Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QR Not Happy With Latest A350-1000 Changes  
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22920 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ncel-a350-1000s-after-upgrade.html


QR seems to want more changes from Airbus to offer a real B77W competitor with more range and less operating costs.

Why does the QR management has to complain in the media again and again instead of negotiate behind the scenes like most others?

154 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22906 times:

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
Why does the QR management has to complain in the media again and again instead of negotiate behind the scenes like most others?

It's the way that they do business, it's the same as Clark at EK (although he has been very quiet over recent months)


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22834 times:

Quoting 328JET (Thread starter):
Why does the QR management has to complain in the media again and again instead of negotiate behind the scenes like most others?

How would you know to what extent they do or do not negotiate behind closed doors?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 408 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22816 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quote:
Al Baker warned that if Boeing can harvest a 5% fuel burn improvement as part of its 777-300ER improvement effort, "that alone will defeat the -1000 programme".

One leasing company source told Flightglobal: "Boeing will be very happy if Airbus builds the A350-1000 that it is talking about now."


Interesting indeed.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12635 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Aside from the fact that QR, or more correctly Al Baker, is never happy, one is tempted to ask a simple question. If the improved -1000 is not good enough for him, why on Earth did he order the original version?

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 3):
Interesting indeed.

But then again, what else would you expect Boeing to say?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineHacku From United Arab Emirates, joined Apr 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22666 times:

Quote:
Al Baker warned that if Boeing can harvest a 5% fuel burn improvement as part of its 777-300ER improvement effort, "that alone will defeat the -1000 programme".
Quote:
"Why should I go for a new aeroplane while I already have one that has more revenue generation and just a little less range. I'm investing in this aircraft with very little marginal benefit, range-wise, and negative benefit capacity-wise."


Can someone explain this quote? According to Airbus, the 3510 will consume up to 25% less fuel over the 77W.

[Edited 2011-06-23 00:49:30]

User currently onlinePart147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22599 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
Aside from the fact that QR, or more correctly Al Baker, is never happy, one is tempted to ask a simple question. If the improved -1000 is not good enough for him, why on Earth did he order the original version?

I tend to see it this way...

Al Baker is to Qatar === Micheal O'Leary is to Ryanair

 



It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22596 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
How would you know to what extent they do or do not negotiate behind closed doors?

If these negotiations are not successful, they are free to cancel.


User currently offlineKngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 408 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22516 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Hacku (Reply 5):
Can someone explain this quote? According to Airbus, the 3510 will consume up to 25% less fuel over the 77W.

The 77W is larger and can carry more passengers than the A350-1000. (as currently planned at least) So it would have to burn less fuel just to match the 77W.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22467 times:

Quoting Hacku (Reply 5):
the 3510 will consume up to 25% less fuel over the 77W.


I find this statement interesting as well.

If my understanding is correct the 777-300ER has lower CASM than the 747-400; the A380 has a CASM advantage of approximately 20% over the 747-400 and the A380 has lower CASM (just) than the A350-1000.

From the above can it deduced the CASM difference between the A350 -1000 and the 777-300ER should be somewhere around 15%?

It might be the case on ferry flights, with no passengers on board the A350-1000 has a 25% advantage.


User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22442 times:

"I was expecting that Airbus would make a competitor to the 777-300ER, that we would have considerably lower seat-mile costs and at least 15% more range, but that is not going to happen"

what does he mean with "considerable lower seat mile costs", can not this be expressed in numbers or percent? Does somebody know the CASM A350 vs B777-300ER?

Extending range will automatically negatively influence CASM, no?

Are the middle east carriers the only ones which are highly dependent on ultra long range aircraft with high capacity?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22425 times:

It wouldn't be hard to get fairly tired of Mr."you can call me Al" Baker. I hope Leahy (and sundry Boeing salespeople) have more patience with him than I would.

If he wants a plane that's bigger than the 77W and has lower CASM why doesn't he just buy more A380s?


User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22352 times:

It´s been very quiet from the EK tent at the Paris show.

You think they will order some A´s or B´s?

//Mike    airplane 

[Edited 2011-06-23 01:32:40]


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31119 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At launch in 2006, Airbus claimed the A350-1000 would:

• Seat 15 less people than the 777-300ER (350 vs. 365)
• Fly 500nm farther with pax and bags (8300nm vs. 7800nm)
• Be 14% lighter per seat
• Burn 25% less block fuel per seat
• Be 25% cheaper to operate per seat on a cash basis

Now what Airbus contractually guaranteed to QR, EK, EY and OZ is likely less.

EK has said the original A350-1000:

• Will seat 37 less people than the 777-300ER
• Will burn 11% less fuel per seat than the 777-300ER
• Will burn 21% less fuel per trip than the 777-300ER
• Will carry 6 tons less payload than the 777-300ER


User currently offlineHacku From United Arab Emirates, joined Apr 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22174 times:

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 8):
The 77W is larger and can carry more passengers than the A350-1000. (as currently planned at least) So it would have to burn less fuel just to match the 77W.


But there's only a difference of 15 seats (350 for the 3510, 365 for the 77W), I can't see the problem when the routes are not completely populated. Let's say, a 77W route is about 90% populated, so they need ~330 seats. That's wat the 3510 got, and in return they get a plane that consume up to 25% less fuel.

[Edited 2011-06-23 01:29:14]

[Edited 2011-06-23 01:29:39]

User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22156 times:

Quoting solnabo (Reply 12):
It´s been very quiet from the EK tent at the Paris show.

You think they´ll will order some A´s or B´s?

I'm sure they are being saved up for their "home" show in Dubai in November.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22019 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
If these negotiations are not successful, they are free to cancel.

...or free to try to bring pressure to bear by going public, but either way I see no basis on which you can assert that they are negotiating in public instead of behind the scenes, as both you and I know we have no clue as to the extent of their activities behind the scenes.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21926 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 18):
...or free to try to bring pressure to bear by going public, but either way I see no basis on which you can assert that they are negotiating in public instead of behind the scenes, as both you and I know we have no clue as to the extent of their activities behind the scenes.

Just imagine every CEO of an airline would use the media to put pressure on airframe producers...


User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21907 times:

Oh Oh!

No A320NEO or top up A380 order this afternoon, if Al is talking this way.

Seriously, why would Airbus upgrade the 351 and still miss the mark of the 77W? Boeing did make a good plane right there.

Also why did Al buy the original 351? What was he hoping it would do that it can't do now?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
If the improved -1000 is not good enough for him, why on Earth did he order the original version?

A very good question to which even Al Baker does not seem to have the answer.

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 8):
The 77W is larger and can carry more passengers than the A350-1000. (as currently planned at least) So it would have to burn less fuel just to match the 77W.

True, but the difference in fuel burn is much greater an advantage to the A350-1000 then the number of passengers it might carry less. But Al Baker now wants at least 15% more range (> 9,100 NM) and on top of that considerably lower seat mile costs. To do that the plane should even become more economical (at least 35% more fuel efficient then the current B77W) which is a stretch also Boeing could not match. I guess he wants what might be possible in 2035/2040 today.  .


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12635 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting solnabo (Reply 12):
It´s been very quiet from the EK tent at the Paris show.

You think they will order some A´s or B´s?

Not here, but at Dubai. I expect them to top-up on A380s (yes, even more!), 77Ws (yes, even more!) and A350-1000s (yes!)

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 18):
No A320NEO or top up A380 order this afternoon, if Al is talking this way.

We'll see, but he does appear to have thown a king-sized strop.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently onlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1611 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21343 times:

He has thrown a strop of that there is no doubt.However.His strop (as well put in posts above re ordering the 1000 in the first place) makes no sense at all.He has got even more range/payload with no drop in efficiency.So why the complaint.Because it is about something else,thats why. The price of "this or that" the delivery time table of "this or that".What I have not a clue - but one thing is clear it cannot be about a further improved 1000 over the one he has already ordered.

BTW have asked this before but no answer. If the 351 "tube" is an equal length to the 77W.Which is stated to be.And they both fly "Y" at 9 across.Why does the 351 not seat the same amount of pax assuming they are using the same measurement schedules. Don't understand this.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 21146 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
Aside from the fact that QR, or more correctly Al Baker, is never happy, one is tempted to ask a simple question. If the improved -1000 is not good enough for him, why on Earth did he order the original version?

My thoughts exactly.

I don't think it has not so much to do with the improved capacities, but that he is not happy with the 18 month delay: "which means I will have to buy more Boeings to keep up with my fleet plan". So he probably wants Airbus to compensate him financially, and I guess Airbus response would be: "you'll be compensated with a better aircraft for the same price!".

IIRC, there was a rumor that Airbus didn't want too strict compensation clauses in case of delay, and it might be that Al-Baker wants compensation money no matter what - threatening to make a public fuss if he didn't get it. Just my   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinefleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 20770 times:

I predict we will see much more of this type dissapointment. I think that it is the result of the Airbus marketing hype from the beginning of this A350 uwb reaction to the 787 program.

I beleive Airbus must have received many of these "order committments" for a partially defined paper airplane that will be 3-4 years late for entry into service from original timelines by offering minimal deposit requirements and good cancellation clauses. QR "had nothing to risk" ordering this thing. UA "had nothing to risk" ordering this thing.

So it will not be un-expected when they cancel their orders. Why wait for a product that is 4 years after the 787 and has less technology advancement.

Boeing has paid a price to take the risk of the 787, airbus has opportunistically taken advantage of Boeing's poor execution on the 787, but now Airbus needs to put up, even their most loyal clients are growing tired of the spin and continual re-definition.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 20657 times:

When I read his statements, it didn't make any sense to me either, so my guess is he is simply being coy to negotiate a concession from Airbus for a lower price / more favorable terms. As to why EK and QR "negotiate in the press" isn't surprising to me, as the business culture of the region is such. It's no different than the customs of any business culture be it North American, European, or Asian. To be a successful global salesperson / business you have to understand these cultural differences, avoid a faux pas, and understand where the customer's "pinch points" are.

25 328JET : The re-definition comes due to more and more requests from the customers. QR seems to request an airplane which is impossible: - The size of the B77W
26 wingman : The other problem is that all of these 350-1000 metrics are against a 2011 777. It's hard not to imagine that Boeing might be capable of pulling a 320
27 fleabyte : "Nobody can build such an airplane in the moment." I agree, a lot of advancement must be done in the next 4 years.
28 Revelation : Right, but Boeing didn't actually say any of those things, it's just someone gossiping. Right, but Mr Al-Baker's statement didn't say anything about
29 XT6Wagon : 5% less fuel burn opens up ALOT of payload or range on the 777. Several tons of payload can pay for the difference in fuel burn. Airbus is also assum
30 PM : Well, I won't be among the passengers. I'm flying Japan to Europe on Saturday. I like to try different options. (I have so far tried Swissair, KLM, L
31 SolarFlyer22 : That's a pipe dream. I would surprised if its more than 15%. If they do a PIP program for the 777, I would imagine it would offset any gain from the
32 AAplat4life : Obviously the people who actually purchase the aircraft know a lot more than what is reported in the media. If we don't see a surge in A35X orders soo
33 justloveplanes : So by Al baker's comment of a 5% less fuel burn to bring CASM diff down to around 10% probably is a decisive swing to Boeing value wise considering p
34 Stitch : Well QR has ordered an additional 8 777-300ERs this year, so he is talking with his wallet as much with his mouth.
35 astuteman : Don't forget fuel burn is not the only cost element. It's possible to have a 25% fuel burn difference translate into an operating cost difference ove
36 LAXDESI : As per EK(via Stitch), 77W in 10-abreast has about 12% more seats than A350-10 in like configuration(354 versus 317). The revised A350-10, on paper,
37 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Apologies for asking a question with only a tenuous link to the thread, but how may this affect the plans to withdraw QR's A340-600s? They have been '
38 Post contains images EPA001 : At least 15% more range (basically exceeding the B77L) and severely lowered seat-mile costs (preferably with at least the same maximum payload) will
39 kaitak : They wanted to sell them to AR, but there were some contractual issues (IIRC, relating to the RR engine guarantees) and that fell through; my guess i
40 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Thanks, I gathered the AR deal had sadly fallen through as things had been very quiet on it for about six months, but didn't know it was because of t
41 RussianJet : That's not relevant to what I said. I have not commented on the wisdom or merits of such public negotiation. I have only pointed out that the fact th
42 Post contains links ghifty : To be fair, it doesn't matter. He's angry at Boeing and Airbus... so both companies have lost face. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...at_airbus_
43 ebbuk : Perhaps the 351 is the T7 and as it matures into service it will then get an "ER" type boost and T7L style model. All these are possible as it is a ne
44 worldliner : If the A350 was at the stage the 787 is now, (not delays wise just hypertherically), i still dont think Boeing would be too worried. The 77W was a mas
45 LAXDESI : QR's 77W seat layout is 42 Lie Flat J(2-2-2 in 7 rows, 78" pitch) and 293 Y seats(3-3-3 in 34 rows, 32-34" pitch). It may be possible to have the same
46 Baroque : A reasonable assumption. It was not a last minute concept, not with the detailed changes both to the frame and the engines. Also most likely that the
47 cerecl : Some would say 77E will be succeeded by A350-900. I don't understand why people insist that A32xneo will kill 737NG dead or 777NG will blow A350 out
48 col : Good choice, ask them to put a flight into KUL would you. Made the mistake of booking Etihad thinking 2 x 330's KUL-MAN. Last leg is a 10 across crip
49 Burkhard : No, MoL has a sense of humor. We would fill a 200 post topic for each of them.
50 parapente : The man wants compensation for the delay - simple as. The plane is actually better than the one he ordered Oh and yes he does love publicity.Normally
51 Post contains images PanAm_DC10 : Maybe he did place an order at Le Bourget however due to the sheer magnitude of some of the other order announcements he decided it best to wait for
52 Post contains images sabenapilot : That may be true if one does it timed and measured, like SUH or some others; if however one does it all the time without having a valid point to make
53 Post contains images flyAUA : That was also what I was thinking. I remember a few years back when Qatar and Emirates were pushing Airbus to rethink the A351 in order for it to bet
54 Post contains images PM :
55 Post contains links frigatebird : It's all about compensation money. Quote from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...at_airbus_doesnt_spare_boeing.html "I want compensation. And the
56 sabenapilot : yep, he's free to do that... Yet, if he thinks the lack of commonality - "what the hell has he been smoking,", to quote Mr Enders, albeit on differen
57 Post contains images astuteman : And the noises about being dissatisfied about the "new" A350-1000 are a cover-off just to provide a plausible reason to delay the announcement? Sound
58 Post contains images sabenapilot : It would also explain the very a-typical reaction of Mr Enders to the comments of Al-bakr. If you have just signed a big deal for what was it 50 A320
59 flyglobal : Ok Sir BakeR is grumbling. In general I think, Airbus did a wise decision. They upgraded the 350-1000 just that much, that it meets most of the custom
60 Post contains images Stitch : We'll know in a couple weeks when Airbus posts their June Update and we (or don't see) see some UFO A380s and A320neos.[Edited 2011-06-24 10:16:45]
61 ruscoe : Apparently the airlines are not impressed! 75 orders for an aircraft with 25% less fuel burn than its competitor. Problem is for an airline, the 350-1
62 EPA001 : I guess that is a fair statement. Although nobody will doubt it will be a great performing airplane, it needs final data, final operating costs and c
63 Post contains images Stitch : I know keesje argued that nobody was ordering the A350-1000 because of the later delivery slots, but the A350-800 and A350-900 had solid launches even
64 XT6Wagon : Risk/Benifit. 787 orders were driven as much by the 0 percieved risk as actual need. If everyone tells you that your slot is worth more than your dep
65 frmrCapCadet : While airlines have to order early I cannot imagine anyone being happy with having to order much more than 5 years ahead. The unknown unknows are simp
66 Post contains links Revelation : I agree with this. People are taking a wait and see attitude esp on the -1000. I think they want to see the -900 up and running to verify the basic d
67 mdword1959 : It's possible the lessors were offered significant price concessions to assuage their seemingly justified fears about erosion of residual value.
68 Aesma : That makes no sense. The 351 is smaller, lighter, narrower, less powerful, more advanced, with newer engines, of course it will burn quite a lot less
69 Post contains images lightsaber : AlBaker is an interesting character. One reason engineers engineers make poor CEOs is that engineers set and aim for targets while a good CEO always m
70 Post contains images scbriml : If you buy 100 planes a throw, then you're going to get a pretty good discount whoever you are. If the manufacturers took any notice of concerns abou
71 mdword1959 : There wasn't a record backlog of 767s on order when the 787 was launched. We'll see whether there's any rationalization of the "Classic's" backlog be
72 scbriml : Well, whatever challenges Airbus faces, Boeing will face exactly the same when they launch the 737re or 797, no? Consideration for A320 residual valu
73 mdword1959 : Of course, who said they wouldn't. Perhaps if you had seen the amount of "reassuring handholding" Airbus reps were doing with the financiers at ISTAT
74 Post contains images 328JET : I think my summary in reply25 why that airplane is a no go in the moment was precise enough... We are at the beginning of the 21st century, not in th
75 gigneil : I'm sorry, I still fail to see how you get that from the numbers you posted. I think it might be best to refrain from that sort of statement in civ a
76 Post contains images mffoda : I actually like when people post these type of calculations (please continue LAX)... It gives us an opportunity to compare (and debunk) the numbers??
77 gigneil : The numbers he posted and the results of his "model" are unrelated. We have no idea what said model entails. He throws out the general technical descr
78 Stitch : The 777-300ER is fuel-volume limited at design range.
79 mffoda : I have no problem with that... Can you offer a competing/alternate model? Thanks, and based on his model... would the A351 be limited at ant range? R
80 gigneil : Yes. I can write a number down and post it and say its based on my model. Based on my model, the Lockheed Jetstar has a sass quotient that surpasses
81 mffoda : I was being serious... and looking for facts or best guess scernaio's based on known spec's (or as much as is available). Can you offer a relevant co
82 ukoverlander : No disrespect intended to your thread but maybe we as A-netters should only post discussion threads when Al Baker says he actually likes some thing.
83 Stitch : The difficulty in coming up with comparisons is that Airbus has not released to the general public a complete set of numbers. We don't know the OEM OE
84 Post contains links flyAUA : There you go: LINK So the order(s) have just been delayed, not cancelled, after his embarassing rants last week!
85 EPA001 : Well, I guess he is still not very happy. These matters most likely will be the A350-1000-XWB. I guess this one will run till the Dubai Air Show befor
86 flyAUA : He never is happy. LOL
87 Post contains links LAXDESI : Thanks for being a voice of reason. I will be posting additional numbers for different ranges in the tech thread below in a day or so. This link is a
88 zeke : How can they do that when they are only going through finalising the configuration this year ? The A350-1000 design is not frozen, that is only sched
89 Stitch : Which is pretty astounding, considering that means it will be 30 tons lighter than a 777-300ER at manufacturer OEM (that being 138t for the 77E and 1
90 qfa787380 : And do you believe that? I don't. There has been significant weight creep already on the 3510, and with new heavier engines and the extra range, that
91 Post contains images Revelation : Hmm, first you say that the design is not frozen so numbers are not known, then you go on to make various statements based on the unknown?
92 zeke : You do not seem to believe anything Airbus says. Correct me if I am wrong, you have also have made statements about various airline going to order va
93 Stitch : Well I can't not believe it since I have yet to be made privy to Airbus' OEM OEW numbers, but I will note that the one set of customer OEW numbers I
94 9252fly : I find comparisons between aircraft from both manufactures confusing in this thread,ie,77W & 350-1000. Airbus is still in the design freeze stage
95 qfa787380 : Well they are about too big time my friend and I think they most definitely have now. I'm not going to name then theough, just as you provide no docu
96 Baroque : New yes, heavier - you know that how? Heavier than what? And did you follow the changes to the compressors? That will result in weight reduction, if
97 qfa787380 : I was talking about the frame in general, not the engines. This is recently from FlightGlobal: In parallel, Airbus has raised the -1000's maximum tak
98 Post contains images astuteman : Priceless you didn't listen to your own words on the A320NEO threads, I guess... Rgds
99 qfa787380 : Well, for your information RR said the new 350-1000 engine would be 250kg heavier and Airbus said the OEW would rise by 2.4t. So stop rolling and pic
100 Post contains images astuteman : ??? But you weren't talking about the engines......
101 qfa787380 : Geez you like rolling around and laughing. Anyway, the engines look to be very marginally heavier and we can argue and speculate as much as we like a
102 qfa787380 : Whilst not definitive that Boeing are starting to see 777s due to 350 delays, this portion of a flight global article certainly does hint that 777 dem
103 thegeek : Not to me. Firstly, the 77W is more fuel efficient. Secondly, it carries more cargo doesn't it? While the A346 may have a (slight) maintenance advant
104 qfa787380 : Agreed, except that any twin should have a maintenance advantage over a quad. This is what Zeke claims. He has indicated on this forum that the 77W w
105 thegeek : Confused as to what your point was then.
106 Post contains links Baroque : I suppose it would be too much to wonder what your source was for that piece of information? And again, heavier than what? A basic element of English
107 Burkhard : In the end, choosing one aircraft over another is based on financial grounds in every purchase. Every airline calculates a) The financing costs b) th
108 Post contains links and images astuteman : I have to say that for once you actually used numbers that I can recognise from a fairly reliable source. In the same way that a silver wedding anniv
109 Post contains images EPA001 : In that same post Zeke wrote: Aircraft run on money. And that is exactly right. Of course lots opf variables are put into the eqation to get the best
110 Revelation : Thanks for that clarification. Most of us aren't privvy to what things the airlines get to know at this point and what they do not. An increase in MT
111 Baroque : Aha, thank you kindly, had not found that. Interesting that they focus on weight savings from the fan. Maybe the changes to the compressor were alrea
112 Post contains links zeke : When have I done my "best to deride the 77W" ? I am guilty of knowing it is just another aircraft with strengths and weaknesses, I am guilty of knowi
113 Post contains links dynkrisolo : Good gracious! The ANA order listed on Boeing's website that you referred to was a conversion of their original 772 orders. 77W was launched in 2000.
114 Post contains images zeke : You should take that up with Boeing, as Boeing list it as a 777-300ER order. If there is an error, it is not of my making.
115 Stitch : I believe Air France is the launch customer, so all the ones before 13-Nov-2000 should be 777-200/777-200ER orders that had yet to be delivered and we
116 QFA787380 : There's clearly some confusion on this point. You claimed that CX bought the 77W on price. Are you now saying that isn't the case? Was it because the
117 QFA787380 : You should do your homework properly. The 77W was launched in 2000 and you should know that. If your April 2010 date is in fact correct, it took 10 y
118 Post contains links zeke : As other posters on this thread have pointed out to you I have already expressed this concisely before, no further clarification is required. The one
119 QFA787380 : Just shows that you aren't in touch with what is REALLY happening in the industry. I think Aspire is a good little site but no information I post is
120 DocLightning : When the original A350 (which was basically an A330 NEO) was proposed, the CEO of SQ (whose name escapes me at the moment) complained publicly that t
121 thegeek : I guess things just aren't that simple. My understanding is the GE90-115B engine is more than twice as maintenance intensive as the RR Trent 500s.
122 Post contains links zeke : I must just be the central character in some extravagant Truman show then. No not really, I do not need to go around and repeat what people post on t
123 Stitch : I believe Boeing went to 8.3 a month knowing they would have the sales to support such a move. They had a solid 2010 (in terms of gross orders) and th
124 Post contains images QatarA340 : With QR ordering almost 100 widebodied planes plus 30 options, from Boeing, they are not NOT influential. With QR ordering 80 A350s, 5 A380s, 70+ A32
125 Post contains images astuteman : I'm sure they do. Tim Clark has publicly said so. What he hasn't done (yet) is jump up and down and say that the "improved" version is actually a POS
126 Post contains images Baroque : Whatever, Mr B's rant seems to have prompted one of the more odd Civil Av threads for a goodly while. It seems to have prompted another rant that cit
127 Post contains images frigatebird : Thank you for your nice post, putting things in perspective Welcome to my RU list.
128 DocLightning : In fact, TC has said that he feels that the 77W can fill mission profiles that the A351 cannot and that is why he wants a 77W-NG, so that he can oper
129 Post contains images 328JET : LOL. I think that won´t happen...
130 Post contains images EPA001 : Says the amateur fanboy to the pro. Boy, you are really stretching it and I guess you should be careful. Many respected members haven been temporaril
131 Post contains links mffoda : Not meant to single anyone out... But, since it is being repeatedly brought up?? Here is the Boeing news release... http://www.boeing.com/news/releas
132 dynkrisolo : Are you guys not listening? I have clearly explained why those pre-launch 77W orders were on Boeing's website: and provided you the link when the pre
133 Post contains images Baroque : I think it is well agreed when the official launch took place. However the argument was about the RATE at which 77W were ordered and as Boeing eviden
134 mham001 : It isn't so hard when you look at the totality of bizarre statements that have come from that voice in the past. "Boeing does not make a good airplan
135 astuteman : Any delay to the A350-1000 will almost certainly have a beneficial effect on the NPV of a 773ER acquisition to any airline comparing the two. So I su
136 Baroque : I do not recall that, which does not mean it did not happen. However, I can cite to you this, which to my mind is a bit more personal as well as bein
137 QFA787380 : My point which I suspect you well know is that Zeke was claiming the main reason the 77W was chosen at CX was on cost grounds and not on aircraft per
138 Post contains links thegeek : Had to do a search to confirm this, but according to this thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=1774682 Even the
139 Stitch : Based on the ACAPs, the A340-600 has a maximum structural payload of 75 tons to the 70 tons of the 777-300ER. The 777-300ER does have a bit of a range
140 Post contains images Baroque : Or in summary - it depends. And as summaries go, a nice summary too.
141 Post contains images 328JET : Did they really loose face or did QR loose face? No doubt, QR is a important customer for both, but by far not the biggest one for each producer. A a
142 NCFC99 : So Zeke claims the 77W was ordered instead of the 346 on financial grounds. You state that in CX's network the 77W makes more money for them than the
143 frmrCapCadet : In the late 40s and 50s IIRC five year, even longer plans were all the rage. By the time I started following business in the 60s it was obvious that s
144 QFA787380 : The point is clear. The 77W was technically superior to the 346 and clearly a better option on economy/maintenance and performance. Zeke goes out of
145 Baroque : Not really, to repeat what you either have not read or reject: And in the end CX figured that overall, the 77W would be financially more attractive.
146 QFA787380 : Really!!! Not true. Only part of the story. What about revenue both pax and freight v the 346. Maintenance savings are significant as well.
147 Baroque : Source?
148 Post contains links Baroque : To be more specific does later history render this from Zeus incorrect? Topic: RE: Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2 Username: Zeus419 Posted 2005-11-29 1
149 Post contains images Stitch : Well Airbus didn't find any buyers for the A340-500E, while EK cancelled their A340-600E order and QR ended up only taking four before letting the pur
150 QFA787380 : Oh please, don't quote 6 year old articles comparing the 77L to the 345. I would challenge the engine maintenance costs and maybe ask a key ME airlin
151 Baroque : What else should one conclude except that you have no source at all. AFAIK the engines on these planes are based on those from 2005. Or do you know d
152 OldAeroGuy : We can argue the merits of the A346 vs the 773ER all we want on this Board. In the mean time, the market has spoken. Through May 2011: Sales A346: 97
153 wingman : The extremist fanboys in this forum are the best. You know the ones I mean, those in either camp that will never cede one inch to an aircraft from the
154 NCFC99 : Your point is about as clear as fog. Could also be called financial grounds Not as open and shut as some would think(myself included). ETOPS frames c
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...
AirTran Not Happy With IND Costs? posted Sun May 9 2010 08:32:37 by FWAERJ
EK Still Not Happy With 787/350XWB posted Mon Oct 22 2007 08:37:04 by B7x7
Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB posted Tue Jun 19 2007 17:22:20 by Lumberton
Qantas Pilots Not Happy With Jetstar posted Tue Jun 20 2006 14:38:25 by VHVXB
NWA Not Happy With DAL New Fare Structure posted Tue Jan 4 2005 23:00:37 by Rumorboy
DL Pilot Group Not Happy With Agreement posted Tue Dec 21 2004 07:48:05 by Lono
Delta Not Happy With Me posted Tue Oct 5 2004 04:48:48 by Sspontak
Frontier Airlines Not Happy With DIA Expansion Bid posted Wed Aug 11 2004 19:17:30 by Yanksn4
DL's New CEO Not Happy With CRJ's? posted Tue Jul 20 2004 19:58:08 by Cumulonimbus
BA Not Happy With Swiss/Oneworld Application posted Thu Sep 26 2002 15:25:16 by Capt.Picard