" I think.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 29355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

KL had previously signed a large 787-8 lease with RBS, so there is clearly strong interest in the 787 family.

As a number of us noted in the previous thread on this subject, the MD-11, A340-300, 747-400M and early AF 777-200ERs are the first frames that are due for replacement and the 787-9 is an excellent option. Then when it comes time to replace the rest of AF's 777-200ERs along with starting to replace KL's towards the end of the decade, the A350-900 will be available.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
As a number of us noted in the previous thread on this subject, the MD-11, A340-300, 747-400M and early AF 777-200ERs are the first frames that are due for replacement and the 787-9 is an excellent option. Then when it comes time to replace the rest of AF's 777-200ERs along with starting to replace KL's towards the end of the decade, the A350-900 will be available.

That sounds like a very plausible scenario. I am not sure this order will be a 50-50 split. I think the majority could go to the B787-9, maybe about 60-70%?


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22988 times:

I do not see why AF/KLM would replace 777-200ER's with a slightly smaller aircraft in 6-7 years. Growth has been 4-5% for decades. KLM 777s are mainly used to Asia.

The 787-9 has significant less engine power then the MD11, 777-200ER and A340-300. I fail to see how it can lift more payload from hot Asian destinations. ( not LD3 positions, its about lbs/nm)



User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
The 787-9 has significant less engine power then the MD11, 777-200ER and A340-300. I fail to see how it can lift more payload from hot Asian destinations.

In terms of how much take-off weight each pound of engine thrust is supporting:

The MD-11 is 3.36 pounds of TOW per pound of engine thrust.
The A350-900 is 3.50 pounds of TOW per pound of engine thrust.
The 787-9 is 3.65 pounds of TOW per pound of engine thrust.
The A340-300 is 4.9 pounds of TOW per pound of engine thrust.

So the plane that's struggling would be the A340-400, while the 787-9 and A350-900 would both be pretty close. And the 787-8 with the 75,000 pound thrust engine option would be 3.35 - as good as the MD-11.

Might be why KL wanted to lease a score...  scratchchin 

[Edited 2010-05-26 17:05:38]

User currently offlineruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22399 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
I do not see why AF/KLM would replace 777-200ER's with a slightly smaller aircraft in 6-7 years

Frequency and bypass the hubs.

Ruscoe


User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 22010 times:

Quoting ruscoe (Reply 23):
Frequency and bypass the hubs.

nah, hub to hub is going to stay. I mean I allways select those *wonderful* 5 or 6 stop trips when I am looking to fly to europe.

Meanwhile someone embracing point to point can do it with one hub in thier domestic market (with lots of O&D). They fly to lots of destinations on thier own metal in the target country and thus bypass needing partners to handle domestic traffic in that nation. Certain posters here should be well versed in this as the A340 has done well in showing the value of point to point style service. Or more accurately point-hub-point vs the old traditiona point-hub-hub-point service.

Pure point to point won't grow again IMO until the next era in narrowbodies fragment the atlantic market. Which it will. Why fly 150 people to London so they can change planes to fly to scotland, when they can just fly right to scotland the first time around. And while cargo doesn't mind stops, its still quicker and cheaper to just fly it right to where it goes rather than flying it all over the map and transfering it multiple times.


25 prebennorholm : What really counts here is power ratio with one engine shut down after V1 speed. Then we have.... The MD-11 is 5.04 pounds of TOW per pound of engine
26 Stitch : Frankly, I cannot believe for one moment that Boeing didn't develop the 787 family to perform from all major airports with a viable payload. A number
27 ruscoe : Maybe that should be 2 engines, because even after a single engine failure on a quad, the probability of loosing another engine, is still higher than
28 Post contains links Centre : As far as I know ET will be strictly operating them on routes to Europe and regional routes, and the A350/77L to North America and long haul routes.
29 Stitch : So Boeing gave the 787 a design range better than any of their other planes - including 777s performing 12 and 13 hour missions - because they wanted
30 Centre : I was answering your comment in regards to ET operating the 789 out of ADD.... For which they choose to operate on sectors 7-8 hours long due to hot
31 motorhussy : Remembering of course that ET operates out of the hot and high base of ADD.
32 Post contains links and images keesje : The 787 has 71 klbs to pull that 13 hr fully loaded flight over that Asian hill when an engine fails after V1. Thats not bad, it's designed that way.
33 rheinwaldner : The one-engine-off case is more relevant (as Prebennorholm said). Which makes the A340 looking much better than the twins. This can not be correct (a
34 RJ111 : Oh yes it is, 10-25C above ISA throughout the year.
35 Stitch : As brilliant as the boys at Filton are, perhaps the team at Nagoya are just that much better and gave Boeing a 60m wing with the same performance as
36 Post contains images astuteman : Well, it's a nice idea to toy with anyway And yet that's pretty much why Boeing said they did it (well, resource constraints anyway).. Boeing themsel
37 bmacleod : No chance for an A380 order for KLM? Of course AF already has the A380 so KL would be concentrating on A350s to replace its 744s.
38 Kappel : Not in the near future anyway. This is interesting, because the consensus was that the 77W would replace the (full pax) 744's.
39 Stitch : Maybe Boeing is just blowing some smokescreen with their comments to throw Airbus off. I just don't see them in a position where they have to sacrific
40 BoeEngr : The 787-9 is using a version of the 787-8 wing because a trade study showed the -8 wing could be used and still allow the -9 to meet its performance g
41 Kappel : Indeed, AFAIK basically the same as Airbus' decision regarding the a350-800. Always nice to hear something from somebody in the know!
42 Flying-Tiger : Which, in principle, raises the interesting question why RBS actually cancelled their order for the B787. Usually everyone in every industry gets fin
43 Centre : That's all what it was because of "a trade study". But I tend to agree with it... The 788-789 is no more than a 767,332, 343...etc replacement for mo
44 Post contains images astuteman : That was how I understood it Agreed. It happens all the time. Agree again. Rgds
45 Stitch : I expect when RBS was hammered in the 2008-2009 financial crisis they could no longer afford (directly or indirectly) to pay for the order due to the
46 Post contains links and images keesje : Both Air France and certainly KLM have long and deep relations with GE. The A350-1000 seems almost certain to be included in any deal. Offering AF / K
47 Baroque : That assumes GE want to compete with its own monopoly. Most evidence suggests it does not.
48 Post contains images Stitch : AF and KL don't seem to need an A350 to replace anything but the 777-300ER, and those are unlikely to be going anywhere anytime soon. So instead of "
49 CFBFrame : So here's a thought. GE holds true to their orginial plan and no XWB, forcing AF/KL to place only the 787-8 and -9 order short term. Five years pass a
50 XT6Wagon : The extra wingspan came from a longer wingtip, not a new wing. By keeping the same wingtip length as the 8 they save alot of wieght not only in less
51 Post contains images astuteman : They do indeed, but at the cost of higher drag and higher fuel burn. The 787-9 didn't gain any range by adopting the shorter wingspan. All it gained
52 XT6Wagon : no doubt, just trying to dispel the idea that the 789 was to have its own new wing, when it was a 788 wing with new tip and reinforced or upgauged ma
53 Post contains images RJ111 : I'm sorry, what? AF have a limited number of Airbus widebodies historically? AF have operated or will operate at least 12 of EVERY Airbus widebody fa
54 astuteman : Thanks XT6Wagon. That's fair comment. Rgds
55 scouseflyer : In the future (supposing all are delivered) QR and EK will surpass those totals when their A350s are delivered.
56 Kappel : Well, KL does have the Fokker fleet (as does AF regional) with RR engines. Not that these engines have anything in common with the Trent XWB, but the
57 keesje : The relationship goes much further then just operating GE engines. If e.g GE sell a A330 with GE engines to Qatar including a maintenance contract, t
58 davescj : Where are the pax MD 11s running now? or are they cargo only? How old are the A330s? (Watch them end up with DL) ditto 777, A340s I suspect the A340s
59 BoeEngr : The difference between the current wing being used on the 787-9 and the originally planned 787-9 wing is greater than just the wing tip.
60 EA772LR : I know being as close to the project as you are, it's probably difficult to divulge certain information, but could you possibly elaborate a little on
61 Post contains images keesje : I believe its part of the longer term Boeing startegy. Get the 787-8 and 787-9 rolling now, reducing the backlog and produce with minimal further cha
62 BoeEngr : Unfortunately, it looks like I may have to retract my statement about that. I've been searching and cannot find documentation to back up my understan
63 Centre : Does that make the 788 and 789 the only types that will be offered to the market?
64 Centre : Wouldn't sticking to the original wing of the 787-9 reduce the overall cost of future development and allows for growth of the airframe rather than a
65 Post contains images keesje : It would increase the overall family costs to have a slightly bigger -9 wing that probably isn't big enough to match the recently enlarged A350-900R/
66 Baroque : Mumble mumble. That is what I have thought ever since they "dropped" the -9 wing. Not worth keeping it, if it was not good/big enough for the -10. Be
67 Post contains images EA772LR : No worries man. It would certainly make more sense that the changes are more inline with an optimization of testing from the -8 wing. I'm inclined to
68 Stitch : The problem is not so much that the 787-9's wing was not good enough for the 787-10, but that the 787-9 has grown in take-off weight (at customer req
69 alwaysontherun : If you do a KLM MD-11 search you will find they are now virtually the only airline on our planet that serves pax-destinations (from AMS) to (but not
70 XT6Wagon : yes, that was my understanding that Boeing expected to have minimal parts commonality due to the improvements to the 789 wing from practical experien
71 Baroque : That could certainly be and B would feel comfortable in that territory, but new wings and such would be expensive. Where is Lightsaber to tell us if
72 EA772LR : It's interesting that although the wing is a few meters shorter than planned, is still less than 2 ft. shy of the 77E wing as far as sheer span. Yet
73 Stitch : True, but so would doing the same for a "787 Mk. II". The advantage of the 777 is it can fit 10 abreast and if Boeing can recover a couple hundred mi
74 Baroque : All true and all mean pretty much an entirely new engine. Which so far leaves RR grinning a bit as they have done that hard work with the new Trent A
75 Revelation : Any particular reason why you are so fixated on GE's position with regard to the A350-XWB? There's no indication I'm aware of that GE's position has
76 XT6Wagon : I think in some people's mind, companies should be willing to pay for the honor of supplying Airbus. Or atleast thats how I translate thier rabid att
77 Post contains images Baroque : I suppose that they might be inspired by the ability of another company to get funds out of GE for a perhaps rather similar position????? Not sure wh
78 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Actually, KLM Cityhopper has almost always outsourced it's maintenance of it's Fokkers to a third party; Martinair has been doing it for years, now i
79 Post contains links Revelation : And (in the interest of completeness) to gain a profit sharing position as well, which I can imagine is working out pretty well for GE, given the suc
80 Post contains images keesje : Forget Airbus, its more like Peter Hartman calls David Joyce at home & schedules an appointment. The 777-200LR/ER backlog has dropped to a few do
81 morrisond : Keesje, If your going to compare the A333, A359 to the 772, you need to include the the 789 as well as that seems to be quite similar in capacity/ran
82 XT6Wagon : yah, I think there is a difference between dropping cash to become an exclusive supplier vs dropping cash to be "the second option". I also think its
83 Baroque : Might that be something to do with your "facts" are not a full representation of what happened. In particular can you detail for us how the cancellat
84 ruscoe : When it's all boiled down, Airbus have failed to offer a business case good enough to get GE on the XWB.l Ruscoe
85 Stitch : Airbus agreed to a two-year GE exclusivity deal so when Airbus cancelled the original A350, they lost at least 120 orders worth $1.7 billion from QR
86 RJ111 : And vice versa...
87 A342 : No, GE wanted or wants to supply an engine for the A350, but just for the -800 and -900. That's what Airbus is unhappy about.
88 Baroque : Quite so, but just because GE might have been (but really I very much doubt they did!!) have been counting chickens afore they were hatched does not
89 Stitch : True, but the UK Government does extend to Rolls-Royce plc RLI to help cover the cost of developing and launching new aerospace engine programs. (And
90 frmrCapCadet : The 350-10, IIRC, has 75 orders out of the total for the 350 of 550. Which makes it somewhat of a niche plane. Could both RR and GE actually make a pr
91 RJ111 : It's certainly not a niche plane at all. It hasn't sold as many as the others for a variety of reasons. Including the fact that EIS is still 5 years
92 Baroque : Yep, and HMG must be doing quite nicely on the T700 at least. I wonder how HMG in its new cost cutting mode will look at RLI. As a cost, or a cost sa
93 Stitch : While the GE90-11xB has been a smashing financial success, we should remember that the GE90-7xB and GE90-9xB were a smashing financial disaster. The G
94 XT6Wagon : I think you are forgetting that GE was spending piles and piles of cash to develop the GEnX with bleed, then suddenly thier customer canceled. I gues
95 keesje : GE had little time to spend billions on the short lived A350 mk1. It's the exclusivity deal with Boeing on the 777 which went further then the GE90.
96 Stitch : Boeing and GE are both on public record that the deal they signed for the 777X is only applicable to the 777X and any direct future derivatives. So e
97 Post contains images Revelation : Maybe in your mind, but as insisted I did the research and as of end of April 2010 Boeing's web site says they have secured 56 orders for the -200LR,
98 Post contains links keesje : GE says they want to offer a GENX for the A350XWB(-1000). John Leahy has siad they want no GENX for the XWB ("it has to be a generation beyond). No 7
99 Stitch : The 777NG is not going to be powered by a derivative of the GEnx. GE has been consistently reducing the GE90's SFC by multiple percentage points with
100 PM : They don't "have" to do anything. Nor do I expect them to. That's a rather bizarre way of putting it! It would be if that was the end of the matter b
101 aerokiwi : A few observations: 1. Evidently Airbus is trying to sexy-up the A350 cockpit area by painting in the cockpit windows to cover up the spaceshuttle loo
102 Post contains images Baroque : I doubt if they spent billions and billions - that is more than 2 billions - on the paper bleeding GEnx sized for the A350 And come to think of it, m
103 Post contains links keesje : That would be a major announcement >80 klbs at Farnborough. KLM flies the 777-200ER on far, hot and cargo heavy destinations in Asia. Looking at g
104 rheinwaldner : I noted that too! But it does look good, isnt it?
105 keesje : I think we won't have to spen much time thinking what GE will do. No doubt GE will soon be presenting their answer to the A350-800/900/1000 RFP to Air
106 Post contains images Pihero : That's one hell of a bleeding post, Baroque !!!
107 Post contains images Baroque : You missed one!!
108 Stitch : We know KL intended to operate the 787-8, most likely as an MD-11 and 747-400M replacement. The 787-8 has less belly space than either (to say nothin
109 EA772LR : Why is cargo such an important part of AF/KL's mainline fleets? They both employ extensive cargo fleets. I would not be surprised to see an order for
110 Stitch : Not so much, anymore. AF Cargo is closing operations and KL Cargo have sent some of their 747-400 freighters to Martinair, which is kind of looking t
111 PHKLM : Stitch, KL flies A330-200 (10 of em) with more on order; in fact there will be a new delivery in the not too distant future...[Edited 2010-06-01 09:4
112 Stitch : Fair enough. They were at the top of the Wiki Fleet page so I missed them. Even so, they're all relatively new deliveries, correct? It makes no econo
113 PHKLM : Correct, they are new with the first delivery in 2005. Most likely, the 787 will be aimed at replacing the MD-11's and 74E's; however both birds have
114 Stitch : With RBS placing their order in January 2008, they likely were not going to get planes in the immediate future, but Boeing did note last month that t
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...
Air France - KLM Preparing Bid For Iberia posted Wed Sep 26 2007 10:39:36 by PH-BFA
Air France KLM : February 2010 Traffic posted Mon Mar 8 2010 08:46:03 by yazoo
Air France-KLM Sells Two 777-200Fs To FedEx posted Fri Jan 29 2010 08:02:47 by N328KF
Air France Decreases Canada For Summer 2010 posted Tue Dec 1 2009 10:26:20 by Flyyul
Market For 100-150 Pax Transatlantic Routes? posted Fri Jul 24 2009 02:23:56 by Faro
Lufthansa/Air France/KLM - Crazy One Way Fares? posted Sun Jul 19 2009 22:39:16 by Aerokiwi
Air France KLM €814 Million Loss posted Wed May 20 2009 07:31:25 by Airzim
Iraq, Air France-KLM Sign Cooperation Deal posted Wed Dec 31 2008 01:31:31 by ENU
Berlusconi : Air France A Good Partner For AZ..! posted Tue Jun 3 2008 10:25:41 by Beaucaire
Air France – “Atoll Programme” For CDG-PPT-CDG posted Wed Mar 26 2008 03:37:44 by Bkkair