Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Thai Airways: A350 Preferred For Cargo Over 787  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40845 times:

Many times have we discussed the cargo capabilities of the A350 and the 787 on long flights from hot airports.

I argued GE doesn't offer the required state of the art (by 2015) ~80-90 klbs engine to provide a long haul 300 seater with enough payload margin for a lot of cargo on a 777-200NNG, 787-9HGW or 787-10. RR could but I've heard nothing about it.

Compared to the 787 the A350 has bigger wings and bigger engines. The 787 has lots of LD3 positions but is restricted by payload-range on long flights due to its 787-8 wings and max. 72 klbs engines.

Thai is looking at both the 787 and A350 and seems to confirm the 787-9 long haul payload restrictions from hot Asian airports.

"We have to use more than 30 aircraft and we have asked Boeing and Airbus to propose details about their planes," he told Reuters, adding that the A350s could be used for routes require high cargo and the 787s could be used on low-cargo routes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE67J0A620100820


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Nippon-Sharyo_LD-3V_ULD_002.JPG

Asian carriers such as Korean, ANA, the Chinese carriers, SQ, QF and Cathay as well as airlines that fly US and Europe to Asia routes such as BA, LH, KL/AF, Delta, United will take this into account in future aquisitions.

The 777-200ER/LR backlog dried up, the 773ER has a few yrs backlog left (2013).

IMO high time for:

   GE to come up with an 80-95k lbs engine that is viable for the next 20 yrs.
   Boeing to come up with 787 HGW versions or a 777-200 upgrade / re-engining.

to restore balance with Airbus & RR, or they might loose serious marketshare in the world's fastest growing market.

The currently largest 787 is not the ideal 777-200ER/LR and A340 replacement. It needs more payload-range.

http://pages.infinit.net/camsim/all%20big%20twin_c_800.jpg
http://pages.infinit.net/camsim/construction

[Edited 2010-08-20 11:31:51]

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40661 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Boeing to come up with 787 HGW versions or a 777-200 upgrade / re-engining.

I see no way that a 777-200NG could be competitive. It will need to go ten wide to compete on CASM and even then I think that it will be just too heavy and too much plane for all but the longest and heaviest routes. A 787-10 would probably have much broader appeal and airlines that need to fly longer distances can use a 777-300NG.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
The currently largest 787 is not the ideal 777-200ER/LR and A340 replacement. It needs more payload-range.

Or does it? It could certainly be argued that the 777-200ER with all of its extra structural weight is too much plane for a lot of routes. I suspect that a lot of airlines will find the 787-9 to be a fine replacement for their smaller 777s, but many won't as well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 40375 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The currently largest 787 is not the ideal 777-200ER/LR and A340 replacement. It needs more payload-range.

Or does it? It could certainly be argued that the 777-200ER with all of its extra structural weight is too much plane for a lot of routes. I suspect that a lot of airlines will find the 787-9 to be a fine replacement for their smaller 777s, but many won't as well.

At the moment a 772ER is replaced by a 787-9 on a long flight to/from Asia, cargo capacity is reduced. Most of those market show a long term growth of 5-8% per year. When ordering a 772ER replacement for the next 20 years, a smaller aircraft seems impracticle.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 40335 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
At the moment a 772ER is replaced by a 787-9 on a long flight to/from Asia, cargo capacity is reduced.

Do all 777-200ERs fly across the Pacific?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 40277 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If the A330-300X's arriving are indeed for A300-600R replacement as PM believes, than TG is likely looking at the 787-9 to replace the existing A330-300 fleet. Which seems kind of odd, since the A330-300X would seem a logical choice to replace A330-300s and the 787-8 would offer 6 additional LD3 positions over the A300-600R.



Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
The currently largest 787 is not the ideal 777-200ER/LR and A340 replacement. It needs more payload-range.

Projections I have seen postulate a 58t maximum payload for the 787-9 which is within 1 ton of the 777-300ER and 2 tons more than the A340-300. And with a nominal range projected to be upwards of 8150nm per Boeing's Chairman, I've seen estimates of range at MZFW of ~5750nm, matching the 777-300ER, within 50nm of the 777-200ER and farther than the A340-300E at 275t MTOW, 52t of payload and CFM56-5C4 engines. And some of the speculation I am hearing has the A350-900's maximum payload no better than 60 tons, so not exactly a commanding lead over the 787-9's projected 58t.

And the 787-9 can't be that piss-poor at moving cargo since NZ and QF are buying them. Oh wait, they're close to Antarctica so I guess it's really cold in Australia and New Zealand...   

And SQ doesn't seem to think they're going to have trouble operating them out of SIN, but then maybe they will only fly them during winter. Same with EY and the 35 they have on order to operate out of AUH.  

You'd think they would have been intelligent enough to take that into account with their current fleet purchases...

[Edited 2010-08-20 13:41:04]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4762 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 40236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Asian carriers such as Korean, ANA, the Chinese carriers, SQ, QF and Cathay as well as airlines that fly US and Europe to Asia routes such as BA, LH, KL/AF, Delta, United will take this into account in future aquisitions.


I guess they will do so. Especially with the expected growth rates in the East-Asian and Western-US regions.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
I argued GE doesn't offer the required state of the art (by 2015) ~80-90 klbs engine to provide a long haul 300 seater with enough payload margin for a lot of cargo on a 777-200NNG, 787-9HGW or 787-10. RR could but I've heard nothing about it.


More and more I am shifting toward your position on this subject. So the response from Chicago (Seattle) is what we have to wait for. That move will probably include GE as well.  

Thanks for another well detailed and illustrated opening post. In my opinion nobody does that better then you out here.  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 40116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 5):
I guess (GE) will do so. Especially with the expected growth rates in the East-Asian and Western-US regions.

Will first Boeing needs to develop a 787 with an MTOW higher than 250t that needs more than 75,000 pounds of thrust. And so far nobody has been able to state with any authority such a thing is possible without significant undercarriage and wingbox modification.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 39712 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
And so far nobody has been able to state with any authority such a thing is possible without significant undercarriage and wingbox modification.

If so, little alternative exists the to upgrade the 777 with a few yrs.

To offer the 777-200ER operators growth, efficiency and CASM improvements and to set the 777-300ER apart from the A350-1000, Boeing might consider lighter materials, updated systems and maybe 4 additional seatrows for both the -200 and -300. I see few other ways to dratically but easy improve structural efficiency on the 200 versions..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing777EnhancedPerformance.jpg?t=1282345338


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 39547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 777-200ER was pretty much done selling before Airbus launched the A350XWB, so clearly customers were looking at the 777-200LR and the 787-9.

If Boeing improves the 777, it will only be the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter. The 777-200ER will be withdrawn from sale just as the 777-200 and 777-300 were.

Boeing appear to be able to take a not-singnificant amount of MWE out of the airframe and with a wing re-profile, that would help the aerodynamics. GE would only need to concentrate on the GE90-11xb engines and if they throw in everything they can, SFC will likely drop by a double-digit percentage, which should halve the A350's projected advantage in fuel burn itself. Add in the airframe lightening and aerodynamic tweaks, and that advantage shrinks even more.

Coupled with the higher payloads the LR777 family can lift (and with the lightening in MWE and reduction in trip fuel, usable payload at design range will rise) and it could hold it's own for another few hundred sales (and probably stop cold the A350-900R and A350-900F programs).


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38998 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
If so, little alternative exists the to upgrade the 777 with a few yrs

Why can't Boeing bite the bullet and design the new wing? Doing a 777-200NG without a new wing would be another 747-8. Even with a new wing, a -200 version of the 777 could become a white elephant.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
it will only be the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter.

I don't even think that they need to bother with the -200LR. If they make meaningful improvements to the 77W, they could render it obsolete.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38858 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Do all 777-200ERs fly across the Pacific?

Obviously not, but in all fairness Asia is the big growth market nowadays. How does the lore go around here- something like the 767 and then A330 did for transatlantic traffic what the 777 then did for transpac routes. The new gen planes will open up more possibilities for economically viable US-Asia gateways and routes. Of course, West Coast to Europe faces the same problem as East Coast-Asia, so there we could see some new possibilities. We might even see more 777s back on transatlantic routes once US carriers begin transitioning to 787 or A350 on Asia trips -- much like DL moved most 777s off of Europe routes to use them where their range/payload was more critical.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 38134 times:

So, my earlier assumption that the B789 will be more of a A333-replacement and the A359 being a A343/B77E replacement seems to be correct.

That offers good opportunities for both producers in a lot of fleets which actually consists of either a mix of A333/343 and/or A333/77E.

I prefer mixed Airbus and Boeing fleets, so this market share would be perfect in my opinion.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 38045 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 10):
Obviously not, but in all fairness Asia is the big growth market nowadays.

Then airlines might want something bigger than a 787-9 but lighter than the A350-1000 for intra-Asian flights. Or airlines would be more likely to want something the size of a 777-300ER instead. I think that an improved 777-200 will be just too heavy for what it does for most flights.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 37777 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Then airlines might want something bigger than a 787-9 but lighter than the A350-1000 for intra-Asian flights. Or airlines would be more likely to want something the size of a 777-300ER instead. I think that an improved 777-200 will be just too heavy for what it does for most flights.

They well might. I was thinking just of travel to Asia, although the fate of the 787-3 might be indicative of how speciaized regional widebodies may not be feasible anymore. For me this makes things especially fun to watch, since aspects like weight and field performance are always important, but they might come at the expense of long-range performance (e.g., a certain amount of extra structural weight is necessary to carry substantially more fuel). So where on the spectrum A and B decide to peg their new offerings has very real implications for the regional market you describe, even if these planes are optimized for LH travel.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 37736 times:

The 777-200LR backlog also has fallen below 20 just like the 200ER.

I do not believe Boeing can just cut tons of OEW and make the 777-200 a light aircraft. That would implicate it's a sluggish design Which it is not.

Neither do I see double digid improvements over the GE90-11X . It is the grand daddy of the GENX, Which offers 16% over the CF6..


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 727 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 37336 times:

Is it me, or do the 787 and 350 look like essentially the same product with different wings?

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10074 posts, RR: 97
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 37271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
And some of the speculation I am hearing has the A350-900's maximum payload no better than 60 tons, so not exactly a commanding lead over the 787-9's projected 58t.

Thanks for those "projected" numbers, Stitch.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't expect an A350-900 to have much more than 60 tonnes max payload.

The question I'd ask is why Thai felt the need to make the distinction tht Keejse has identified

Quote:
the A350s could be used for routes require high cargo and the 787s could be used on low-cargo routes.

By any synthesis that I can make, whether it be based on the nominal range/payloads, or weights, geometries , calculated drag and engine SFC; at max payload, I believe the A350-900 will drag that "mere" 2 tonnes" extra payload some 300Nm-400Nm further than the 787-9.

I predict that the A350-900 will sport up to 6 tonne payload advantage at around 6 000Nm, reducing to about 3 tonnes at 8 000Nm. Of course, that's just a "projection" too  

But it does jive with Thai's comments   

Given that the A350-900 will have a 21 tonnes higher MTOW, be of a similar technological status, and sport a not insignificant SFC advantage, I'm not sure how anything else would be a sensible conclusion  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Why can't Boeing bite the bullet and design the new wing?

Resources presumably. At least that's what they said

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
I don't even think that they need to bother with the -200LR. If they make meaningful improvements to the 77W, they could render it obsolete.

I would have thought that improvements to the 77W would be almost "for free" on the 77L  

Rgds


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 36918 times:

@ Stitch...


Why on earth do you have to mention in every discussion here, that the A359 will be matched by the B789...?

Its wing is 30 percent smaller, i cannot have the same performance.period.


Otherwise Thai, SIA and others would not order both of them, wouldn´t they...?  


I think that it is a very comfortable situation for both the airlines and the producers to have two products which complement each other very well.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 36918 times:

I would expect GE to be able to reduce GE-11X sfc by about 4-5%. If Boeing can keep the OEW constant while adding 15% capacity by the mentioned moderate 250/350EP stretches, optional lower deck lavatories / galley / bar solutions etc, they might have a significant enhancement for the airlines.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Lufthansa_A340-600_Toilets.JPG/800px-Lufthansa_A340-600_Toilets.JPG

About 787-9 vs A350-900 cargo capability, the A350 has a bigger wing and optional up to 25% more thrust. Assuming both are reasonably good design that's enough I guess to explain a significant difference in payload range. Thai confirms this, but it's not that Delta (NW), the Chinese and Mexicans aren't concerned at all.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-expected-787-range-shortfall.html


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 36830 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):

Hey Keesje, could you please stop showing this picture, it is a real eye pain.

Quoting PVG (Reply 15):
Is it me, or do the 787 and 350 look like essentially the same product with different wings?

Without the description I would think it was all the same plane. And these are only the wide-bodies, the picture lacks the A320, 737, MRJ, SSJ, CSeries, and EJets.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 36777 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
Resources presumably. At least that's what they said

That would make sense, but my contention would be that if doing a 777-200NG is significantly less effort than designing a 787-10 that can fly 6500-7500NM nominal range then they probably aren't doing enough and the NG could end up like the 747-8.

I would further contend that getting a 787-10 on offer is more time critical than the 777NG and a 787-10 will get more orders quicker. The 77W has some life left in it and there are probably some improvements that could be made relatively easily without being a full blown NG. Emirates has said that the A350-100 won't be able to meet their needs in terms of payload range, and I would think that getting the A350-1000 to match an improved 77W in that department would be a challenge assuming that Airbus is interested in doing so. And when Boeing gets around to doing the 777NG, I'm sure Emirates will still be around.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
I would have thought that improvements to the 77W would be almost "for free" on the 77L

It would be, but then, if a 77W can fly as far as a 77L can now, there is less point in having the 77L. Sure a 77L could still fly even further, but how many airlines would want to do that? How far is far enough? But, since the development costs would be very small, Boeing could toss it on the table and wouldn't need many orders to break even.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
Why on earth do you have to mention in every discussion here, that the A359 will be matched by the B789...?

Because those are the specs Boeing and Airbus are putting out there, even after making the decision to use the smaller wing. I don't have any hard evidence whatsoever that either manufacturer is lying and until I do I don't think I have a choice but to go with the manufacturer specs.

Quoting keesje (Reply 18):
but it's not that Delta (NW), the Chinese and Mexicans aren't concerned at all.

That article is referring to the 787-8, and the 787-9 will not be just a straight stretch of the -8. Most of their concerns are regarding early build planes being overweight (almost certainly part of why Delta is deferring). Although I find the idea of a MEX-ATH flight amusing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 36648 times:

I prefer to trust the airlines.


And there seems to be a clear trend towards a mixed B787/A350-fleet.

And that is not only because of political reasons.


 


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 36358 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 23):
And there seems to be a clear trend towards a mixed B787/A350-fleet.

On the whole, yes, but it's worth taking a closer look. Perusing customer lists, I only found two customers that ordered both the 787-9 and A350-900. One of them is United, with the 787-9 orders coming from Continental's side. I fully expect both the 787-9 and A350-900 orders to be fulfilled, but it is worth noting that the split order that came from just United was for the A350-900 and 787-8, not the -9. The other is SQ, which ordered twenty of each, presumably to use the 787-9 on regional routes and the A359 further afield, but time will tell.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 36209 times:

(787-8) 100,000 lb (45,360 kg)

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
And some of the speculation I am hearing has the A350-900's maximum payload no better than 60 tons, so not exactly a commanding lead over the 787-9's projected 58t.

Thanks for those "projected" numbers, Stitch.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't expect an A350-900 to have much more than 60 tonnes max payload

 

Maximum Payload

(A350-800) 142,420 lb (64,600 kg)
(A350-900) 167,550 lb (76,000 kg)
(A350-1000) 201,945 lb (91,600 kg)

http://aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a350/ (FWIW..)

These number seem consistent with general spec of both aircraft.

[Edited 2010-08-21 03:49:26]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 34811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
I don't even think that they need to bother with the -200LR. If they make meaningful improvements to the 77W, they could render it obsolete.

They might as well improve the 777-200LR and 777 Freighter, as well, to push back Airbus launching the A350-900R and A350 Freighter.



Quoting 328JET (Reply 11):
So, my earlier assumption that the B789 will be more of a A333-replacement and the A359 being a A343/B77E replacement seems to be correct.

Except the 787-9 is so far beyond the capabilities of an A330-300 because airlines wanted it that way. If they wanted an A330-300 replacement for sub-10,000km missions, the 787-9 could do that with the original 227t MTOW. But Boeing has raised the MTOW 20 tons in order to allow it to tank the fuel to fly out to 15,000km.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
The question I'd ask is why Thai felt the need to make the distinction tht Keejse has identified

I think it is important to note that Thai said "could" not "would" or "must". I believe keesje is reading into that statement what he wants to see because it backs his own beliefs. I'm trying to look at in a more detached view.

It would also be helpful to know what TG's cargo densities are and whether they tend to "cube out" or "weigh out" in their holds. The A350-900 is going to give up one or two extra LD3 positions to baggage vs. the 787-9 depending on how many extra seats are fitted so if they cube out, the 787-9 might end up being the better choice for high-cargo volume routes and the A350-900 would fly missions where passenger traffic is the more important denominator.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
Why on earth do you have to mention in every discussion here, that the A359 will be matched by the B789...?

And I would ask why on earth in every discussion here that you have to claim they're addressing two entirely different market segments? I at least have provided empirical data to support my position that they are not.



Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
I do not believe Boeing can just cut tons of OEW and make the 777-200 a light aircraft. That would implicate it's a sluggish design Which it is not.

Boeing's engineers appear to disagree with you and I happen to put more faith in their opinion. *shrug*

[Edited 2010-08-21 07:14:17]

25 DLPMMM : Your answer is simple and non-technical: Tea money. Thai will continue to buy from both manufacturers every plane ever made implly because each deal
26 Thorben : Would be nice to see them getting some 747-8I. This with their 744s, A345s, A346s, and A388s would make a nice quad-fleet.
27 Rheinbote : Make that 74 klbs. If you want to have 787 systems in a 777 aero-shape, you can as well design a new airplane. Which 787 systems are you pondering, a
28 LHCVG : What IS the actual headroom left in the GE90-1xx platform? I wonder how much wisdom there is in heavily revamping the GE90 rather than scaling up the
29 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not sure whether dismissing Thai's comments as without meaning could ever be characterised as "more detached". Not that you were, of course Rgds
30 Post contains links and images keesje : They are able to cut weight. But how much? A lot I suppose? You are looking at it in a detached view? Looking at the numbers and figures you don't ha
31 Post contains images Stitch : It's not dismissal. It's looking at them in context. I didn't see TG making an absolute statement that the 787-9 is inferior to the A350-900 in cargo
32 BMI727 : Well, that makes three. It should be noted that their 787 order was switched from -8s to -9s. Of course, while Boeing would get the 77L and 77F for f
33 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : Aviation according to Keesje, all Airbus good, all Boeing bad............. Why don't you ask Keesje to post the entire unedited response from TG? He
34 Post contains images keesje : so where did I cut / edit the response? or just a KC135TB "kill the messenger if it ain't Boeing" knee jerk? :D Why? :D Numbers neither Boeing lists
35 EPA001 : I guess there are some solid links on the web out there where these claims can be verified? I am especially interested in the part which informs us h
36 PlanesNTrains : I think you are building a bridge too far here... Pretty much sums up yet another thread, imho...All opinion based varyingly on pro-Airbus, pro-Boein
37 Stitch : In the September 2007 787-8 ACAP, Boeing published an OEW of 114.5 tons. This is 4.5 tons higher than the uncredited figure Wikipedia gives. If you be
38 328JET : @ Stitch You are saying, that, in contrast to me, you at least provide facts. That is wrong. I always remind you about the technical difference of the
39 Rheinbote : You are mixing up Airbus' MEW and Boeing's MWE - or was it the other way round? Whatever, MEW and MWE are based on different accounting rules, e.g. A
40 Post contains images Stitch : If the A350-900 was only 3.5 tons heavier than a 787-8, the 787 program would already be cancelled. I may have the actual acronym wrong, since we onl
41 Stitch : If I argued that due to the technical differences between the two birds, it is impossible for an A330-300 to perform as well as a 777-200 would you a
42 sunrisevalley : I believe the freight capability of both types is about the same with the 789 having the advantage of 1-LD3 postion at max passenger load. Both are sa
43 BMI727 : They didn't even go that far. According to some, yes. Except that Boeing says it is possible, and I would suspect that they might know a thing or two
44 Post contains images maxter : I'm glad you put that smiley in Oh Astute one, I almost thought you were serious...
45 Post contains links zeke : They changed their order as the 787-8 was too heavy. "The -8 doesn't meet the performance guarantee as they told me," Minh told Flightglobal on the s
46 328JET : @ Stitch I do not get your point in you comparison. We are talking about two new ULH aircrafts. One has a wing which is around 30 percent bigger, has
47 Stitch : Suffice to say, I disagree with your position and in a few years we'll fnd out whose view was the more accurate one.[Edited 2010-08-22 00:26:09]
48 CFBFrame : I thought this deal was done? Didn't Airbus say last week that TG was buying A330s, A350s, and A380s? Why are the TG folks even discussing this order
49 328JET : @ Stitch Absolutely correct. Any funny enough: Both aircraft will enter service at around the same time.
50 Post contains images astuteman : Very well put For what it's worth, in my own mind I paint the A350-900 as somewhere like 5%-6% more expensive to run, and 5%-6% more capacity. In oth
51 Post contains images PM : Read: "I HOPE they will cancel the A350." The "new CO" is actually the new UA... Read: "I HOPE they will phase out the A32Xs." Well, It's well enough
52 Rheinbote : No problem with OEW, that figure is comparable in Airbus amd Boeing accounting rules. The downside of using OEW is that OEW is dependent on the cabin
53 parapente : Post from CFBFrame. Yes Boeing do believe that this is a -no- "the" key market sector. So obviously they will have to respond to the threat of the 359
54 Post contains images Stitch : Fair enough, but if Airbus is using their rules to come up with a 100t / 108t figure for the 787-8 and 787-9 and also using their rules to come up wi
55 keesje : The 77W has a backlog until ~ 2013 (180 aircraft, production 80 per year) . The A351 will enter service around 2016. The 77W is much larger / heavier
56 AirNZ : Explain to me please where it was edited....or is this just the usual inaccurate statement/guess? Seems a lot of mere hope attached to all that as no
57 Rheinbote : Yes, that's correct. What I referred to was this: Here you are quoting an ACAP figure (Boeing accounting), the Airbus Dossier (Airbus accounting), an
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...
A350XWB For Thai Airways posted Mon May 26 2008 23:13:46 by Flying-Tiger
1st A340-500 For Thai Airways/delivery Flight posted Wed Apr 6 2005 17:23:11 by JBOND
World Airways Files For Cargo SJC To China posted Tue Sep 28 2004 00:00:42 by Mikesairways
Thai Airways Traditional Thai Massage For F/C Pax posted Sun Mar 21 2004 20:26:42 by Ams
El Al-Thai Airways Cd/sh Over Or Was It Not There? posted Sun Dec 14 2003 20:29:08 by Airmale
346 Or 773ER For Thai Airways posted Thu Jul 10 2003 11:51:11 by BOEING747400
A345 For Thai Airways posted Tue Mar 26 2002 15:47:17 by Lhb
AN-24 For Thai Airways? posted Fri Apr 27 2001 18:42:45 by Airmale
Thai Airways Not For Sale posted Wed Feb 21 2001 13:17:24 by Singapore_Air
PAX Flights That Exist For Cargo Revenue Only? posted Tue Apr 27 2010 13:42:40 by UAL747