Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000  
User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19762 times:

YouTube - Source

Always very interesting hearing a head CEO's opinion on an Airliner.

He rants about how Airbus didn't talk to the customers before designing the plane, and how they developed the A35J without customer discussion. But he does give gratitude toward the A350 & the 787, though being delayed years, they are still great airplanes for the future.


The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19628 times:

Tim Clark, love him, or not, he is right about one thing, the OEMs should have talked to the customer airlines during the design phase. Boeing has done this, and is doing it today on the B-777-X8/-X9. But Airbus did not do it, at least as far as the redesign went when they released it last year. That is according to Mr. Clark, and Mr. Baker at least.

User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19579 times:

Why wouldn't Airbus talk to the airlines before embarking on a re-design? That sounds crazy.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
But Airbus did not do it, at least as far as the redesign went when they released it last year. That is according to Mr. Clark, and Mr. Baker at least.

Funny thing is though, he says they'll end up being very fine aircraft........
He certainly doesn't seem to be in any hurry to cancel them, any more than Mr Baker does....

Rgds


User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1354 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19442 times:

I don't know Airbus just didn't build a 777 clone dimensions wise and make it better.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 2):
Why wouldn't Airbus talk to the airlines before embarking on a re-design? That sounds crazy

It does, but they didn't do the re-design and associated delay for a laugh.

They said that the bulk of the airlines they DID talk to supported the A350-1000 re-design.

Whether they didn't "talk" to EK, or whether they "talked" but didn't "listen", electing to follow a majority opinion from other airlines is a different matter

Rgds


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19286 times:

Quoting william (Reply 4):
I don't know Airbus just didn't build a 777 clone dimensions wise and make it better.

Eeeeeehhhm, I thought that's what they are actually doing?  


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19245 times:

Quoting redrooster3 (Thread starter):
He rants about how Airbus didn't talk to the customers before designing the plane, and how they developed the A35J without customer discussion.

Well - he wasn't really ranting. He seemed quite balanced and concludes "in the end, they will be fine", although he obviously still sees some work to be done on it.
Quite different from the rhetoric we've heard previously.
Same from Al Baker, as it happens:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...s-a380s-after-spurning-fix-1-.html

Quote:
Qatar Air will give Airbus “the benefit of the doubt” over the largest version of its A350 wide-body plane, which the carrier has previously suggested might fail to measure up to the required performance criteria, Al Baker said.
“They have been very forthcoming,” he said. “They have been listening to use [sic!] and I think they’ll get things right.”


[Edited 2012-07-09 13:06:27]


Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31434 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19159 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A350-900 gives EK high payloads over long distances - better than their A340-300s, A340-500s, 777-200s and 777-200ERs. On the other hand, the A350-1000 looks to give EK less payload over a long distance than the 777-300ER, even though it will save them a significant amount in fuel.

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19096 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Boeing has done this, and is doing it today on the B-777-X8/-X9. But Airbus did not do it, at least as far as the redesign went when they released it last year.

A bit of rubbish, really. Airbus did listen to EK, but EK didn't like what THEIR OWN payload/range requirement meant for the efficiency of the A350-1000. Hence the comments about "we want the airplane we signed up for when we bought the A350-1000"

Neither OEM can tailor an airplane to every customer. In satisfying one airline's requirement, they are often sacrificing the requirements of another. Emirates is the poster child for this. They demand 8,500nm range at full passenger payload from their widebody aircraft, (a requirement which penalizes the efficiency of the airplane for every operator who only needs 5,500nm or 6,500nm) then publicly bash Airbus when they push toward that goal over the completely expected consequence to efficiency.

You can bet operators like LH have a very different wish-list for the A350-1000, which would make the airplane less capable, but more efficient. Sometimes it makes sense for an OEM to meet an extreme requirement, at other times it does not. If the A350 has a deficiency in EK's mind, it is only because Airbus has worked to meet their requirements... not because Airbus is ignoring EK.


User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18832 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 2):
Why wouldn't Airbus talk to the airlines before embarking on a re-design? That sounds crazy.


Agreed. I always thought that this would be SOP for such a major risk. It was well publicized that Boeing went to potential customers about the 787 during concept and design phases for input prior to going to the board. This also gave them a pretty good idea of the number of possible orders prior to taking the plane to the BOD. I cannot imagine a company with the smarts of Airbus not doing the same.

[Edited 2012-07-09 13:45:41]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
On the other hand, the A350-1000 looks to give EK less payload over a long distance than the 777-300ER, even though it will save them a significant amount in fuel.

That was certainly true of the original A350-1000. I'm not convinced it is true of the 308t variant.

Rgds


User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18716 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 9):
You can bet operators like LH have a very different wish-list for the A350-1000, which would make the airplane less capable, but more efficient. Sometimes it makes sense for an OEM to meet an extreme requirement, at other times it does not. If the A350 has a deficiency in EK's mind, it is only because Airbus has worked to meet their requirements... not because Airbus is ignoring EK.

   It is very true they will optimize the design for the maximum number of customers. But to have Tim Clark say that they weren't included in the redesign discussions is interesting, especially when one considers the size of the customer we are talking about here,


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18640 times:

Strange, but there I was thinking the A350 came into being exactly because of feed-back from costumers (we don't want a warmed over A330, give us something new).

EK, and QR for that matter, does not some very tough performance goals they like to present to the OEMs, and if they are not immediately met, they are quite public and vocal in their response.

While neither Airbus nor Boeing can ill afford to totally neglect what these two carriers are wanting for, building aircraft to their exact specifications runs the risk of making those machines much less attractive to most everyone else looking to buy one. Airliners are objects of compromise, and one cannot blame EK or QR for using every tool at their disposal to push the airframers in the direction they won't. They are probably full aware they're not going to get all they're asking for, but every little help as they say. But it should never be forgotten that there are other very large airlines out there, with the potential to order significant numbers of the next big twin. Unlike EK and QR they do not feel the need to Fligh Global every week to have a whinge, but you may rest assured they are making their voices heard where it really counts: Behind close doors of meeting rooms In Toulouse, Hamburg, Chicago and Seattle



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4987 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 2):
Why wouldn't Airbus talk to the airlines before embarking on a re-design? That sounds crazy

That remark made by TC is even more "stupid" (pardon me) since they (EK) bought the plane, as well as Al Baker (QR). The changes made by Airbus were made after the majority of the (possible) customers wanted these changes. And you do not go trough such a program (adding costs, developing times and delivery times for the customers) unless you have some very strong clues this is what the ,market is asking for.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
I'm not convinced it is true of the 308t variant.

Me neither. The final data on the A35J is still to be fixed in stone, and then of course has to be proven by flight testing and in the end operational service.  .


User currently offlineLU9092 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 77 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16809 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 9):
Neither OEM can tailor an airplane to every customer. In satisfying one airline's requirement, they are often sacrificing the requirements of another. Emirates is the poster child for this. They demand 8,500nm range at full passenger payload from their widebody aircraft, (a requirement which penalizes the efficiency of the airplane for every operator who only needs 5,500nm or 6,500nm) then publicly bash Airbus when they push toward that goal over the completely expected consequence to efficiency.

  

I imagine if Tim Clark asked for it nicely, and could summon the patience to wait an extra three years, he'd find Airbus happy to build him 75 A35JRs that would end up being more efficient than the one he wants now.

[Edited 2012-07-09 17:28:20]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16297 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
I'm not convinced it is true of the 308t variant.

If we let the 35J, 35JN and 77W fly the same trip of 7930nm they consume 104, 107 and 134t fuel respectively according to my frame model. Now it can be of by a percent or two but not very much more.

If we compare consumption per m2 cabin space (to avoid all seating cheating) you have 0.0398, 0.0407 and 0.0495 of kg fuel per nm and m2 pax transported (it equates to 330, 330 and 348 pax with Wingedmigrators proposed 1 pax per m2 which I tend to think is the right yardstick for A.net twin aisle comparisons).

So if all this has some realism you have a loss of 3% between the 35J and 35JN and a loss of 25% between the 35J and the 77W.

The caveat is of course that the 77W is flying since years and seem to really have an OEW of 168t, the 35J will never fly away from it's powerpoint and the 35JN only at 2017 at best. What the real OEW end up being only A has a hunch of, I have put in 152t because this is what A has told us is the value in several presentations. It also presumes the TXWB for the 35JN has the same TSFC as the 35J cause this is what A has told us but Zeke has hinted it might gain efficiency even thought the BPR is a tad lower (but it has 2 more years to gain efficiency compare to the original 35J TXWB and you tend to gain 1% per year according to RR).

So even tough I would not walk the plank for these values  Wow! I think the differences are big enought to see the relationships. Now one can understand Clark and Bakker wanted those 400nm but not the -3% but that is the trade you do.

[Edited 2012-07-09 18:31:41]


Non French in France
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16137 times:

When Clark says that Airbus didn't consult with airlines, he means that they didn't give him exactly what he wanted...regardless of how popular it may be to other airlines...which is fair since he doesn't run the other airlines.

Every airliner is a compromise, which is why there are so many variations for a single model...no one plane can do all jobs and any bracketing will leave some potential customers out in the cold.

Overall, he's still happy with all his purchases and will probably find a nice place for the -1000 in his fleet.



What the...?
User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16096 times:

Should they call it the A35TC?

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):
When Clark says that Airbus didn't consult with airlines, he means that they didn't give him exactly what he wanted...regardless of how popular it may be to other airlines...which is fair since he doesn't run the other airlines.

   It isn't what EK exactly wanted, but it is what Airbus determined would sell best. EK was one of the few 773 customers... In other words, what is optimal for them might not be optimal for very many other airlines. Cest la vie. Good luck to Airbus. I think they'll sell a bunch.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15709 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 9):
Neither OEM can tailor an airplane to every customer. In satisfying one airline's requirement, they are often sacrificing the requirements of another. Emirates is the poster child for this. They demand 8,500nm range at full passenger payload from their widebody aircraft, (a requirement which penalizes the efficiency of the airplane for every operator who only needs 5,500nm or 6,500nm) then publicly bash Airbus when they push toward that goal over the completely expected consequence to efficiency.

It's kind of funny that EK bills itself as being in the center of the world which really means they are darn far away from many places of interest so they need planes with extremes of payload and range.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15410 times:

IMHO beyond improvements in efficiency, the A350-1000 would benefit from an increase in MTOW, MZFW, and Fuel Capacity. This would give an airline such as EK greater flexibility in trading range/trip fuel/payload.

Might as well get that engine back up to 100k lbs. thrust, or even 105k. Or at least offer the option for airlines to decide on which thrust level they desire.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31434 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 21):
Might as well get that engine back up to 100k lbs. thrust, or even 105k. Or at least offer the option for airlines to decide on which thrust level they desire.

With RR exclusive on the A350-1000 and them pitching an engine in the 100-105K thrust class for the 777X, I wonder if Rolls might not use the same engine on both frames?


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14250 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):

With RR exclusive on the A350-1000 and them pitching an engine in the 100-105K thrust class for the 777X, I wonder if Rolls might not use the same engine on both frames?

Makes sense to me. RR would lose as well if the A350-1000 is quickly leapfrogged by a 777X variant. Either use the same engine or incorporate improvements from the RB3025 concept into the Trent XWB.

One minor criticism. The RB3025 is said to have a bypass ratio of 12:1... Trent XWB is 9.3:1, Trent 1000 is just under 10:1, and the Trent 900 is 8.7:1. These should all really be 11-12:1 engines. Engine technology is developing too slowly.

The A350-1000 should be powered by the next generation of engines, just as the 777-200LR/-300ER were compared to the 772ER/773. The next generation from now is the RB3025 concept.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13745 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
But Airbus did not do it

Wholly unsurprising response.

I'd bet a fair amount that consultation *was* done - but in the end the 2 middle east carriers didn't get all the changes *their* way. Like a spoiled kid, they throw a hissy fit in public along with associated chest pounding.

They seem to think they are centre of the universe let alone centre of the world.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
25 Post contains images redrooster3 : You can agree that he does play quite a big role in what airliners do. Look at how much he has on order from Airbus and Boeing. He should have a righ
26 Post contains images astuteman : There came an "either - or" moment, when LH and others wanted a bigger 748i, and EK wanted a 748i with about 300Nm more range. Boeing went with incre
27 Burkhard : I think we have to throw the psychologies of these egomans into the equation for translation. We can be very sure that Airbus had lots of talks with l
28 zeke : I agree, I did not really see a rant, it was fairly balanced in my view. I think one of the areas which has disappointed airlines is the delay in EIS
29 Post contains images solnabo : Pot...kettle..black! Wonder if that included the 747-8I
30 Shany : What would be the cargoload for the 35J, 25JN, 77W on this leg with a typical three class layout and cabin furbishment? Shany
31 StickShaker : I'm curious that Airbus and Boeing seem to have a different take on whether to exactly match EK's requirements in terms of long haul aircraft with th
32 Burkhard : Well, an aircraft that can do DXB-LAX is an ULR plane by all definitions - and this means a niche product, not suitable for the majority of airlines.
33 JoeCanuck : The thing is, EK has a lot of requirements and flies enough routes that there is probably room for the -1000 and the 777x in his fleet. Even Clark kn
34 Post contains images EPA001 : In my opinion Boeing has no other choice. They will not beat the A35J (an all-new airframe) on costs and basic revenues with a B777-X (a further revi
35 JerseyFlyer : Maybe because they expect to deliver an aircraft that meets the specifications in the contracts for those already sold? (Apart from delivery date - w
36 moo : No manufacturer would sign a contract so early on in a development phase that would restrict them in the changes they can make to the design. Thats t
37 Burkhard : Still there will be some warrenties and some thousand words what happens if they are not met... Looks like Airbus spoke with Cathay about the A3510 a
38 bikerthai : As things progress, it seems that the only major structural difference between the 777X and the A350 will be the metal fuselage vs a composite fusela
39 SmittyOne : Would upping these parameters add empty weight (and erase efficiency) to the point where the aircraft would no longer be attractive for all the other
40 Pellegrine : Sure it could. If it added unnecessary weight to MEW in strengthening and increased tankerage that most operators wouldn't want to carry around.
41 KC135TopBoom : He has plenty of time to see what other Airbus product he may want, thus saving his deposits. Dimension wise the A-3510 is a B-77W clone. They have a
42 william : I meant fuselage wise, why didn't Airbus just copied the 777. If the A350-1000 had the same width of the 777 and still able to offer the efficiencies
43 Post contains images EPA001 : Not really. It only does so in a 10-abreast seating configuration in economy. Giving the passengers much less seating width and therefore a less comf
44 Post contains images sweair : The 777 is int its midlife and getting a refresh, its past its prime really. But it gives income to Boeing unlike the 787 that costs a lot right now.
45 strfyr51 : I think you're going around the Bend here. When Boeing was designing the B777, they went to the airlines they targeted and sought their Design advice
46 Post contains images EPA001 : Airbus is working in very close cooperation with possible customers just as Boeing is. There is no difference in the way Airbus or Boeing operate in
47 Post contains images astuteman : You'll have to show me a) where EY said they weren't consulted, and b) that their cancelleations are related to that. It's not what they said Who's t
48 ferpe : The example was the easy one for me to model (my base model is the frames at their spec seating, weight and range, thus I can calibrate against the O
49 Post contains images ferpe : I have rerun the model in a much less quick and dirty way when all carry the same payload ie I normalized all to 330 pax and also 330 seats (thus lowe
50 Post contains links CM : Ferpe, we won't be able to understand Tim Clark's displeasure with the A35J by looking at Airbus' public spec data. I know that's all we can provide
51 scbriml : If you look at the distribution of the World's population, Dubai is ideally placed for what EK does. Yes, they always want extreme payload-range beca
52 Post contains images ferpe : Of course I am only referring to model as such, not the data that is entered. In my post I also make the point that the 77W is flying, the 35J stayed
53 Post contains links JoeCanuck : CX is happy enough with the new -1000 that they are converting a bunch of their -900 orders to the bigger model. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art.
54 Post contains images CM : Thanks for clarifying. We're in agreement then; the math driving the model is sound. The quality of what we get out will hinge entirely on the qualit
55 ferpe : As you presented a lot of food for though when it comes to the 35JN's empty weight (the main problem for new frames) the models says that the 35JN wi
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...
British Airways' Opinion On The 777-300ER? posted Tue Nov 16 2010 19:11:39 by CX747
Did Airbus Reduce The Wingspan On The A350? posted Tue Nov 9 2010 14:05:57 by EA772LR
Delta's Opinion On The 767-400ER Vs A330? posted Wed Nov 11 2009 08:38:35 by 1337Delta764
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
New Info On The CRJ 1000? posted Sun Jun 8 2008 20:56:02 by Flyboy80
Are GE Prepared To Work On The A350? posted Sun Nov 25 2007 01:04:40 by Beaucaire
Cfrp Panels On The A350 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 12:36:06 by CPairDC10
Richard Aboulafia Speaks On The A350 posted Tue Jul 18 2006 06:02:44 by N844AA
Any News On The A350? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 20:11:30 by Shamrock350
ST Article On The A350 And US Airways... posted Fri May 20 2005 14:39:40 by BoeingBus