sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1759 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 41565 times:
Seems like its the A359 that is the most popular model, the smaller 358 has had a few cancellations too, maybe its the 777X that throws a monkey wrench for Airbus to sell its top model in large numbers.
g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 41379 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 1): Seems like its the A359 that is the most popular model, the smaller 358 has had a few cancellations too, maybe its the 777X that throws a monkey wrench for Airbus to sell its top model in large numbers.
OH I'm sure Boeing executives are on their way to the U.A.E right now, probably with a nice proposal..
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5572 posts, RR: 49 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 41177 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 2): OH I'm sure Boeing executives are on their way to the U.A.E right now, probably with a nice proposal..
Highly doubtful since they dont have authorization from the Board to sell the 777X. That's going to come at the end of this year and the flodgte of orders for the 77X will open up in 2013-2014. Ethiad is gearing up to order the palne next year but they want to dump the A350 first. I expect EK and QR to follow suit. I am sure Ethiad has had a presentation on the 777X and the proposed capabilities. I'd say the're salivating at the prospect of gettng this airplane.
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 841 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 41079 times:
"The A350-1000 is consistently more capable than the (Boeing) 777-300ER. It will cover the world with 25 percent less fuel burn," an Airbus spokesman said.
I find that interestingly amusing... If that were true, Boeing wouldn't sell record numbers of the 77W's,and Boeing wouldn't be toying around with the 77X, rather we would see another 7E7 on the table...
cmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 40946 times:
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 5): I find that interestingly amusing... If that were true, Boeing wouldn't sell record numbers of the 77W's,and Boeing wouldn't be toying around with the 77X, rather we would see another 7E7 on the table...
The answer is in when you can get an A350-1000. You can't make money without the tool.
msp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 299 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 40827 times:
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 5): "The A350-1000 is consistently more capable than the (Boeing) 777-300ER. It will cover the world with 25 percent less fuel burn," an Airbus spokesman said
I do think it is strange that the NEO and MAX can sell so well on claims like this, but a plane like the A351 seems to be struggling. Not to ignite an A vs. B argument, but what is it about this plane that airlines seem to dislike at the moment? Some on this site boast about how much more efficient the 351 will be over the 77W and even the 77X, yet airlines are not lining up to buy it. What gives?
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 40662 times:
Quoting msp747 (Reply 8): I do think it is strange that the NEO and MAX can sell so well on claims like this, but a plane like the A351 seems to be struggling. Not to ignite an A vs. B argument, but what is it about this plane that airlines seem to dislike at the moment?
It suggests to me that the Airbus figures are extremely optimistic, to the extent that the airlines just don't believe them. And EIS is still almost a decade away, allowing for some slight delays. Why commit now when you can wait and see what happens with the 777X, 787, A380 and the industry in general. It would be strange if lots of airlines were ordering lots of planes now, for a plane not due for at least 7-8 years. We can expect the orders to ramp up in 3-5 years time IMO.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5572 posts, RR: 49 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 40282 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 11): Moving up 7 slots isn't much when you need to wait 6+ years for EIS.
The only reason they have to wait 6+ years is because Airbus was forced into a redesign that no one is impressed about. In the meantime, since the redesign was announced the back log has fallen from 75 to 62 with no new orders for the airplane. During the same period of time (Idon't have numbers) the 77W backlog haas increased.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 665 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 40250 times:
Quoting msp747 (Reply 8): I do think it is strange that the NEO and MAX can sell so well on claims like this, but a plane like the A351 seems to be struggling.
As hhslax2 points out, the NB derivatives are much more of a known quantity as opposed to the 35J which is new territory for Airbus in terms of twins. There is some skepticism (rightly or wrongly) that the 359 can be successfully stretched to that size. While its interesting that some ME carriers are expressing doubts in the 35J it still is very early to be drawing any conclusions on an aircraft that wont EIS until 2017.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1384 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 40209 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7): Quoting cmf (Reply 6):The answer is in when you can get an A350-1000. You can't make money without the tool.
Well now it seems you can get an A350-1000 a lot sooner.
Airbus still has to prove it can deliver the A350s on schedule. There are reports that EIS of the A350-900 will still happen Q2 2014, but production ramp-up will be the biggest challenge (like the A380 and 787). And again, as a result of interior issues So, availability will be even a bigger problem, and for the -1000 even more. It's very hard planning if you don't know your first plane arrives 2017 or 2019. And Airbus was rumored to be very reluctant with compensation clauses in case of delays with the A350.
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 841 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 40105 times:
The 787 had orders rolling in at this point of time in its design life. I think that airlines are just not buying into the bs that Airbus marketing people are putting out. Hell, they are trying to match the performance of a 20 year old proven design, which is loved by many airlines. It was an uphill battle to begin with here. I can see some orders coming in, but now that Boeing is considering the 77X, it is even thougher sice 777 operators are likely to wait and see what that is going to be before jumping ship to the A350 which is still more of an uncertainty.
757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 668 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 39834 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12): The only reason they have to wait 6+ years is because Airbus was forced into a redesign that no one is impressed about.
I agree, which brings us to the reason for the redesign. Airlines weren't all that happy with the capabilities initially projected by Airbus, and the redesign apparently hasn't convinced them. IMO that is a bigger factor than aircraft availability.
God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28574 posts, RR: 84 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 39525 times:
What's hurting the A350-1000's sales is that the 777-300ER is just so bloody good. I also expect that uncertainty as to when it will actually enter service is not helping. Bernstein Research still believes the A350-900 will not fly until 2015, which if true, could push EIS of the A350-1000 back to close to 2020.
Yes, Airbus claims the A350-1000 will club the 777-300ER like a harp seal, but as cmf noted, a 777-300ER will still make you large amounts of money and you can get one now.
What I find interesting is that Tim Clark at EK spent much of 2011 saying the A350-900 was too small for him and that he was considering swapping the entire order over for the A350-1000. He then orders 50 777-300ERs because the A350-1000 is running late. So why hasn't he converted his 50 A350-900s to A350-1000s?
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2548 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 39515 times:
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15): The 787 had orders rolling in at this point of time in its design life.
Since January 2008 the 787 has been outsold by a 9:1 margin by the A330 (37 vs. 339 net orders). Why? Because of screw-ups with the program and (mostly) slot issues. You're seeing the same with the 77W and the 350..
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15): I think that airlines are just not buying into the bs that Airbus marketing people are putting out.
Do you have any proof that this is bs? Or is this just your opinion?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11438 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 39397 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 6):
The answer is in when you can get an A350-1000. You can't make money without the tool.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 10): Why commit now when you can wait and see what happens with the 777X, 787, A380 and the industry in general.
While it's indeed a fact that certain products have long lead times, it also seems to be true that there are some products the customers will get in line for, and other ones that the customers will want to wait and see what they are like once they are available.
Think iPad, vs everyone else's tablet.
Clearly the ones that have customers lining up for are the 787, A320NEO, 737MAX, and A350-900.
Clearly the ones that customers want to wait and see on are the 747-8i, A350-1000 and BBD C Series.
Saying that customers aren't ordering due to long lead time is indeed factual but also damning, because clearly there are products that customers will order that have long lead times.
cmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 39093 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12): The only reason they have to wait 6+ years is because Airbus was forced into a redesign that no one is impressed about. In the meantime, since the redesign was announced the back log has fallen from 75 to 62 with no new orders for the airplane. During the same period of time (Idon't have numbers) the 77W backlog haas increased.
The reasons doesn't matter. The fact is they need to wait that long. Even if the wait was "only" 4 years it is still a big difference compared to getting it next year.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1384 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 38915 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): So why hasn't he converted his 50 A350-900s to A350-1000s?
One of the issues he mentioned was delivery. EK expects (and probably needs!) their first A350 in 2014. At that time Airbus hadn't announced the delay of the A350-1000 until 2017 yet, but I think as soon as EK learned about it the swap was history. If Airbus had guaranteed delivery of the first A350-1000 for 2015, EK wouldn't have too much of a gap between delivery of their last 77W and first A350.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28574 posts, RR: 84 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 38840 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 23): One of the issues he mentioned was delivery. EK expects (and probably needs!) their first A350 in 2014. At that time Airbus hadn't announced the delay of the A350-1000 until 2017 yet, but I think as soon as EK learned about it the swap was history.
Well he can always start taking A350-900s to replace the 777-200s and 777-200ERs, then swap later frames for A350-1000s once they are available.
Though I wonder if the A350 EIS really is pushed back into 2015, could EK add more 777-200LRs to replace their 77A/77E and then starts looking at the 777-8 in addition to the 777-9....
[Edited 2012-05-07 08:05:59]
25 anfromme: For the record: 2011 was indeed a record-breadking year for the 777. But in 2012, Boeing has so far sold 6 777s, with 2 cancellations. Anyway - here'
26 Stitch: I don't believe it is so much as "kill" as it is "compete". The 787 will burn less fuel than the A330-200. But the A330-200 can lift more payload wei
27 KC135TopBoom: Why, the order/cancel book is an important part of the A-350-1000 story. It is far from a coincidence. I agree. Yeap. How would you 'spin' this then?
28 ghifty: Exactly what comprised the redesign? MTOW? Of course not. Even when the damn planes are flying and in commercial service people will say one is more e
29 Stitch: IMO, it's choosing a 9-abreast cabin. Just as choosing an 8-abreast cabin on the original A350 compromised that design. The 787 at 9-abreast and the
30 mham001: I haven't seen many claims of the 777X being superior to the A350-10. In fact, since it's announcement, all the fanboys here have been crowing about
31 aloges: Some members of this message board don't need any other info before they decide which aircraft "rocks" and which "sucks". Very few, if any of them, a
32 cmf: Apart from the sad obvious answer you provided there has also been several doses of reality handed out. For example, CFRP expectations have become mo
33 BrouAviation: The 777X is made to do missions the 777 did before. The pre-XWB A350 was an upgraded A330 made for missions which were previously flown by 777's and
34 brilondon: The proof is in the number and proven performance of the T7 in service. The conjecture of Airbus and all the marketing propaganda from both companies
35 sweair: Airbus needs a model that takes on the 788 from below My beloved 757 replacement maybe? Let Boeing eat their premature killing of the 757.. If done ri
36 Stitch: For Airbus, the risks of slapping new engines on the A330 to create the A350 Mk. I was a low-risk, low-cost challenge, which was good for Airbus as t
37 neutronstar73: I think you hit the point with this statement. It's been all talk from some but little action from the airlines and companies that buy the planes. Ma
38 zeke: Airbus has been selling record numbers of A330s, that is due to one main advantage over the 787, availability. Most if not all 777 sales at the momen
39 anfromme: Of course, I totally agree on that, for precisely the reasons you outlined. So I wasn't arguing against that at all As you already hinted at - if bar
40 ghifty: Thanks for responses. Oh, wow, that's a big change. It was originally meant to be a "comfortable" ten abreast, IIRC? So it's less efficient at X miles
41 anfromme: Could you elaborate? As I understand SFC, an airplane would only be less efficient at X miles even with an unchanged SFC if you calculated SFC as a f
42 Chiad: Not net orders at least. 2009: -59 2010: -4 2011: +13 2012: -6
43 UALWN: I already replied to this above. Since January 1st 2009, the 787 has gathered -56 orders. Yes. While the 330 has got +267 orders. Does this tell us t
44 Roseflyer: Yes we are seeing the same thing. Deliveries for new orders are either extremely expensive for relatively close slots (Airbus and Boeing mark up earl
45 CM: Like the A350-800, the A350-1000 is compromised by the fact Airbus is trying to cover a span of 100 seats in the Airbus product line with a single ai
46 flightsimer: The difference is that the 787 has still had new orders placed every year since it was offered for all variants. It also wasn't until last year that
47 sweair: Well I am not surprised, the 350 has to span across too many sizes to be an optimal airframe beyond one size and that seems to be the A350-900. As wit
48 fpetrutiu: I tend to agree with you. I too think that the A350-1000 is a stretch (both literally and figuratively) to make it an effective B77W "killer". It see
49 cmf: If they only wanted to sell one model they would only offer that one model
50 flyingAY: Why is Airbus having such a big problem stretching the A350-900 into A350-1000? After all, 777-300 is a stretch, 787-9 (that many predict will be wond
51 CM: If Airbus were only trying to stretch an A350-900 into an A350-1000, there would be little difficulty. The problem comes with tying to also make the
52 Stitch: You are correct in noting barrel size alone does not an airplane make. In the case of the 737 vs. A320, both were maximum 6-abreast so that negated a
53 ghifty: I've been under the impression that an airframe with, say, range 4000nm would operate better (lower SFC) at X miles but worse (higher SFC) if the "sa
54 brilondon: Some cancellations maybe due to economic forces and nothing to do with the delivery schedules or preference, they may just have gotten a dose of reali
55 CM: Except Boeing is not increasing the MTOW of the 787-10 from that of the 787-9 (see below). For this reason, the same wing and engine on the 787-10 pr
56 rotating14: And they may merge with DL to create Delthiad. I am no expert but Ethiad is in no way losing money or looking for partnerships to stay afloat. Buying
57 rotating14: But back to topic, I think that the main point was hit when a member here said that the A350 is trying to kill two birds with one stone. While the A35
58 redrooster3: I'm a bit confused, didn't they cancel like 6 of them last year? I never heard them firming the cancel. Unless this is the firm canceled order that wa
59 Stitch: They cancelled 6 in January 2012 and have now cancelled another 7, for a total of 13. This reduces their order from 25 to 12.
60 PHXA340: Any chance of a 77W order from them soon then to offset the cancellation ? IIRC they only have 8 more or so on order and 40+ 787-9s.
61 redrooster3: Thanks! I should of read the initial post..He mentions it clearly. :/ Does this mean that they'll order another 10 787-9's.
62 Stitch: I would expect if they are looking for replacement frames, it will the 777-300ER.
63 idlewildchild: I also don't think you can discount the poor press Airbus has received around the A380 cracks and engine drama. I'm not sure but it seems that also ma
64 PHXA340: Its hard for momentum to swing to a plane that doesn't even exist yet or can be offered by Boeing with the 777X. Do I think some airlines might be wa
65 4tet: Trying to compete against two models with one model, can be a different approach: While the 'aerodynamics and fuel' efficiency might not be the best,
66 brilondon: The 777W is, for now, for the airlines the best option, considering it is flying now and has proven to be an exceptional aircraft for the future as w
67 redrooster3: It was kind of a joke, back in January, they ordered another 10 787-9's intended to replace the 6 A350 cancellation. http://www.centreforaviation.com
68 JAAlbert: What's the saying? Once bitten, twice shy? I of course have no idea what the airline executives are thinking, but if I were them (and I wish I were),
69 ebbuk: Seems not only Airbus getting clobbered. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...orld_business/view/1199825/1/.html Quote "With 25 cancellations of 787
70 Roseflyer: It appears that neither Boeing nor Airbus are getting orders for the next generation of widebodies. Airlines don't seem to be interested in committin
71 ebbuk: @Roseflyer reply71 In these lean times it's better the metal you know. Though I'm curious how Reuters didn't mention the 787 cancellations? They must
72 tugger: It is probably because they are not an aviation fan site and only needed to report the news of a single event. There was no one saying "but the other
73 Stitch: Possibly because they reported them when they happened back in late March and in mid-April.[Edited 2012-05-07 17:42:03]
74 XT6Wagon: The A351 has 3 problems 1. risk 2. commonality 3. far off avaliblity. I don't think the 777 is really the issue here. Problem 1, ordering a A351 toda
75 CM: Considering the recent success of the A330-300, It surprises me Airbus is not doing this. A simple stretch of the A359 (no MTOW growth) would likely
76 PlanesNTrains: 1. 787 Orders/Cancellations were already mentioned up the thread. Was there more that needed to be said about it? 2. This was a singular event. This
77 astuteman: One of these is the reason for the lack of orders... Correct. Which tells you which one is the correct reason Yep. It's funny what delaying EIS by at
78 XT6Wagon: Not to mention that the A320NEO holds far less risk for an airline to order into the future... and its sales still stalled at the 5 year mark. The A3
79 ebbuk: @ reply 72 To be fair to Reuters, neither is the site I quoted an aviation fan site. @ Stitch reply 73 The article mentions 25 cancellations from "unn
80 panais: I think it would have worked if Boeing was not going to do the 777X. This is like creating the A320 and then doing the A321 which is not like the B75
81 N14AZ: If I would have all the numbers and the dates of all the orders than I would love to compare the evolution of the sales numbers graphically for the 38
82 sweair: I think the A3510 has to be very good to replace a 77W, it brings a cost to replace a type in a fleet, this will help Boeing as many airlines have hug
83 panais: Boeing has decided not to compete with the A350-1000 and instead is building the 777X-9 which will be bigger and carry more passengers and cargo. Thi
84 rheinwaldner: Good questions. There is certainly a larger difference in admiration than appropriate between the 777X and the first A350. Correct. As the A350 will
85 Stressedout: Although I won't say that I know exactly what you mean by this statement, at face value it is entirely incorrect. Boeing can tailor the 787 fuselage
86 ferpe: I did such a frame, the A350-950 and put it into my rough model, it comes out as 6700nm. It would be the A350 wing and MLG with the A350-1000 fuselag
87 aerokiwi: Except, before the brick wall, the 787 (-8 or -9) had a ton more sales than the 351. BS indeed.
88 anfromme: Sure, because Boeing made the airlines believe that not only was the 787 the best thing since sliced bread, but that it would also be available with
89 fpetrutiu: Not exactly true, Those 19 do not include the 10 QR frames ordered in Jan, as they are not firm as of yet. That would make them +4 even with the 25 t
90 anfromme: So really, those 10 haven't been ordered in the same way that the A350 LoIs and MoUs from Vietnam Airlines, AF/KLM and others haven't been ordered. N
91 JerseyFlyer: A great idea - perfect replacement for A333 regional but a little bigger. Presumably it would have A359 not A3510 engines? And maybe some structural
92 Polot: 24 are from China Eastern (they converted to 45 737s), which was discussed extensively here on a.net, and 1 from an unknown customer.
93 mffoda: The 1 from an unknown customer was a VIP bird I believe. So, China Eastern converts 24 787's to 45 737s... and then orders 20 773er's? That seems lik
94 ferpe: The -950 would be based on the -900 including wing, MLG, Engines but it would have the 7m longer -1000 fuselage. That in turn means 7*1.2t more OEW t
95 OldAeroGuy: Interesting comment. If Ferpe's numbers below are correct, the -8X will match the A351 in fuel burn per passenger but will have a range advantage tha
96 HAL9k: I guess that there is quite a market for the 77X8, and I like the idea to make the 77X8 to replace the 772R and the 77X8L to replace the 772L. Today
97 ferpe: They do but only if the airline accepts 10 abrest, for 9 abrest the -1000 is the better choice as per this table: Aircraft...........................
98 XT6Wagon: My point was A351 in reference to the A350 lineup, not AvsB. We have seen that the 777-200LR has suffered in sales due to its lack of commonality wit
99 Stitch: I believe the performance of the 777-300ER is having some effect on sales and here is why I believe this. Airbus is improving the capabilities of the
100 Revelation: Seems Airbus did better on the A300 barrel (which went on to become the A330/A340 barrel) than Boeing did with the 767. I feel the same way, at least
101 Roseflyer: I think Boeing is competing exactly with the A350-1000 and disagree with your statement. The -8X is virtually the same size and the 9X will be larger
102 redrooster3: Etihad now joins the gang of airlines now interested in the 777X. BA, and EK, and CX have all shared interest in the 777-8X/9X. You sure it won't be a
103 Stitch: Rather then leave the A350-900 alone, it appears Boeing is trying surround it: you have the 787-9 slotting in below it and the 787-10X and 777-8 slott
104 OldAeroGuy: And it should be a dandy freighter as well (ala 772LR to 777F).
105 astuteman: If you were intending to illustrate this to support my argument, then my thanks for that. A quick look at the 787 order history, and backlog (based o
106 PHXA340: I have evolved my opinion after reading this thread. If a company truly thought that the 1000 was the right plane for them in the future they would li
107 PlanesNTrains: Obviously there is a lot of time until EIS of the 351 so there is plenty of time to place orders. It does seem that there is a waiting game of sorts g
108 behramjee: a further update on Etihad's interest in the B777X project http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...with-boeings-proposed-777x-371522/
109 Stitch: We both know why Boeing is working on the 777X - they know that by the mid-2020s, when the bulk of those 777-300ERs start to come up for replacement,
110 anfromme: And here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. James Hogan, CEO of Etihad (source: Flight Global) "We're still taking A350-1000s, but we took t
111 EPA001: Great post, as usual. . And you knew the answer to your statement before you wrote it. I see many "opponents of the A35J" constantly repeating themse
112 CM: There is certainly a valid point to be made about lead-times for the A350-1000 and the effect this may be having on new orders for the airplane. Iron
113 par13del: What commonality are you looking at, cockpit, parts, engines??? The 777W is the best selling variant and it came out with a new engine which did not
114 Stitch: The only reason the 777-200LR is not selling better is most carriers don't need it's payload-over-range. Heck, they don't need the 777-200ER's payloa
115 Revelation: It sells a lot better when they don't bother cutting out window holes or installing seats.
116 Stitch: True, but those operators do needs it's payload over range.
117 anfromme: Two points on this: 1) Leahy, just like Boeing's Randy Tinseth, is known to have been wrong before - and both were also right before when nobody expe
118 aerokiwi: So you're saying Airbus roundly missed the boat on that one? Does no one remember the fiasco around the 350 to start with (later trumped, of course,
119 anfromme: No. And if you had actually read my post you would know that. And yes, I do remember the huge A350 Mk. I embarassment quite vividly. And the A380 and
120 ferpe: While the conclusion in general is correct, your points building this argument needs commenting, let's take them in a certain order: First, the 4% in
121 CM: Hi anfromme and thanks for the thorough response. Actually, I don't feel this way at all. It is true the items I mentioned (in my view) are all steps
122 neutronstar73: And it is THAT reason why I cannot understand the reason for the "lack of orders for the A350" from some people on this site. The whole "why order wh
123 PlanesNTrains: I respectfully take exception to that. It smacks of some sort of elitist "We get it but most of the rest don't" attitude, which I assume is not how y
124 ferpe: That is an interesting observation and the first time I've heard that they bumped to 97klbf after they realized they were overweight also on the new
125 CM: On this, I will defer to you knowing far more of the history of the program than I. I had been under the impression the 308 tonne MTOW preceded the t
126 davs5032: I'll second that. There are definitely those on here who pull for A vs. B, and make no effort to hide it or be objective...no question about that. Bu
127 anfromme: Thanks, CM, for you response and some clarifications! As ferpe already pointed out with regard to the thrust/MTOW numbers you gave, the thrust bump an
128 zeke: I disagree with both of those observations. The wing on the -1000 will in my view still be more efficient than the 777X wing, reason being, the 777X
129 U2380: A brilliantly fair and insightful post, just the excuse I needed to add you to my Respected Member list. I'll re-post the less controversial part of
130 par13del: So is the optimization of the A351 tied to the 777?? I think everyone accepts that it will be more efficient than the 777, I took the post not to be
131 rheinwaldner: You quote Ferpe's numbers. What do you think? I think the 778X will be less compelling vs the A359 than the A358 vs the 788. Before a lack of commona
132 nomadd22: Strange thing to say in an XWB thread, which tend top be dominated by CM and ferpe, two of the most knowledgable, objective posters this site has eve
133 fpetrutiu: I am not sure what your point is here, the new 777X will have to be recertified regardless, it would add very little inconvenience to make a brand ne
134 Stitch: Because none of the A350-800's customers want it before 2016, per Airbus statements. So it's not delayed due to technical issues, but market ones.
135 ferpe: The key question re the 777X is how much B will be constrained when designing the new wing, if they are constrained then I can understand Zekes comme
136 zeke: Certified as a 777 derivative under the current 777 TCDS, however not as a new type. A derivative is like the 747-8 is to the 747-100, they share the
137 OldAeroGuy: And since many of the best 777 customers (Air France, KLM, Emirates etc) already accept 10 A/B on the 773ER with less cabin width than the 777X would
138 EPA001: You are right about them and maybe I overstated my opinion a bit. . And there have been many high quality postings here before CM and ferpe (luckily
139 fpetrutiu: My point was that they can maintain the same type certificate even with a brand new wing. The main requirement for the type certificate is to maintai
140 astuteman: If you look at the A350-1000 specifically, at launch, it's EIS was 9 years away. All of the existing A350-1000 orders were placed in 2007 and 2008, a
141 Roseflyer: I believe you are assuming that the 777X will be certified as a derivative under an amended type certification, however has that actually be establis
142 Stitch: At that point, why not go forward with Y3?
143 Roseflyer: If certification was your only cost, then that makes sense. However, even with a new type certification, they can use existing hardware and shortcut
144 Acheron: But it will dilute(if not completely undo) any claims that can be made about commonality with the existing 777 fleet, even much more so than the A351
145 fpetrutiu: Settle down people, the 777 would not need a new type cert even with a brand new wing. It was done before many times. this is not Boeing's first time
146 Roseflyer: Type cert and type rating are unrelated. Type certification is all the documentation filed to support FAA & EASA certification of the airframe. T
147 OldAeroGuy: Having a new TC doen't change many aspects of commonality. Take the 757/767. Both have separate TCDS's. However, both share some common spares and ha
148 zeke: Agreed, the main advantage for an amended TC is time to market, the main strength of the 777 at the moment is availability, the main negative for the
149 neutronstar73: I'll third that. It is with frightening regularity that if you post ANYTHING critical or questioning of the A350 there are certin posters who will re
150 PlanesNTrains: I think it might be nice to avoid the somewhat condescending tone. It's just a conversation. Well, I believe the 777 may have begun as a 767 derivati
151 Mayohoo: So to try and fairly summarize (first post): The 787-8 is out and after PIP and fine tuning will be a fine airplane and better than predecessors (2013
152 sweair: Seeing how the 737MAX grew in changes maybe the 77X will too. Any word on new Al-Li skin? 7% lighter and yet stronger than Al..maybe 7% higher priced
153 Stitch: Boeing's O&D update today shows no new 787 cancellations, so I continue to believe that the reports about the 25 cancellations "this month" in fac
154 zeke: The 767X was a different machine. Boeing was looking for a way to fill a opportunity in the market with more seats, they initially looked at a partia
155 Stitch: The 777 did indeed start life under the moniker "767X", but it was not meant to be a 767 derivative (like the "Hunchback of Mukilteo" above). Indeed,
156 PlanesNTrains: The Hunchback was certainly an unattractive bird. I was thinking it started as a 767 stretch, but obviously that is not correct. Thanks for the pics.
157 CXB77L: That is based on the assumption that the "sweet spot", as it were, doesn't move over time. When you consider the number of carriers that operate the
158 rheinwaldner: Fair point, it seems the sweet point for twins is moving upwards since 10 years. Consider that the traditional 767-size will not be covered anymore a
159 CXB77L: The 764ER has a lower fuel burn than the A332. Yet the A332 outsold the 764ER many times over. From that, we can deduce that capacity and capability
160 sweair: Did Boeing mention Al-Li skin? Or is this something we have added here? According to Alcoa its Al-Li alloy is 7% lighter than older Al alloys, how muc
161 panais: Of course when you compare the 9 abreast 77W with the 10 abreast 777X. Do not know if this is the savings that AF and EK will get. So to make money u
162 CXB77L: http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/ It is a possibility that has been discussed before. Boeing looked at using Al-Li on the
163 rheinwaldner: For us it would be useless. First because we would not have a common data point. And second because the wiggle room to account for the difference bet
164 panais: No doubt about that. Can also argue the other way around. They might prefer the A350-1000 and drop 40 economy class passengers and user their weight
165 Stitch: Why wouldn't it be? The 777-300ER needs a high MTOW to tank fuel for long-haul missions. Reduce that fuel load through more efficient engines and bet
166 CXB77L: More payload ... check. More wing area ... check. Less MTOW ... check. Less thrust ... check. So where on earth did you get more OEW from? Boeing has
167 Roseflyer: That’s not how sales campaigns work. It’s up to Etihad or whomever is comparing the airplanes to realistically ask questions and do their own ana
168 LAXDESI: My estimates suggest that B777-9X should be heavier by 5,000 lbs. than B77W. It could be more, but is less likely to be lower than 5,000 lbs.
169 Stitch: zeke believes it will be closer to 12,000. If an EK 777-9 burns only 10% less trip fuel than an EK 777-300ER, that would be around 11 metric tons of s
170 anfromme: Indeed - and then there's the fact that comparisons will depend heavily on how an airline uses the airplane. For example, LH says that their analysis
171 sweair: I have a feeling a stretch past 773 is sub optimal, sort of like the 346 was. I vote for the Y3, aim for EIS about 2025, do a small upgrade to the cur
172 BoeEngr: Where do you come up with that? As I read it, the analysis shows that when you load it up with 405 and cargo, you will make MORE money than an A350.
173 LAXDESI: Looking at the numbers at B77W design range: ............................MTOW......................OEW(lbs.) B77W..................775,000...........
174 aerokiwi: No, it's because the A350-1000, as I understand it, has received 75 gross orders (62 net, apparently). I think it's reasonable to question whether th
175 aircellist: How times have changed... In the 30's, 40's, 50's, that would have been almost the entire service life of quite a few airliners... Like the H.P.42...
176 5MillionMiler: Interesting that with the 380 and 787 experiences customers are wary of promises in terms of delivery times and performance. The 777 and A330 are know
177 sweair: If Qantas stood up the 777 and now wont order it, why not order the modern copy of it? Too much pride? The A380 has brought them much headache as it i
178 anfromme: Pride doesn't come into it. It's always numbers in the end. The wing cracks as well as the engine blowout causes are known, and the cost of rectifyin
179 RickNRoll: They have received a pretty substantial compensation for the problems. It has been exactly what they wanted. The problem was the 787 was late. It wou
180 strfyr51: Whatever is eating Ethiad about the A350-1000 is really not he airplane though it could be the Engines, GE is not going to supply the engines because
181 Cerecl: Again, AFAIK there is precisely 0 order for 77W due to be delivered in 2017. It is not unreasonable to question, but we won't have an answer until th
182 par13del: Something in this rings weird, customer needs were what drove the initial design, customers needs were supposed to also drive the additional changes,
183 Roseflyer: The question I have is whether it was because Airbus was struggling to meet the objectives that they established and sold to customers or because the
184 Stitch: True, but Boeing now has 777 orders booked through the original A350-1000's EIS of 2015 - and that is with Boeing seriously ramping the 777's deliver
185 Cerecl: Yes, although potential customers' feedback is unlikely to be the only reason driving the change. Airbus has to find more customers for A350-1000 as
186 astuteman: And? The A350 line has been sold out WAY beyond the A350-1000's EIS since 2007 - 5 years ago..... To me, the observation that the 777 is sold out to
187 RickNRoll: I think the Global Financial Crises has put businesses in a far more conservative and less risk taking frame of mind. Both in terms of long lead time
188 astuteman: There's no question that the GFC is a major factor, and leads to a more conservative approach. This certainly hasn't stopped the 777 or A330 selling
189 sweair: It might just be the fresh wounds of the 787 delays that keep airlines from ordering a brand new aircraft family. Seeing how it turned out to be a hug
190 Stitch: Look, I've long held the opinion that the A350-1000 is an absolute ass-kicker of an airplane. So when I comment on why it hasn't sold better, it's not
191 ferpe: Leeham has an interesting link to a Reuters interview with EK Clark: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...rates-boeing-idUSBRE84910K20120510 He ther
192 ferpe: For those who contracted if before the changes and who was not intending to use it at it's extreme of the payload-range curve the changes has just br
193 lightsaber: Am I the only one not excited by this? Due to the push out of the EIS, EY has the option of utilizing options if they like the A350-10. Why put down m
194 Stitch: Looks like the A380-800 and A350-1000 are not the only models seeing potential sales impacted by lack of slots. Bloomberg has run an article noting th
195 astuteman: I can agree with all of that. Although the opportunity loss is one that is shared with other recent programmes. Yep. 3 Years backlog. Dampens sales.
196 EPA001: But if the backlog is more then 7 years, and the plane is not gaining new orders (or sees cancellations predominantly due to that fact), then there m
197 frigatebird: Ehm, sorry if I ask a silly question (something might have been lost in translation here), but do you mean the -1000 burns more fuel per seat than th
198 JerseyFlyer: BUT from WSJ online May 14 2012: "Mr. Al Baker said he has received assurances from Airbus that the A350-1000, a stretched version of the A350, "will
199 ebbuk: Nearly 200 posts to drive the point home. It's not the plane, it's the time. But if Boeing hadn't said so about their 777, then we'd still have lots
200 EPA001: I have the distinct feeling that no matter what Airbus or Boeing say on that subject, and no matter how much of that is true, still lots of people ha
201 PlanesNTrains: I'm not sure if it's really productive to say that people have a personal agenda if they disagree with you. Some do, some don't - welcome to a.net. H
202 EPA001: They may of course disagree with me. But then I would expect some arguments why. But that is where the answers fall short by most of the "agenda-keep
203 CM: Ferpe, I do not have the specs for the original A350-1000, but have taken the current brochure levels (679K MTOW, 350 pax, 8,400nm range) and per our
204 AngMoh: Nice in theory, useless in practice. Not every plane needs to fly as far as possible with as many people as possible which this factor is based on. A
205 ferpe: I have now read most of Stintons "The Anatomy of an Aeroplane", it is a great book, he is the master of simplifications so that one sees the big pict
206 EPA001: Very good analysis ferpe, as always. . Thanks for that.
207 CM: Indeed. A very sage engineer once told me something which has served me well. He said: Experience has borne this out. Still, the Stinton efficiency m
208 neutronstar73: Then perhaps reading to the END of the article may have some interest for you, I see nowhere in that article that says airlines are cancelling 777 je
209 astuteman: If you want an analogy to the A350, the delays to the 787 prompted a whole swathe of cancellation. The gross number of 787 cancellations is somewhere
210 PlanesNTrains: It's unfortunate that some people hang their hat on the A350-1000 being cancelled due to inferiority. It's like setting themselves up for embarrassmen
211 CM: Did you mean 77W? The 777X is not yet a defined aircraft or for sale. As for this comment: I haven't read anywhere above that the A351 will be "infer
212 PHXA340: Yup but this is the problem, these are the customers Airbus was counting on to order this model by the 100s. People constantly ask why Boeing and Air
213 brindabella: To be boringly realistic, the design sections within B need to achieve the most basic requirement for the 777X family to be presented to the Board - t
214 brindabella: Get hold of the April issue of "Australian Aviation" if you can - Geoffrey Thomas interviews TC, the "father of the 777-300ER".. - Alcoa on the Al-Li
215 OldAeroGuy: Who is TC? If it's Tim Clark, he was singulary unimpressed with the 773ER initially, dubbing it an overweight version of the 773. Remember he ordered
216 brindabella: Hence my surrounding the phrase with inverted commas. ("Success has many fathers, failure none ...") The point is that the article by a respected avi
217 SEA: I don't think that for any member of the A350 family or the 777-X family that it will turn out to be an either/or scenario. What I mean by that is tha
218 PlanesNTrains: No, I meant the 777X which we are discussing as a potential aircraft from Boeing. I realise it's not for sale, but the tone is often of the inevitabi
219 TP313: Only if there is enough space in the cargo hold to place that cargo. Let's compare fuselage length numbers of the 350-1000 and of the 777-8X: The 350