Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RR "Plan B" For A350-1000  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 639 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8120 times:

This suggests that RR has not achieved what it hoped in terms of a "single-family" TXWB and may have to re-think, especially if thrust requirements grow.

It seems a bit more fundamental a change than the "development" of the A350-900 powerplant which they have been working on for some time.

"Sources say Rolls is already working on a plan B. It has "not excluded the possibility of going for two variants of the XWB," an industry source familiar with the matter said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLNE6AT01X20101130

[Edited 2010-12-01 06:54:17]

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

It's not only for the A350-1000, but also for the A350-900R and A350-900F.

Those will have a bigger wing, bigger landings gears too.

A future stretch of the A350 doesn't seem impossible, it's a big wing.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...je_pics/AirbusA350-1100Fake649.jpg


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the A350-1000 is not gaining much traction on the 777-300ER. If it really was just a simple matter of "availability", airlines can get an A350-1000 as easily as they can get a 777-300ER in 2015, yet the 777-300ER has received more orders this year than the A350-1000 has, period. And Boeing is talking about increasing 777 production to 10 per month, instead of the original 7.

So I can see Airbus being forced to try and raise the MTOW of the A350-1000 to improve it's performance and that is going to require engines closer to 100,000lbs of thrust. Such engines would be helpful for the A350-900F, which will also likely need an MTOW boost considering the 777F is better than planned in terms of her payload and range.

I doubt the A350-900R will ever be built - ULR is just not a profitable market niche, especially as fuel prices rise. I believe Airbus has accepted that themselves with the launch of the A350-800HGW.

If Rolls has to develop a new variant of the Trent XWB (as GE did with the GE90-11xB), that could open the door for GE to bring the GE90 Mk. II onto the A350 program, in addition to powering the 77L/77F/77W family, which would make it worth GE's effort to perform all the modifications necessary to update it to a true "21st Century Engine" like the XWB.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2222 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7579 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
yet the 777-300ER has received more orders this year than the A350-1000 has, period.

And that the A330 has more orders than the 787 since years is not because of availability? I don't believe in 77W-superiority based on merits vs the A351. Even less I believe it for the A330 vs the 787.

The 77W sales of this year are follow up orders of existing 777 customers for much earlier shipment dates than A351 would be available, period.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7501 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well the A350-1000 is not gaining much traction on the 777-300ER. If it really was just a simple matter of "availability", airlines can get an A350-1000 as easily as they can get a 777-300ER in 2015, yet the 777-300ER has received more orders this year than the A350-1000 has, period

I think the current 777-300ER backlog runs until 2014. A350-1000 production starts 2015-16. First 75 slots booked.

btw what's this "period" stuff ?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6938 times:

In all honesty, I see this as rather good news. The idea of one engine covering all variants of the A350 was always a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. A great trick if RR could pull it off but it never seemed terribly convincing.

Now, with the A350-1000 seemingly moving upscale, the idea can be abandoned once and for all.

The engine will still be a Trent and still, I assume, an XWB at heart but it will necessarily be bigger and better.

The cost? A few sqillion here and there.

The benefit? An A350 that can credibly elbow the 777-300ER aside and with an engine to match. A win-win for both Airbus and RR, I'd say.

Let's do it!   


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6687 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
Let's do it!

I share your enthusiasm.

Slight risk it brings the GEnx+GE90 onto the A350 though. Which airlines probably see as an upside!


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6618 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
btw what's this "period" stuff ?

A bad habit of a rising number of a.nutters who apparently don't want to argue which raises the question why they are posting in a public forum in the first place. 



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4313 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
btw what's this "period" stuff ?

In Dutch we would say 'punt uit' , and late Prince Bernhard 'basta'



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
The benefit? An A350 that can credibly elbow the 777-300ER aside and with an engine to match. A win-win for both Airbus and RR, I'd say.

Let's do it!


Let's wait and see if these nice forecasts turns out to become reality.  . I am all for it.  

[Edited 2010-12-04 08:31:20]

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Well the A350-1000 is not gaining much traction on the 777-300ER. If it really was just a simple matter of "availability", airlines can get an A350-1000 as easily as they can get a 777-300ER in 2015, yet the 777-300ER has received more orders this year than the A350-1000 has, period. And Boeing is talking about increasing 777 production to 10 per month, instead of the original 7.

I'm a little confused as to why the 'need' for the usual clear plug for a Boeing product in a thread which is specifically to do with RR and the A350....but, as I said, it's quite usual. However, I'm equally confused as to how you can claim either a 77W and an A359-1000 can be got as easily as the other in 2015. Unless you know something I don't A350-1000 production is not scheduled until late 2015 at the earliest so, with the existing order slots already taken, how do you claim any airline can now order either and get either at the same time in 2015?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So I can see Airbus being forced to try and raise the MTOW of the A350-1000 to improve it's performance and that is going to require engines closer to 100,000lbs of thrust.

I don't think that is the best route for Airbus. If Boeing wants to keep on selling planes to carriers that want more capacity or fly to the edge of the payload range charts, that is alright. I think Airbus needs to concentrate on making the most efficient plane for 6000-7000NM flights.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I doubt the A350-900R will ever be built - ULR is just not a profitable market niche, especially as fuel prices rise.

The relationship between the A350-1000 and A350-900R is basically the same relationship as the 77W and 77L from what I've seen. I might agree with you if there were going to be more significant costs associated with the variant, but really the A350-900R is going to be more or less a freebie like the 77L was. I could see the -900R being put on hold should the program get behind or Airbus find themselves short of resources for some reason.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5492 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):

I doubt the A350-900R will ever be built - ULR is just not a profitable market niche, especially as fuel prices rise.

The 77L isn't exactly a slow seller. ULR is one use of these aircraft, but the increased thrust is also useful for operators with hot and high hubs and a need for higher payload on long-range (as opposed to ultra-long-range) flights.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
The 77L isn't exactly a slow seller.

Neither is it highly-popular, either.

I do agree that the plane is an absolute freight train, but even so, it's sales are probably driven more by Boeing and GE pricing the model within a few million of a 777-200ER as it's probably cheaper for both companies to build a 77L with GE90-110b engines than a 777-200ER with GE90-94b (or, heaven forbid for GE, Trent 800s aor PW4090s).


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5290 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
An A350 that can credibly elbow the 777-300ER aside and with an engine to match. A win-win for both Airbus and RR, I'd say.

Lol..I'm sure you'd like that wouldn't you 
Honestly, we're talking about a variant that's likely not going to EIS until late 2016/early 2017, that is unless Airbus gets extremely lucky and avoids any delays whatsoever (not likely). So, your hopeful assumption is going to depend on Boeing doing absolutely nothing to upgrade its own product for the next 6 years (also not likely).

-Let's wait for a couple of years and see what materializes before we start making comparisons between a plane still in its current form and a plane that is still on paper...


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6882 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 14):
Lol..I'm sure you'd like that wouldn't you

I'd love it!   

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 14):
Honestly, we're talking about a variant that's likely not going to EIS until late 2016/early 2017, that is unless Airbus gets extremely lucky and avoids any delays whatsoever (not likely). So, your hopeful assumption is going to depend on Boeing doing absolutely nothing to upgrade its own product for the next 6 years (also not likely).

Can't argue or disagree with that. But I think the odds for Airbus/RR would improve with a decision to send the TXWB to the gym to put on a few more pounds.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
it's sales are probably driven more by Boeing and GE pricing the model within a few million of a 777-200ER as it's probably cheaper for both companies to build a 77L with GE90-110b engines than a 777-200ER with GE90-94b (or, heaven forbid for GE, Trent 800s aor PW4090s).

It's true, but it proves that even a small niche like that can make money if you do a really good job of shrinking/stretching a smaller design. The 77L program was as close to "free" as you can get. Exact same systems as the 77L, only difference was length. Needed a separate cert program, but the design was just a cheap variation.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 10):
I'm a little confused as to why the 'need' for the usual clear plug for a Boeing product in a thread which is specifically to do with RR and the A350

A quote from the article in the thread starter:

Quote:

Worse still for the engine's designers, the range of thrust required of the Trent XWB may be about to increase as customers push Airbus to modify a still nebulous design for the A350-1000.

"We are trying to work with Airbus. They need a bit of help on the (A350-1000)," Emirates airline president Tim Clark said last week. "We would like it a bit bigger, with more thrust, going further and carrying more," he told reporters in Paris.

Let's see, what airplane do we know of that is a bit bigger, has more thrust, goes further and carries more?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it really was just a simple matter of "availability", airlines can get an A350-1000 as easily as they can get a 777-300ER in 2015,

Meanwhile back on planet Earth......

If it really was just a simple matter of "availability", a 773ER can be available at least 5 years sooner than an A350-1000......
I'd be astonished if there are any A350-1000 slots available to new customers before 2017/2018....

Rgds


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I'd be astonished if there are any A350-1000 slots available to new customers before 2017/2018....

Perhaps you are right. The first 1 or 2 A-351s off the line will be used for the STC flight testing, in 2016. That is if the A-350 program stays within a reasonable time period, with no further delays. So, about 2017 is the current EIS. Well, before then, we should know what Boeing is going to do with the B-77W.

The A-351 only has 75 orders, to date, and none in about the last two years. But that does not mean there won't be future orders, There will be. But I also doubt those orders will come until Airbus defines what the airplane will be. They seem to be a long way from that point, of course they have the A-359 and A-358 to finish first.

Boeing does not have to do anything with the B-777 series until Airbus does their work on the A-350 series.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I'd be astonished if there are any A350-1000 slots available to new customers before 2017/2018....

Sure, now. But that wasn't always the case...

SQ is a large 777-300ER operator, yet they only ordered the A350-900 and they were the first customer to sign for the type, even if they will not be the first to take delivery.

CX, another large 777-300ER operator, will not receive their first A350-900s until 2017, and yet they didn't add the A350-1000 to their order, instead topping up on 777-300ERs.

EK, which is the largest operator of 777-300ERs, ordered just a handful of A350-1000s and I hear those are going to replace their 777-300s and 777-200ERs - capacity expansion in the ~350-seat fleet will continue to be handled by additional 777-300ER orders.

EY and QR both ordered decent-sized fleets of 77Ws in addition to their A35J orders, QR doing so around the same time as their A350 order and EY with half two years before the A350 launch and half two years after. And I don't expect either operator to park their 77Ws after only a few years of service. And if QR cancels their 787-8 order, it seems logical they would convert some or all of that order to the 77W.

Of the four A350-1000 customers, only OZ does not also fly the 777-300ER, and even they were rumored to take two to replace their 747-400s.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Sure, now. But that wasn't always the case...

Perhaps you're right.
Perhaps availability has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and the A350-1000 is a POS that doesn't stand a prayer in the marketplace
Perhaps the 773ER has already had the A350-1000's lunch.

Perhaps Airbus will be lucky to deliver 1 A350 and a dozen A320NEO's a month, because airlines will order 250 773ER's and 1000 737NG's a year to support a 20 per month 777 delivery rate, and 80 per month 737 delivery rate.

Who knows?
That would be funny, wouldn't it?  

Then again........

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4161 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While interest in used 777-200ERs remains decent, interest in new ones is non-existent. Boeing has sold 15 to 5 customers since the launch of the A350-900XWB. Of those, five are for NH to help cover the loss of the 787-3 and delivery delays for the 787-8 and CO cancelled the two they ordered in 2007.

At launch, Airbus claimed the A350-900 would seat a bit more people than the 777-300ER while being 16% lighter per seat, burn 30% less fuel and be 25% cheaper to operate on a cash basis. Airlines responded with orders for at least 285 A350-900s from at least 23 customers, placing many with carriers who currently operate the 777-200ER and who have either publicly stated their intention to use them to replace the 77E or logically intend to do so.

At launch, Airbus claimed the A350-1000 would seat a bit less people than the 777-300ER while being 14% lighter per seat, burn 25% less fuel and be 25% cheaper to operate on a cash basis. Airlines responded with orders for 75 from four customers, and three of those customers have ordered 59 777-300ERs. Boeing in total has secured 235 (net) orders for the type.

Clearly, the A350-900's claimed economics have resonated with customers, almost all of whom chose to wait five years for it rather than add any 777-200ERs in the interim.

And yet in that same period, the A350-1000's claimed economics over the 777-300ER are almost the same as the A359 vs. 77E, and not only have airlines continued to add 77Ws, three of the four A35J customers have ordered almost as many 77Ws to their fleet since placing their A35J orders and a number of A359 customers who are also 77W operators have as yet to order the A35J.

And Airbus are now said to be spending more time and money on additional design work for the A350-1000 and this might result in higher MTOWs (and MEWs?) necessitating more powerful engines beyond what Rolls-Royce planned for with the original Trent XWB. Between design changes to the airframe and design changes to the engines, this could impact the planned 2015 EIS for the type, giving Boeing not just additional sales to cover the gap, but also giving them time to work on a "777-300ERX" with a lighter MEW, more fuel efficient engines, and increases in both payload and range.


Does that make the A350-1000 a "PoS"? If it can hit it's numbers, I cannot see how it can be called one.

Does that mean it has no chance in the marketplace? With 75 sales, that is 15% of the 515 orders the 777-300 and 777-300ER have secured to date, but I agree that with the A350-1000's sales life, conclusions cannot be drawn. The 777-300ER had a decent launch, but not until EIS did the orders start to really flow in a steady stream.

(And I believe it is fair to include the 777-300s totals because I believe EK is buying it to replace their 777-300s and I am surprised SQ and CX have not done so, as well, unless they are going to use 777-300ERs for the role or they are waiting for a 787-10 from Boeing).



Now, it can (and likely would have been) argued that many 777-200ERs are "old" and will need replacing between 2013 and 2017, so that is why airlines that operate both the 77E and 77W ordered the A350-900 and not the A350-1000. And perhaps those 20 options for SQ and 50 each for EK and UA are meant to be used for A350-1000s. But in doing so, they may very well pay more for those deliveries than if they had ordered them with their A350-900s. The list price of the A350-1000 has risen scores of millions between 2006 and today and will likely continue to rise. Then again, Airbus could have addressed this by allowing airlines that placed options to convert those options to orders using the list price in effect at the time they were placed. So if you were SQ ordering A350-1000s in 2014 using 2006's prices, you'd save a mint over a new customer ordering the type based on the 2014 price.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
And Airbus are now said to be spending more time and money on additional design work for the A350-1000 and this might result in higher MTOWs (and MEWs?) necessitating more powerful engines beyond what Rolls-Royce planned for with the original Trent XWB.

And that would be a mistake in my opinion. Airbus should concentrate on making a plane that can get 350 people 6000NM as cheaply as possible.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Clearly, the A350-900's claimed economics have resonated with customers, almost all of whom chose to wait five years for it rather than add any 777-200ERs in the interim.

And yet in that same period, the A350-1000's claimed economics over the 777-300ER are almost the same as the A359 vs. 77E, and not only have airlines continued to add 77Ws, three of the four A35J customers have ordered almost as many 77Ws to their fleet since placing their A35J orders and a number of A359 customers who are also 77W operators have as yet to order the A35J.

Please accept an apology for the earlier sport by the way, my friend.

I think the A350-900 has the dual advantages of being available earlier, and being "safer" (i.e. it seems clear that there is more technology risk with the A350-1000).
It's also fairly obvious, I would have thought, that the 777-300ER is a far more desirable adversary for the A350-1000 in the marketplace than the 777-200ER is for the A350-900.
The 77W is "contemporary", the 77E isn't.

At the end of the day, Boeing themselves have gone on record as saying "Yes, the comments from EK about the 777-300ER are very nice, but the bulk of our customer/potential customer airlines have warned us that the A350-1000 could eat our lunch if we don't do something about it"

As I don't see Boeing being sceptical of the market's acceptance of the A350-1000, I'm not inclined to be so myself.
It will be a formidable aircraft, both technically and in the market.
In my opinion...  

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 25, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
As I don't see Boeing being sceptical of the market's acceptance of the A350-1000, I'm not inclined to be so myself.

It will be a formidable aircraft, both technically and in the market.
In my opinion...   

I'm not in any position to disagree, to be honest. I just expected it to do better than it has, but then the 787-9 is kinda treading water and it should be a good site better than the 787-8 on many missions, so you'd think it would be selling stronger, as well...


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...
RR Poised For A350 Breakthrough posted Wed Jun 22 2005 00:19:23 by YUL332LX
GE Engines For The A350-1000? posted Tue Nov 30 2010 04:34:10 by aviationweek
Finnair Select RR Trent 1700 For A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 10:35:50 by PanAm_DC10
RR Confirm Trent 1700 For A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 12:55:32 by PanAm_DC10
EK Defines It's A350-1000 And 77W Requirement posted Thu Nov 25 2010 13:32:53 by sunrisevalley
Longest Fuselage Panel Created For A350 XWB posted Mon Nov 22 2010 07:53:04 by aviationweek
A350-1000 Design Firmed Up With Larger Wing posted Thu Apr 22 2010 22:15:36 by Scipio
AA's Plan For The Future? posted Sat Jan 16 2010 08:07:55 by Seatback
First Structural Component For A350 Manufactured posted Fri Dec 4 2009 07:28:52 by A342
Airbus Getting Up To €3.5B Launch Aid For A350 posted Fri Jun 5 2009 14:18:07 by N1786b