Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 Part II  
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11459 posts, RR: 58
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22485 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Continuation of the first part, as it reaches more than 270 posts.

See the first page here.

CX Orders 30 Airbus A350-900 (by kaitak Aug 2 2010 in Civil Aviation)


Enjoy the forum

Felipe


New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
132 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Picking up from where we left off:

Quoting Baroque ():
Probably not, just as it would not fit all that well under a 787-10 or 11 come to that, unless they are a "bit different" to the current manifestations! Which leave GE trying to develop a 115MkII for the 77W only or an entirely different engine that could fit stretched 787s and or 350s. And the word to Airbus was "niet" for one of those apps.

I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.

I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range - or at least to a level of efficiency they feel is necessary to make such an engine competitive to the Trent XWB.

What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

So I wonder if GE can't update the GE90-115b with contra-rotation, IBR compressors and a new fan with wide chord blades for the 777 while working with Pratt to improve the GP7200 to not only power the A350, but also improve it's position vs. the Trent 900 on the A380 program. It would also make sure that if Rolls does offer the Trent XWB for the A380-900, EA has an equal engine, as well.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4700 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22451 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range

Having said that, it would have been interesting to see how they would have tickled 83k out of the GEnx for the -900.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22388 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
hey can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.

Airbus wanted an engine that can power the A350-800, A350-900 but also A350-900R, -900F and -1000.

GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.

Aircraft like the said A350s but also 787-10 and 777-200NNG would need that.

The GE90-11X is too big, the GenX too small.

No doubt RR will offer Boeing a Trent XWB based 85-100klbs engine for a 787 or 777 in the 300 seat segment.

Maybe Boeing can't buy it, like GE can't tap into the A350 market.

I think the Boeing - GE >80 klbs exclusivity is really working for both Boeing and GE.

Those hundreds of newly ordered 777s in the next few years will prove it.


Now up for AF/KLM ordering 100 twin aisles, both are long term loyal GE customers / partners...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.

Yes they do. It's called the GE90-7xb and GE90-9xb.

Admittedly, those engines are not going to be competitive on an SFC basis with the current generation, but again, GE could conceivably develop a new fan and add both IBR and contra-rotation to improve SFC by a significant amount.

The GP7200 has been tested to almost 82,000lbs of thrust, but GE found another 20,000 pounds in the GE90 family so I don't see why Engine Alliance can't do so, either. I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.


No doubt GE can pull this off and no doubt it will take a lot of money. But the question is: what is GE willing to do? So far they have not made a move after their "no" to the Airbus request for an all new engine for the A350-XWB.

The stakes are getting higher for Boeing and GE when it comes to this one. But no doubt they will find an answer to change the current situation. And then the competition can make their counter move a generation (or quicker then that) later.   Which keeps us on our toes.  .


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15830 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22096 times:

Quote:
Presumably that wing would then be available later for a retrofit to longer range 789s? Or is that too simple?

No I don't think that is too simple, and that is the approach I've been advocating for a while. Do a 787-10 with a modified and enlarged wing and then go back and fit that to a -9 fuselage to make a 787-9LR. The only potential catch is that the landing gear might require modification as well, which would increase the money and effort required but isn't an insurmountable obstacle.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 21986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines

I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.
I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range

Agree

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

The only thing that I see as an issue here is that even at 118", RR are going to have to go to a new technology level on the 93k lb Trent XWB to achieve all of the characteristics, i.e. SFC, thrust, emissions etc.

I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 21895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers. Given that it would be in Airbus' interest, I don't actually see there being much resistance - except maybe from RR!   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 21774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.

I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap

True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.



Quoting scbriml (Reply 8):
It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers.

Oddly enough, they evidently did sign off on the GP7100 series for the 767-400ERX, since that engine and the Trent 600 were announced at the program launch.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19280 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.

That's as maybe, but Airbus's "dismissal" of the GEnx would surely have been based on whatever GE were prepared to contract to at the time, not "might-have-beens" that have subsequently become manifest.

Of course there's no saying the Trent XWB won't beat it's figures by 2% a couple of years after EIS either..  

In truth, though, I suspect it was the size limit that really put the nails in the coffin for the GEnx..

Rgds


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19046 times:

It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models. I can see offering exclusivity on the -1000 because GE isn't keen on making an engine of the thrust required but they wouldn't have any issues with the -800 and -900. It seems to me like they are potentially shooting some sales in the foot.

I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

Still, I don't run a major airline producing company so my logic may be a bit flawed.



What the...?
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18387 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

Same with exclusive GE engines on the 777ER and 748....only one carrier really ordering the 777ER in large numbers now and that's EK.

Sales of the 748 haven't exactly gone through the roof either.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.



Any particular sales that you're aware of lost due to a lack of engine choice?

History suggests that a lack of engine choice is not a barrier to sales (737 best example). I believe Leahy himself said he's never lost an order because of a lack of engine choice.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16174 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models.

Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

It think there's high pressure on GE to come up with a state of the art 80-90k lbs engine from
- Boeing (787-9HGW, 787-10, 777-200NNG),
- Airbus (A350-900R, -900F, -1000) and most important :
- a dozen of major GE loyal airlines,
- GE risk sharing engine shops and subcontractors.
- the competition, RR is having a field day with the Trent XWB and probably has proposed a XWB variant to Boeing already!



GE has lost hundreds of potential orders. No doubt there are 2 camps within GE and they have already started preliminairy studies for either a lighter modified GE-11X, an enlarged GENX or something new.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16087 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
or something new

Eventually it is going to have to be "something new" but so far, that school of thought does not seem to be winning. Probably a look inside the GE finances would give a clue. But lack of a new engine probably means anything but inaction, just nothing to see - yet!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15773 times:

I'm actually going to break ranks and suggest that GE means what it says. To hell with the A350!

They are already No.1 by some margin. They are winning (so far) on the 787. They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747 and EA is pulling ahead on the A380.

You can't with 'em all. The A350 is juicy and they've missed the boat (to mix my metaphors) but it's hardly a life-or-death issue.

...which it was - or at least more so - to RR.

RR has the A330 nailed but T700 sales can't last forever. RR have a solid 35% of the 787 but they're lagging behind GE. RR aren't on the 777 or 747 and, after an initial lead, the EY order for 10 and EK's continuing demand for A380s has handed EA the lead.

RR need a good, solid widebody application.

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

And that's fine by me!!   


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15235 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Careful what you wish for!


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15096 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling. These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.



What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I could see where Airbus might fear an airline would buy the A350-800 / A350-900 with GE power and then eschew the A350-1000 (with RR power) for the 777-300ER because it would also have GE power and they might already operate the type, so it would be an incentive to continue to add more of the same rather then start adding the A350-1000.

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling.

Yet you still haven't offered any evidence to support this claim. Which airlines have purchased the 787 and not the A350 becuase there was no GE offering on the A350? See reply 13 - Airbus say they've never lost a sale because of a lack of engine choice.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.

Engine commonality might not be an issue for an airline that only ordered one model. While it is true that airlines that have ordered the -800 and -900 might never order the -1000, the reverse is far less likely. Given that 75% of current -1000 customers have also ordered the smaller A350s, I suggest engine commonality across the entire range is far from meaningless.

To come somewhat back to topic, given that CX has 30 options AND the contractual option of switching some of the order to -1000s, do you think engine commonality wouldn't be an issue for them?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14798 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747

265 777 in the backlog, 85% 300ER.

The backlog of 80-100klbs GE90s is non existant, it's gone.

747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.

300 Seats is a market sweetspot. IMO GE will come up with a plan soon.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-for-2nd-a350-engine-launch-25556/

The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-boeings-777-successor-drive.html


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14675 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 16):
RR need a good, solid widebody application.

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Absolutly, at one time it looked like RR could be locked out of future widebodies, had to fight PW to get on the 787, locked out of the A350 for at least 3 years production, 772 business dead, not on 77L/W; but they were handed a lifeline when the original A350 project collapsed and they leapt at the second chance with the XWB, they would have been happy to fight GE to 50/50 but GE didn't come back for the fight, which was a huge win for RR.

As to GE being able to sit on their hands, presuming that GE secured exclusivity on the 748 the old fashioned way, ie by taking a risk sharing stske where does that leave GE if the program is in loss?



BV
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14550 times:

The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats). Another possibility is to stretch the 772 by about 8 feet, making it a 350 seat aircraft, with 773 NG at current length coming in at 400 seats.

My calculations suggest that 773 NG will do well against A350-1000 for long/dense routes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-boeings-777-successor-drive.html
Quote:
However, the 787-9 could hold more potential to fill the role the 777-200ER holds, says the managing director of a lessor who has reviewed detailed dimensions of both aircraft. The leasing company says that the cabin lengths of both aircraft are nearly identical at around 49m (161ft), placing the 787-9 with nine-abreast seating and a range of 8,000-8,500nm (14,800-15,800km), nearly on par with the larger -200ER.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14511 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
265 777 in the backlog, 85% 300ER.

The backlog of 80-100klbs GE90s is non existant, it's gone.

I can't decide if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me!  
Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.

"a loss position"? Perhaps, but the -8F will surely keep selling. As of today Boeing have sold 109 747-8s (all models) so that's 450+ GEnx engines with more to come. Don't tell me that isn't good business for GE. (At worst, GE will sell as many GEnx2s as RR sold Trent 500s and no-one suggests that RR lost money on that disappointingly short production run.)

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.

I wonder what would happen if Boeing asked RR for such an engine, explicitly to challenge the A350...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

TriStar?

But you're missing the point, I think. The days when PW could hang JT9Ds under the wings of 747s and A310s (among others) and GE could do the same with the CF6 have gone.

Each application now really demands a bespoke engine. Even the GEnx1 and GEnx2 have significant differences. (And, yes, I know that there were different versions of the CF6 but much the same engine did (does) power very different airliners.)

GE does not have - and never did - an engine they could simply take off the shelf for the A350XWB. Even a GEnx (GEnx3?) for only the -800 and -900 would have required a fair bit of work.

So, at present, there is no "other engine [that meets] spec on some of the models".


25 JoeCanuck : It's not a claim of any sort If you read my previous post you would have read, among other things this; It's an opinion. I never said there still cou
26 Post contains images PM : Well, the "result" so far is that Airbus have sold getting on for 600 A350s with no engine choice. How many more sales they might have had, we'll nev
27 BMI727 : But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of
28 keesje : Looking at what airlines said & decided in the last 5 years, I think it has to be the 787-10 iso a reengined 777. RR would have an engine "of the
29 LAXDESI : I agree that a 787 with capacity of 330 seats would have better economics than 772NG. Anything upto 370 seats, a 9 abreast platform should outperform
30 Post contains images EA772LR : Excellent post PM and well summed up. I think those on here speaking of 'dire straits' for GE forget how successful GE still is and have been. The ex
31 Stitch : Gross orders for the family this year are looking pretty solid and the cancellations are due to GFC-related issues, not dissatisfaction with the fami
32 BMI727 : Honestly I think that if Boeing passes up the 787-10 in favor of a 777-200NG just to save some money by having parallel development with the -300NG,
33 LAXDESI : Ideally, Boeing should do both 77W NG(400 seats) and 787-10(310-330 seats) concurrently, but lack of resources will dictate one before the other. I f
34 BMI727 : If I were them, I would reverse that with the caveat of getting weight reductions and engine improvements on the 77W as soon as possible. I think tha
35 328JET : I believe, we will not see a B787-10 soon. It is more likely that Boeing is looking at a combined replacement for both the B77E and B77L first. An upd
36 BMI727 : The problem with that is that a 787-10 and 777-200NG cover the same size segments (the 787-10 would be a bit bigger and the 787-9 a bit smaller) but
37 JoeCanuck : I'm of a similar mind. I think Boeing already has the 787-9 sneaking up on the 777-200 segment. It would probably take less time and effort to make a
38 BMI727 : I think that we will see quite a few 777 operators choosing the 787-9, and some choosing the A359 and 787-10. I think that it is better for everybody
39 Post contains images StickShaker : I also struggle to see how a 772NG would be competitive with the A359 or 787-10. The simple stretch 787-10 would be utilising the latest technologies
40 keesje : No, I think the combined777-200ER/LR backlog stands at ~35..
41 cosmofly : The best use of resources may be to do a 77W NG and a simple stretch 787-10. Such a -10 may trade range for capacity, but with the rising traffic in
42 BMI727 : They could do a 787-10 as a straight stretch, but it would have to be done with the understanding that you would build it, sell 100 or so, and then b
43 328JET : Everybody here seems so enthusiastic about a possible B787-10X, but as far as i know, Boeing has not even decided IF it will be started or not. I am n
44 JoeCanuck : The same issues you mention also effect any aircraft of that weight class. Yes, it will be heavier than a -9 but would it be heavier than a 350-1000?
45 BMI727 : The weight is coming down. Or just higher thrust versions of the current engines. So? Design a new wing. Possibly, but that isn't a deal breaker. Def
46 328JET : @ BMI727 Sorry, but most of your answers are speculations. And as nobody here can provide us with more technical details for a proposed B787-10X or B7
47 BMI727 : As are yours. There is no way Boeing will have either by 2013. They will have the 787-9, which should be a bit more efficient than the A350-900 on sh
48 328JET : @ BMI727 The B789 is no real competitor to the A359, it is somewhere in the middle between the A358 and A359. Boeing should really hurry about a B77E
49 BMI727 : It is, and I think it is close enough to compete with both. I disagree. I think some airlines that need capacity or more range will choose the A350,
50 sunrisevalley : Apparently you did not read or alternatively comprehend what I posted in Reply 264 of the first part of this thread. Based on what is known at this t
51 328JET : @ sunrisevalley I did not read your reply, but tell your argument to SIA and the other airlines which bought both the A359 and B789... Something in yo
52 BMI727 : Or, SQ believes that there are some routes that need the extra capacity and some that don't. Plus, although the nominal ranges are nearly identical,
53 Stitch : Off the top of my head, I can think of the following 777-200ER operators who have ordered the 787-9, but not the A350-900, at this time include: NZ B
54 Post contains images PM : Actually, ET have ordered the A350-900: 12 of them. Of course, for what it's worth, the number of 777-200xx customers who have ordered the A350-900 i
55 StickShaker : I would be a bit more optimistic than that - the 330 has won around 600 sales in recent years due to 787 delays and other issues so I think a straigh
56 BMI727 : Capacity wise, the 787-9 might be a better fit for them than the A350, but their hot and high hub in Mexico City might make the A350 more attractive.
57 astuteman : I read that also. But I'd be a bit careful of reading too much into the numbers. They were generated a long time ago, and the aircraft configurations
58 Post contains images Baroque : Yes but apart from that it would be a snip - Mrs Lincoln! And so pretty, much appreciated by Dachshund fanciers I imagine, just like the 346! New eng
59 JoeCanuck : I'm not sure why the engines would be a problem. Unless RR has an exclusivity agreement to only use the xwb engines on the xwb, there shouldn't be muc
60 sunrisevalley : True, but the known detail of the evolution is at the best , I thnk , sketchy. My understanding of PIANO X is that each type of aircraft in the data
61 Post contains images Baroque : You might be forgetting a.net law #5, that A350 sales are s***house due to lack of engine choice! Joking aside, you would not be able just to bolt on
62 Post contains images Stitch : To start, RR would need to make a bleedless model. Personally, a straight stretch 787-10 makes sense as an A330-300 and even 777-300 replacement. But
63 BMI727 : I imagine that is exactly what customers are telling them. The decision is whether to do it with one model, which is cheaper, or do it in two models
64 WarpSpeed : How? With the -9 design having been firmed up just recently and years away from significant production, a -10 variant would be hard pressed to see EI
65 Post contains links and images EA772LR : The CX will be a handsome aircraft. Aviation-Designs.Net:Design © Luis ContrerasTemplate © Luis Contreras
66 Post contains images keesje : Nonsense. For the market larger then 300 seats Boeing has a good aircraft and a backlog until Q3 2013, around the time the A350 enters service. The 7
67 BMI727 : That is there biggest mistake. If they get off their ass and get the 787-10 moving, they can make a lot of airlines look more carefully before signin
68 zeke : Apparently yes, and an airline called CX purchasing them with the option of also getting A350-1000XWB and the extended range -900XWB. They were compa
69 JoeCanuck : Actually, in a way they are getting off of their ass on the -10. Every bit of data concerning the -8's currently in flight testing will somehow relat
70 WarpSpeed : They can't move any faster. They've been trying to for the past two years but the slip-ups keep coming in one form or another. The 787 program is way
71 328JET : @ WarpSpeed Your last sentence is the best in this whole discussion here!!! In my opinion Boeing is exactly as poorly managed as Airbus was three year
72 WarpSpeed : Agreed. Fortunately for Airbus, there was/is no real competitor to the A380 and its customers could only vent steam and seek delay compensation. In B
73 BMI727 : I don't think we can definitively say whether they are or they aren't since we don't know what they are asking customers. But I fear that the 787-10
74 Baroque : True. During the T1700 interval, it appeared that RR could swap from not so much bleed (as even the bleedless still bleed a bit) to bleed relatively
75 StickShaker : In a perfect world Boeing would be able to offer one aircraft for all missions but Boeings' world is anything but perfect at the moment. The sooner t
76 Stitch : I believe the 787-9 does compete with the A350-900. It's a bit smaller, yes, but it's also a bit lighter and if Boeing's CEO's performance claims are
77 BMI727 : I agree, but there is definitely a certain segment of airlines that will want the extra capacity of the A350. The more important market for the 787-1
78 keesje : I think the option to upgrade to A350-1000 in the future was the A350 biggest selling point with Cathay. In recent years the A330-300 also took a sign
79 StickShaker : The 789 obviously does the trick for some airlines but not all. The issue is not that the 789 is lacking but that Boeing have the ability to offer a
80 BMI727 : One would think so, but Boeing is still holding firm to their range figures of 8000-8500 NM. I would think that Boeing has learned their lesson with
81 Baroque : Errrr!!! Really????
82 Post contains links and images keesje : Most "brochure" ranges are with a full passenger load, no cargo. To compare the two, 300 passengers at 100 kg/passenger from HKG (from May to the mid
83 parapente : Not to be peverse,but I disagree with the whole 787-10 senario.If my memory serves me correctly the -10 emerged on Boeings powerpoints placed in exact
84 JerseyFlyer : I think that on this forum we do get a bit fixated about "like for like" replacements. Aircraft being replaced today were often ordered 20 / 25 years
85 BMI727 : That depends on what Cathay plans to do with their A350s. Someone should tell Qantas and Air New Zealand that. I have no data to discredit what Boein
86 Post contains links keesje : Various airlines has raised concerns about the 787 range for some time. Doesn't who didn't publicly are automatically satisfied. Having the same wing
87 rheinwaldner : How meaningfull is 2015 EIS for an aircraft coming from a production line that is already fully booked until far later? Sure, the 781 would "work" on
88 Post contains images EA772LR : Keesje, come on man, seriously. You're in a very small minority of folks who believe Boeing is in a dire situation. I agree. Yeah I know, right. It's
89 rheinwaldner : Me too. I only raise concerns now when the A350 starts eating the 777. Those who believe that the 787 would be a miraculous product to reap the 777 m
90 StickShaker : There is no perfect or elegant solution as the 300 seat segment sits at the boundary between the 787 and 772. Boeing has various choices available bu
91 Post contains images EA772LR : I agree. Hopefully Boeing makes the 777NG or perhaps Y3 to head on the 300+ seat market. 777NG seems much more likely at this point, and if done righ
92 WarpSpeed : That's interesting! I did not know this was considered. Could you elaborate why they chose not to use this approach originally? Could CFRP be used in
93 LAXDESI : Do you envision 772 NG based on the current 77E? 77E is about 15,000 lbs lighter than 77L. I expect the 772 NG, based on 77E, to be be around 25,000
94 keesje : Smoke and mirrors. Look at the graphs, the 777-200ERs of cargo hungry Cathay will replace carries significant more payload accross the pond then the
95 kaitak : Amid all of the discussion about the replacement for the 777 and whether the 787-9/10 is up to the job, I'd just like to focus on CX again for a momen
96 parapente : With regards to the origonal AlLi 777 I am sure there are guys with better technilogical knowledge than me on this forum.But yes,the 777 fuse was orig
97 EA772LR : Last I checked Boeing didn't design the 787-9 as a 77E replacement. It is/was a 764ER/A333/A343 replacement. Boeing hasn't designed a 77E replacement
98 Stitch : McNerney was chatting it up again late last year, but not with any gusto. The 787-9 flies farther than the 787-8 because the former is fuel volume li
99 keesje : I would agree if you said 2019-2020..
100 BMI727 : Concerns about the range of early 787-8s. Nothing about the -9 in there. First, by many accounts the 787 wing is performing better than planned. Good
101 Lutfi : I don't think Cathay are ordering the A350 to replace A330/B772/B773 at all - the furthest they fly is Australia. I think they are buying them to repl
102 Post contains images astuteman : I don't believe the delta in real world configurations will be 50 seats between a 10-across 773ER and a 9-across A350-1000. I suspect it would be nea
103 Post contains images rheinwaldner : I still don't get how the 788 (smaller) can have range issues but the 789 (larger) not. The 789 shall easily beat the 788 and meet the promises while
104 BMI727 : Because the first ones rolling off the line will be heavy. And, for what it's worth, the 787-9 was always going to be longer ranged and the 787-9 is
105 Stitch : Probably 30-40 depending on the configuration. EK, for example, have said it would be 37 seats. Because the 787-8 reaches MTOW before it can fill it'
106 rheinwaldner : But IMO the 788 should be able to reach the higher MTOW without one technical change as well, or not?
107 Stitch : Yes, Boeing could raise the 787-8's MTOW to that of the 787-9 (the 787-8ER or 787-8LR) at which point it would fly at least as far as the 787-9.
108 LAXDESI : The real world delta should be around 85-90% of marketing delta, depending on the configuration. Looking at Boeing's marketing seat layout for 77W at
109 ElbowRoom : Based on a quick look at Seat Guru, it seems that adding an extra row of seats in Economy only (77W versus A351) could make the following differences
110 astuteman : I suspect that depends on whether the configuration being discussed is 3-class or 2-class.. A difference of about 10% overall (in 4% more space), but
111 Stitch : This was three classes.
112 Post contains links ElbowRoom : Any chance you could remind us where this info came from? I thought it may have been in Tim Clark's recent interview comparing the 77W and A351, but
113 zeke : 787-8 with higher MTOW means more thrust required to meet the required OEI performance, more thrust with a smaller rudder arm than the 787-9 to me me
114 LAXDESI : In the above link, A351 and B77W are discussed as 320 and 354 seat aircraft. Since the B77W is 3 class, it is reasonable to assume that the 320 seat
115 keesje : If both the 777 and A350 are 9 abreast in Economy, 6 abreast in Business and 4 abreast in First and they are about similar lenght the seatcount probab
116 EA772LR : Well since CX ordered both more 77Ws when they ordered A350s, then one assumes that when/if CX takes A3510, they will be for different missions. They
117 Post contains images ElbowRoom : Thanks - I skim read it too quickly . This also answers my query to Stitch. So EK says 34 seats difference with a 3 class layout. We don't know wheth
118 Stitch : The March 2008 issue of Air Transport News.
119 Post contains images ElbowRoom : Thanks for going out of your way. Looks like the 320 number was possibly rounded upwards ER
120 keesje : Probably consequential. All 777W's on order will enter service before 2014. The first A351 will enter service 2015/16. Maybe the same mission, maybe
121 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe not. In my opinion in the case of CX the destinations to which they transport a lot of passengers and a lot of cargo will decide on whether or
122 Stitch : I can't see EK and CX and others ordering 777-300ERs when they could wait a year or two and get an A350-1000 and see a claimed 20% reduction in trip
123 keesje : The total backlog for the 777 will be ready by Q3 2013, so you can have slots fairly early, maybe starting 2011 or -12. The A350 backlog is going 600
124 LAXDESI : In the case of EK with 10 abreast Y, 37 additional seats on 77W , and the higher cargo capability negates the lower fuel burn advantage of A351 comple
125 Stitch : Maybe it's also a sign of just how good the 77W is that it's worth taking the fuel burn hit to fly it five years now and ten years later than just wa
126 AirNZ : If that's the theoretical case, I wonder why so many airlines don't seem to be flying this 'miraculous' aircraft. I'd thus venture it's not a sign of
127 trex8 : how about the good old fashioned they just need the capacity now, like some people need an A332 now, not a 787 or A350 in a few years
128 Stitch : Sure, but to listen to some Airbus Aficionados and Boeing Boosters speak of the wondrous economics of the A35J and 788 vis-a-vis the 77W and A332, yo
129 Lutfi : Plus, the A359 and B789 may be amazing for a long haul. But on a 3 hour HKG-PEK, who is going to spend 150m+ on a new aircraft to replace a late 90's
130 kaitak : Has this been designated officially for the A350-1000? CX has always had a policy of "intelligent misuse" of aircraft, so you can find 744s and (ulti
131 Post contains images Stitch : No, but I would not be surprised if it was adopted by the ICAO since J is the 10th letter of the alphabet. Plus A3510 just looks weird.
132 mdavies06 : Yes, their emphasis on morning arrival and evening departure waves for their flights to NA and Europe sort of created the need for this kind of short
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...
AirAsia Orders 30 Airbus 320s posted Thu Aug 4 2005 11:25:49 by Squirrel83
Jetblue Orders 30 Airbus! posted Mon Jun 18 2001 11:38:01 by Boeing in pdx
LH Orders 20 747-8 And 7 A340-600 Part II posted Wed Dec 6 2006 23:17:20 by Columba
A350 Cabin Mock May Tip The Orders To Airbus posted Mon Apr 3 2006 20:12:28 by AirA380
China To Take Part In Airbus A350 Design And Mfg posted Mon Feb 20 2006 01:57:51 by Lumberton
Airbus A350 Launch Agreement, 200 Orders Year End posted Fri Sep 16 2005 16:51:18 by Keesje
CX Orders New Boeing's & Airbus's posted Thu Apr 15 2004 04:34:01 by Sydscott
United And US Airways In Merger Talks Part II posted Fri Apr 9 2010 15:52:40 by LipeGIG
The Game Begins-2010 U.S.-HND Allocation Part II posted Sat Mar 6 2010 16:55:55 by LipeGIG
Mesa Air Group Files For Chapter 11 - Part II posted Sat Jan 23 2010 22:13:00 by LipeGIG