Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IAG To Order A351 And A359  
User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 50409 times:

An order from IAG for the A350-1000 is almost done. The order will be for 25 units for British Airways.
Will share more information as soon as I get it.

This is how thw order should be:
A350-1000 for both British Airways and Iberia as a 744 and A346 replacement.
A350-900 as a 772ER and A343 replacement.
The deal is for both types and I have been told that the order will be for as much as 75 units total. No information yet as how many are firm and how many options.
Airbus was looking to close the deal at Le Bourget.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:41:57]

255 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 50525 times:

Jon Ostrower ‏(from the WSJ) is confirming the news, this announcement sounds not like a joke.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:18:44]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 50093 times:

Interesting. Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order? Would this mean the -900 is a shoe in to replace their 772s?

User currently offlineboeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 50093 times:

link to WSJ
It is just brief, and you have to log in to see more but atleast it is proof that it is actual.

[Edited 2013-04-01 12:33:57]


Work Hard, Fly Right.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 50068 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 2):
Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order?

Jon Ostrower also tweets IAG wants both A350-1000 and 777-9X aircraft in their fleet.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 49671 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 2):
Can we assume this would be instead of, rather than in addition to, any 777X order?

Still another 20 odd 744 to replace at some point, and thats if all A35X went to BA.


User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 49504 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 5):

True, but unlikely to be split, surely? They are already replacing 744 with a mix of A380 and (if this order materialises) A35J - why add 777X as well?

I actually forgot about the 787 - 10 (d'oh!), so I think the 772 replacement is a straight fight between this and the A350 - 900


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 49393 times:

The first post has been updated, the order would also replace the A346 aircraft.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19738 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 49266 times:

What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's. Any A350 order is going to overlap that.

So now their 744 fleet will be replaced by A35J, 77W, and A388. That's a bit discombobulated. Meanwhile, they also have the 787 on order. If they are ordering A359's, we can be pretty certain they won't be ordering 78J's.


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48976 times:

The 77Ws are, and were only ever, stop gaps.

Absolutely delighted this pending order has broken surface.      

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48962 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):

Don't forget that the 77Ws were originally brought on as part of the 787 compensation, so will be interesting to see whether BA keep them around for as long as they normally do.

Even if they don't run them till the end of their useful lives, they will be around for a while as replacing all 54-odd 744s is going to take a long time. Once the 77W goes, this could leave the 787 as the only Boeing aircraft in the BA fleet. Quite a turnaround from the current situation!

I am very happy that IAG have plumped for the A350 as their workhorse long haul aircraft, not least because it means many more Rolls-Royce sales!!


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48972 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's. Any A350 order is going to overlap that.

Yes, but:

- The A35J won't be available until 2017 and they need some large twins right now, so the 77W is the only outcome to fill the temporary gap
- IAG has to replace 17x A346, 15x A343, 52x 747 and 46x 772 (!) and they only have 12x A380, 8x A330 and 6x 77W on order.

[Edited 2013-04-01 13:32:23]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48892 times:

Why does it have to be so confusing?

User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48805 times:

Please acept my apologies, I got the information and I was fast trying to share it with the forum.
The last thing I got was that IAG closed a deal with Airbus for the A350. some 1000 and some 900, the order will cover replacement and grow for both airlines BA and IB. No numbers were discussed and I do not know how many are firms and how many are options. I am clarifiying this because when I made the first post I mentioned about 25 firms and 25 options and this information is not accurate.
This is my guess:
A351 to replace the 747 BA has and A346 from IB
A359 to replace the 772ER BA has and A343 from IB


User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 48543 times:

Quoting Carls (Reply 13):
A351 to replace the 747 BA has and A346 from IB
A359 to replace the 772ER BA has and A343 from IB

Which is approx 130 frames, if they do as you are suggesting and replace all with A350s in one fell swoop. This could be an absolutely MASSIVE order for Airbus, and a bit of a kick for Boeing's yet to be defined offerings (777X and 787 - 10), as BA at least were surely an airline Boeing had in mind for this planes?

Having said this, it would actually not surprise me to see BA going for the 787 - 10 as well for their East Coast USA flights....

[Edited 2013-04-01 13:52:02]

User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47842 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 14):
hich is approx 130 frames, if they do as you are suggesting and replace all with A350s in one fell swoop. This could be an absolutely MASSIVE order for Airbus

It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47725 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware


User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47625 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 16):
I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware

Up until fairly recently, it was in fact the A351 getting most of the stick on here, ironically. Then a flurry of orders came in, and lots of operators switched from the -800 to the -900, and now it's the smallest model which looks imperilled.


User currently onlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47605 times:

British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 47526 times:

Quoting william (Reply 18):
British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

And it appears JAL is favoring the A350 too. So two customers Boeing can no longer take for granted. Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

[Edited 2013-04-01 14:57:38]

User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 47170 times:

Quoting william (Reply 18):
British Airways will go from one of Boeing's strongest customer to mostly Airbus in about a decade.......Amazing. Its all about the product.

Crazy how fast things change in Aviation huh?


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 47141 times:

I see this announcement that both airlines will get both types as a way of not tipping their hat to competitors. I wouldn't guess that BA would actually take the A351/9 + 77X, nor would IAG. I can see the entire IB fleet being replaced with A350s, and about 1/2 of the BA 772s replaced with A359, leaving the remaining 772s, 77Ws and any 744s left to be replaced by the 77X. Even then, it's kind of confusing with the 789 in the fleet.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8376 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 47098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program. Then may be Air France will order the 777-9X since it has GE engines. How ironic that the French Airline would order the non-European plane but BA would get the Toulouse plane.

[Edited 2013-04-01 15:56:03]

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 46508 times:

Most of the 77w's in the BA fleet are leased as a stopgap, if this rumour is true it appears that the 77W won't have a long life at BA. Caution however, I remember sources being adamant that BA had chosen the 748 over the 380.

User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3653 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 46236 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
they won't be ordering 78J's.

What is a 78J?


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47901 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose

Yeah, turn out the lights, Boeing obviously can't sell any airplanes. Why do they even try to compete  

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20647 posts, RR: 62
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47436 times:

There's a full article up on the WSJ site now (search "IAG A350" to bring it up in Google results).

It opens with remarks that the order for A350s could come as soon as this week, then goes on to say:

Quote:
Even if IAG orders the A350 for British Airways, Boeing is "not out of the running" for a later order for the 777Xs, said one of the people familiar with the carrier's plans. But another person said that if IAG orders A350s, it wouldn't receive preferential terms on Boeing orders.

Early buyers of a new jetliner model, known as launch customers, generally receive preferential terms and big discounts, potentially exceeding 50% off catalog prices.

Boeing's product development unit was scheduled to meet on Monday with top executives and the company's senior advisory group, which is made up of retired top engineers that designed the company's earlier jetliners. The meeting is an important step in the process of preparing the jet's business model ahead of seeking the board's approval, said two people familiar with the meeting.

Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 48124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It appears the details are still in discussion, so this may not be a "winner take all" RFP like the VLA one was.

As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.

I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

[Edited 2013-04-01 16:36:15]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8376 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 48083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

What A330 or A340 does BA have to be replaced ? NONE, BA only has 744 AND 777 to be replaced.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):

It's a huge win for Airbus, but does anybody really think this means Boeing won't be able to sell the 777X? BA was barely a customer for the 773, so why is IAG's decision to go Airbus (they are replacing a number of Airbus frames too) such a shocker? Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

What A330 or A340 does BA have to be replaced ? NONE, BA only has 744 AND 777 to be replaced.

IAG does the purchasing for IB and BA. This order is supposed to be for BA and is 25 frames (we'll assume 25 firm and a similar number of options). IB has the 340s and 330s. BA has the 772s and 744s which need replacing.

This order represents about 1/4 of the 744/777 fleet of BA. I suppose its possible BA could rotate to all Airbus but I doubt it. There would be a much larger order or huge number of options if that was the situation.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7152 posts, RR: 57
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47679 times:

Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47823 times:

One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

I am expecting a great year for Airbus at Le Bourget!!!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):

IAG comprises Iberia and British Airways, so they have several A340-300 and 600 that are going to be replaced.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 47541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 30):
Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.

As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

And the A350-900 will complement the 787-9 at BA as a 777-200ER replacement, though the 787-10 would offer more capacity for TATL missions.

As for 747-400 replacements, the A350-1000 isn't big enough to be a direct replacement as it lacks the cabin floor area to replace either the High-J or Low-J birds. The 777-9, on the other hand, can handle the same 10-abreast Economy hard product as the 747-400 and the extra 3m of cabin length would allow BA to fit an additional 16 Club World seats on the main deck, which almost handles the 20 seats the 744's upper deck offers.

[Edited 2013-04-01 17:00:10]

User currently offlinetroest From Denmark, joined Mar 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 47291 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

How will the A359s perform in hot & hight altitude airports compared to the A340s?


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 47283 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose. If Airbus gets JAL and BA plus Cathay they might as well cancel the 777 program.

I find that hard to believe. Both manufacturers offer competitive products and neither can grow to the size that requires the other to 'turn off the lights', nor would the airlines want that to happen.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 47221 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
As IB flies nothing but Airbus, it makes sense to purchase A350-900s and A350-1000s for them as an A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 replacement.

Not so fast with the A333 replacement at IB: the first one joined the fleet two weeks ago!



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 47210 times:

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
I am expecting a great year for Airbus

Isn't every year a great year for Airbus?  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 47228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting troest (Reply 33):
How will the A359s perform in hot & hight altitude airports compared to the A340s?

Better than the 787-9, I expect, thanks to the greater wing area and higher thrust.



Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
Not so fast with the A333 replacement at IB: the first one joined the fleet two weeks ago!

Indeed.  


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 46840 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And the A350-900 will complement the 787-9 at BA as a 777-200ER replacement, though the 787-10 would offer more capacity for TATL missions.

As for 747-400 replacements, the A350-1000 isn't big enough to be a direct replacement as it lacks the cabin floor area to replace either the High-J or Low-J birds.


There is no need to have an direct 744 replacement in terms of size as the 744 isn't the perfect fit for all routes it flies today. Your example regarding the 772 replacement shows just that.
A350-1000 and A380 will take care of the upper and lower end of the current 744 routes. 777-9X in between? Why not?



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10047 posts, RR: 96
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 46879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
Jon Ostrower also tweets IAG wants both A350-1000 and 777-9X aircraft in their fleet.

I can see this happening quite a bit in future. It doesn't always have to be "either-or"

Quoting bthebest (Reply 16):
I think that was the A358, A35X is quite strong as far as I was aware

You better believe the A350-1000 was DOA'd on A-net a very long time ago, and particularly when the weight increase added 2 years to its EIS, resulting in a 200 order year for the 777.
It was a goner. As well as the A358  
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):
IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose

Doesn't have to rule out a later 777-9x order   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

Which sounds pretty sensible to me

Rgds


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20647 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 46627 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
Which sounds pretty sensible to me

That's not what the news article says. It says it's an either/or:

Quote:
But another person said that if IAG orders A350s, it wouldn't receive preferential terms on Boeing orders.

That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 46748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.

Maybe it's an April Fool's joke.  

But in all seriousness, I don't expect Randy Tinseth to demand IAG pay close to list if IAG is willing to order a couple score of 777-9s.


User currently onlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 785 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 45568 times:

Although plausible, this could just be a bunch of malarkey like the "Austrian buying 787" thread. Jon likes to pull April Fools jokes, so I'll take the beer and popcorn approach on this one....

User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 44861 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
That's what I took issue with. It says that if IAG orders the A350, it won't receive launch customer pricing for Boeings, even if IAG ordered as a launch customer.

Isn't that kind of attitude what caused F9 to switch to Airbus?.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 44599 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.

Which would be nearly every model available except for the A350-800 and 777-8X   But honestly if you are right with this
I could see the order for the -8 being dropped and changed into one for the larger models.

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

So soon ? The order was supposed to be announced this fall

[Edited 2013-04-01 21:50:18]


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 43951 times:

If this happens I see this as a result of Boeing being to conservative under McNerney.

Albaugh and team clearly saw the compelling economics of the A350 and espcially -1000 in 777 land and wanted to launch the 787-10 and 777-8 and -9 to combat that. They realized they needed to get this done last year to avoid things like this. Clearly it come to a head between Albaugh and McNerney trying to keep the board and stock-market happy, Albaugh left rather then administer another 737MAX situation, i.e. running after a market which is saying "I don't wait for you anymore".

Clearly the swing from McNerny saying "we might launch the 777X for after 2020" to "it will be there 2019 which we have always said" has come over the last 3 months and we know why now. It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department. Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative, the rest is in dire straights until Boeing get's firmly going with their programs.



Non French in France
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 42355 times:

From what we know at this point the 777-9X will be
- using the same fuselage diameter as 777, but different materials
- stretch beyond the quasi double stretch of the current 777-300ER
- have a new huge wing with some regulatory challenge (span-wise)
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)
- might have a new MLG ? how about rotation angle ?

Sounds more like a step from A310 to A330 than a step from 737NG to MAX !
So a lot of unknown, uncertainties on schedule

In the other hand the A350 is almost there, and in 2-4 months, every-one will have a clear picture of what the airframe if made of (and what is lacking)

Anyway 777-9X is a really huge airplane as projected, and going to a bigger 777-9X is some sort of acknowledging that not everyone can do point to point


And 747-400 replacement is at most a 400 units market (that's the number of PAX 747-400 produced !), of which more than a hundred istaken by A380 / 747-8I
It's a 777-300ER replacement (more than 700 units, it's a big one for sure)

In the end, it makes sense to order A350's for a 2015-2018 time frame ... and order later 777-9X for 2020


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1354 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 42333 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
. It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department. Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative, the rest is in dire straights until Boeing get's firmly going with their programs.



One thing seems pretty obvious: The Y project according to which Boeing over a short period of time should have a new product lineup seems now a rather dead duck.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 42351 times:

This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 6):
Quoting bthebest (Reply 5):
True, but unlikely to be split, surely? They are already replacing 744 with a mix of A380 and (if this order materialises) A35J - why add 777X as well?

Agreed.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 10):
Once the 77W goes, this could leave the 787 as the only Boeing aircraft in the BA fleet. Quite a turnaround from the current situation!

Absolutely.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
And it appears JAL is favoring the A350 too

This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

I'm convinced this is the case. IMO it has undermined the airlines trust in Boeing to deliver their promises. Mishaps do happen (even the A350 is more than a year late), but the 787 debacle has damaged Boeing's reputation far more than they think.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):Interesting message being sent out: "Buy Airbus and you can forget good pricing on Boeing products." I'm not sure how accurate of a message that would be, BA could still be a launch customer for the 777X if it wanted.I'm guessing that means if BA does not want to be a 777-9 launch customer, should they decide to place an order at a later date they will not receive the same discount rate as launch customers.

Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s and take up their options for A380s to replace the last 744s. Having both 787, A350, 777 and A380 in their fleet doesn't sound very efficient.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):

Very well said, IMO it summarises perfectly the hole Boeing dug out for themselves. Except for the 787-9, Boeing will have no products superior to its main rival Airbus.



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 offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 41862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
What I don't get is that BA just started taking 77W's.

Which were originally intended as interim lift. Don't forget that four of the original six (I think) were leased frames.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Mainly by those Boeing fanboyz that couldn't accept that Airbus could produce a viable challenger to the 777.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
As such, IAG could fly the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900. A350-1000, 777-9X and A380-800 in the 2020s and beyond.

It's very likely in the long-term that IB becomes an all-A350 operator. Given that, I really don't see BA operating as many variants and types as you're suggesting.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 30):
Or maybe this is all pure negotiation tactics.

Isn't it always?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 41420 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 24):
What is a 78J?

It refers to 787-10, J being the 10th letter of the alphabet. Everyone notates them differently, so until ICAO gives it a designation, pick your favourite.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 41001 times:

There is still a possibility of ordering the 777-9 as well, as it's a decent amount bigger than the A351. It would make BA's long haul fleet more complicated than it used to be, but then most airlines seem to be going that way, mixing and matching Boeing and Airbus planes, as unlike the 737 and A320 families which are direct rivals, the longhaul planes don't exactly overlap.

BA don't sound overconfident about the 777X, but then they're not exactly loading up on A380s either.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40886 times:

The boost of the -1000 orders can be explained by a few things:

1) Last February Leahy was hinting at a deticated assembly line for the A350-1000
2) Design freeze this year
3) EIS 2016

1) The extra A350 assembly line should be a key selling element. According to Leahy, the lack of delivery slots were the main problem of the poor -1000 orders. Now, with a deticated -1000 assembly line Airbus should be able to output 60 to 80 units per year, 2 - 3 years before the 777X enters the market. Do the math.

2) The -900 will fly soon and Airbus will freeze the -1000 design afterwards. Customers are getting a better picture of the final product.

3) I'm just guessing but all those orders should force Airbus to swap the EIS of the -1000 with the -800. This should be an extra plus argument for the sales team (-1000 entering the market 3 - 4 years before the 777X).

[Edited 2013-04-02 02:08:15]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40716 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
But in all seriousness, I don't expect Randy Tinseth to demand IAG pay close to list if IAG is willing to order a couple score of 777-9s.
Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):
Price sells these days. I'm sure Leahy made an offer they couldn't refuse. Not to mention the fact that the A351 will be available before the 777X

This is the time for IAG to drive a deal, Airbus would like the ink to be dry before Boeing launch the 777X and to deny them a prestigious launch customer. Also you would expect Airbus to target a series of orders to go along with the first flight to give the impression of program momentum.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s

And wait for the A350 double stretch.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 19):
Surely the 787 debacle (especially how Boeing management has handled the entire program) has had some role to play in these decisions.

Yes, if only because the delays 787 have pushed the 787-10 and 777X project way down the road.



BV
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40247 times:

By the way,
What can be the 787-10 EIS ? > 2020 ?
T1000-TEN is for 2016, so 787-10X can't be here (with RR) before 2017 I think


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40105 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4741 posts, RR: 39
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 40020 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Oh yes. The plane was already buried before she left the designing and development department. Now the tide is turning, mainly because the product becomes clearer and clearer for the customers and the waiting time between ordering and delivery is coming down. Especially if Airbus adds another production line soon.   I, and others, have always maintained that the long time between ordering and the delivery of an A350-1000, and that the airplane will sell on merits. And she is conquering more and more important customers. If confirmed it would be a great result for Airbus.  .

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 22):

John Leahy can't be paid enough if this happens, even by Goldman Sachs standards. IF Boeing lets this happen they better turn off the lights in Seattle because the BA 777-9X order was Boeing's to loose.

Well, this order is not covering all widebodies which need replacement at IAG. So there is still plenty of room for Boeing to win an order from IAG.

Quoting Carls (Reply 31):
One more thing, a great news is coming from Lufthansa to Airbus!

I have not seen any confirmation of what you are stating here. That would be another very good order for Airbus if that one would materialize as well. But until confirmed, I am not holding my breath.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
You better believe the A350-1000 was DOA'd on A-net a very long time ago, and particularly when the weight increase added 2 years to its EIS, resulting in a 200 order year for the 777.
It was a goner. As well as the A358

Oh yes, they were goners. I wonder what these posters will have to say now since the A350-1000 clearly is picking up a lot of momentum.   

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

I am quite sure Airbus really wanted this one. But also the B777-X will sell on merits if it is launched.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

I do not agree. Also the B777-X will sell on merits. But it has to be offered first, and also it will suffer from long lead-times as the A350-1000 has. But once they become overseeable I am sure also the B777-X will sell quite wll. Maybe it will also be ordered by IAG.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 49):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 15):
It would be also a boost for the A351, which until fairly recently, some members were claiming to be DOA.

Mainly by those Boeing fanboyz that couldn't accept that Airbus could produce a viable challenger to the 777.

  .

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

Me too. And imho EK will by far not the only one who will order the B777-X. Even if they might order some more A350-1000's down the line as well.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39931 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
IMHO that's nonsense. The 777X will be a very good product and I'll be amazed if EK don't order at least 50.

It needs more than an order from EK to be a success, or it will be the next A340-500/600, or worse, the 747-8i.



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 offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39854 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)

When did we last see an "all new engine" ?

For decades now widebody engines have been a succession of improvements to a basic design. Yes their thrust ratings have gone through the roof, and fuel consumption has slumped, but they are still the result of evolution rather than revolution. It would be a major surprise for any of the big three engine suppliers to come up with a completely clean sheet design.


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 39835 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):

This is a huge win for Airbus and an even bigger loss for Boeing. This order could be pivotal in the battle between 777X and A350, just like BA's order for the A380 was for the 747-8i. I think Airbus wanted this order at all cost, just to take the wind out of the sails of the 777X before it has even been launched.

  

Whilst the report refers specifically to British Airways, I believe, with the reorganisation of Iberia now underway, negotiations include a complete overhaul of Iberia's A340 fleet also. This could be an initial combined firm order for 60 frames plus options of 900s and 1000s.


In the battle of the VLA for British Airways, IAG saw:

B748: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, end of design life, insufficient advances in economics.
A388: New design, settling in with launch operators, state of the art technology, scope for improvements, stretches and new variants in future.

They went for the A388

In the battle of the VLT for British Airways and Iberia, IAG sees:

B77X: Proven design, twice stretched, updated, possibly last variants and so end of design life
A350: New design, will take delivery as it settles in with launch operators, state of the art technology, scope for improvements, stretches and new variants in future.

They're going for the A350

It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

Be in no doubt also, the Dreamliner's inauspicious start has also raised the element of risk with a Boeing order.

The rabbit Boeing now has to pull out of the hat is one which prevents the rest of the IAG long haul fleet renewal going all-Airbus too.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39821 times:

"Dear B team,

As 744-A346-777-343 replacement next toys we went to the Airbus shop for a delightful visit, and a glass of unique local wine..
we thank you so much for your 777-9 sexy X lauch costumer offer , we met an alternative, it's called the A380-A350 sexy football (noo not called socker!) striker team.. looking forward to play again.. " self play quote. Have a good day.

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:08:36]

User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39733 times:

G´day

So will this order be formally announced in XFW during the roll-out of the first A 380 painted in full BA colours? I am sure all the BA and Airbus brass will attend that ceremony, so announcing the new order there will make the event even more colourful.   


Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39565 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 44):

I think we can hear something at the Paris Air Show.


User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39258 times:

You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 39206 times:

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

The rumour is that it's a done deal.
  

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
And 747-400 replacement is at most a 400 units market (that's the number of PAX 747-400 produced !), of which more than a hundred istaken by A380 / 747-8I

Slightly off-topic, but - even ignoring that just replacing 747-400 does not account for growth - this isn't quite correct. Even if you consider just the base variant, Boeing produced 442 pax 747-400. Add to that 19 747-400D, 6 747-400ER and 61 747-400M, and you're at a total of 528 pax (and combi) 747-400s.

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:43:44]

[Edited 2013-04-02 03:44:15]


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 offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 38681 times:

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal. Is this the case or is this order only a rumor?

You just have to remember to consult your aerospace dictionary, if you haven't got one to hand please find a few definitions below:

Rumour - Believed by vast majority of enthusiasts to be 100% true fact
Short term plan - Today
Medium term plan - Rest of the week
Long term plan - Next week
Commitment - We shared a table at Starbucks whilst waiting for a flight
Letter of Intent - Scribbled some notes on the back of the receipt at Starbucks
Option - Tentative agreement to pay for the coffees next time
Order (with deposit) - An agreement to take a specific number of planes at a specific time at a specific
cost, or to delay them, renegotiate the price, or even to exchange the order
for something else that the manufacturer has yet to design
Order (no deposit) - See option
Boeing - Large aircraft manufacturer prone to being over optimistic and then very late.
Airbus - Large aircraft manufacturer prone to being over optimistic and then very late.
GE - Mega supplier of whirly things that occasionally go bang
RR - Mega supplier of whirly things that occasionally go bang
Airlines - Organisations prone to making rash statements, not knowing what they are doing this
afternoon, let alone next week, ordering things they don't want, failing to order what
they need, and living in a state of either eternal optimism or pessimism.

  


User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 163 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 38218 times:

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 64):
You´re all talking like this is a done deal.

...and my impression is that the Airbus supporters here sound a little bit too convinced that only Airbus can offer the right product, the tone is coming close to being arrogant    ... let the A350 fly first and be assured that the 777x is a good a/c and wait with the    until the BA contract is signed  


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7545 posts, RR: 17
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 38058 times:

It was in August 1986 that BA first ordered the 744,buying 16 of the type with options on a further 12. To me this raises two questions:

1. What alternatives were there to the 744 in terms of meeting both the capacity and range requirements of BA back in 1986 and how does this impact the "replacement" of a large fleet of the type?

2. How have BA's and IB's markets changed over the intervening period of more than a quarter of a century in terms of required aircraft carrying capacity and flight frequency?

I then have another four questions, namely:

3. What impact does the formation of IAG make to the likely outcome of an order or orders to meet the future long-haul aircraft needs of BA and IB? Ignoring manufacturers' discounts, does this reduce the size of an economically operationally viable fleet of a single type if both airlines were to operate that type?

4. How will the growth of Middle East hubs like DXB and IST impact the long term strategy of the likes of IAG and will it impact their future aircraft needs by, for example, increasing the number of destinations served and the proportions of O&D passengers carried?

5. What is the impact of ATI operations with partner airlines on the size and number of aircraft in individual fleets and the operation of that fleet?

6. What will IAG look like in another quarter of a century and what strategic route will it have taken to get there?

Indeed it seems to me that so much is likely to change over more than a quarter of a century that any airline ordering a significant number of new aircraft must start with a sheet of blank paper, not with a listing of the current aircraft it operates, destinations it currently serves and a timetable of its flights. Concerns over likely future airport capacities in terms of both aircraft movements and passengers handled just complicate the decision process further.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 37710 times:

I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st, but if true I wonder what it means for the 787 orders in BA's fleet.

I can see 4 class OEW-heavy 788s being a good match for a few LHR flights e.g. Bermuda, Barbados (the old Concorde link) and a few of the smaller African countries, but what of the 789s?

Will they end up being deployed on the leisure routes from LGW mainly to southern US / Carribean where 9-abreast Y in a 787 will be acceptable, replacing the GE 772s? That would leave LHR as mainly 359 / 3510 / 779 / 388 territory, but would mark a change from BA's more normal approach of rotating 5 - 10 year old frames from LHR to LGW.

Or perhaps they will end up at Vueling on a similar basis to the SQ 787s going to Scoot.

[Edited 2013-04-02 04:58:12]

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 37589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 69):
I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st

If it's a joke, a lot of folks are in on it!   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinechiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 37550 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 69):
I am a little distrubed that this "news" surfaced on April 1st,

I am!
But it's nothing to make a joke of really.
I mean ... why wouldn't IAG make such an orders?
I would be like making an April joke of zero celsius temperatures in Norway in March.
  


User currently onlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 37512 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative

  

This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater. Boeing are exploiting the inherent advantages of having a larger cross section than the 350. Airbus aren't going to develop a new cross section sized between the 350 and the 380 just to compete with the 777-9X.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 46):
From what we know at this point the 777-9X will be
- using the same fuselage diameter as 777, but different materials
- stretch beyond the quasi double stretch of the current 777-300ER
- have a new huge wing with some regulatory challenge (span-wise)
- have new engine that are not at all derivatives of a know variant (but well within known thrust class)
- might have a new MLG ? how about rotation angle ?

Sounds more like a step from A310 to A330 than a step from 737NG to MAX !
So a lot of unknown, uncertainties on schedule

Its more than the step from A310 to A330 as they were all (conventional) alloy aircraft (you forgot to mention the 777X wing will be CRFP rather than alloy). The 777X program will have unknown's and uncertainties approaching those of a new program.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
One thing seems pretty obvious: The Y project according to which Boeing over a short period of time should have a new product lineup seems now a rather dead duck.

It does seem to lack any relevance now. Boeing have (almost) 1 out of 3 at the moment (787).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
Now, with a deticated -1000 assembly line Airbus should be able to output 60 to 80 units per year, 2 - 3 years before the 777X enters the market. Do the math.

I think any projected 777X EIS will be a fairly slippery target - no guarantee it will happen in this decade. 787-10 and 737 Max will be underway at the same time.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 37601 times:

If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement 


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 36787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 49):
It's very likely in the long-term that IB becomes an all-A350 operator. Given that, I really don't see BA operating as many variants and types as you're suggesting.

Well BA is going to operate the 787-8 and 787-9, so adding the 787-10 does not sound like a stretch. The 787-10 also is a strong fit for the "medium range missions" BA management has spoken about.

I agree IB will remain all-Airbus - their A330-300s are new enough to not need replacing for a decade or more and they will get the A350-900 to replace the A340-300 and the A350-1000 to replace the A340-600. If there are high-capacity missions that must have a four-holer, those passengers will fly from Spain to LHR and board a BA A380-800 for the trip.

As for the 777-9, it is possible that IAG is using it to secure better pricing and availability from Airbus for the A350-1000. But if their comments are truthful and they do believe it's an excellent fit for some of their current fleet, I would expect it to be a replacement for the 747-400s at BA (with the A380-800).


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 36554 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 66):

And most importantly of all:

Denial = Confirmation


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 35698 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Boeing will keep the core of the 777-9X market because A does not have a A350 alternative,
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater. Boeing are exploiting the inherent advantages of having a larger cross section than the 350. Airbus aren't going to develop a new cross section sized between the 350 and the 380 just to compete with the 777-9X.

I'd agree that the fact that the 777-9X is larger than the A350-1000 is Boeing's saving grace (and probably their only way of competing with the economics of a newly developed plane while still grandfathering the 777).
However, I'd point out that if Boeing can do a double-strech of the 777 with the 777-9X, Airbus can probably do something similar with the A350, to get an A350-1100 or whatever you want to call it.
Mind you, I'm not saying they will, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
Its more than the step from A310 to A330 as they were all (conventional) alloy aircraft

Just as a reminder - there were advances in aircraft technology even before the introduction of all-carbon-fibre planes.
And the scope of new technologies introduced between A300/A310 and A330/A340 is certainly comparable with what Boeing plan to do to go from 777-300ER to 777-9X.



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 offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 35362 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is the saving grace for Boeing and one of the reasons why the 777-9X is a 400 seater.

...based on 10 across in Y. BA have tried 10 across in the B777 and their market rejected it out of hand. I remain unconvinced Boeing are going to be able to carve out enough extra width to satisfy IAG.

I doubt they would try again, preferring 9 across and seat commonality / comfort with the rest of their long haul fleet.

Rgds

[Edited 2013-04-02 08:01:17]


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 33441 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 73):
If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement

I think that is ridiculous, utterly nonsense, and totally uncalled for . . . . surely the French and German politicians will be part of the party, if not organising it!



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 30963 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 78):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 73):If IAG are making such a large order for Airbus widebodies, I'm sure a few British politicians will try to muscle in on the announcement
I think that is ridiculous, utterly nonsense, and totally uncalled for . . . . surely the French and German politicians will be part of the party, if not organising it!

The British government is desperate to realign the economy towards manufacturing, and as one of the more successful sectors, aerospace has had plenty of ministerial visits...The A350 ticks plenty of boxes, RR engines, Airbus UK wings, GKN composites, and the chance to bask in the reflected glory  

The French and German politicians can wait until AF and LH order the A350 



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 30550 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...at this point EK ordering the 77X (in significant quantities) seems extremely likely.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s and take up their options for A380s to replace the last 744s. Having both 787, A350, 777 and A380 in their fleet doesn't sound very efficient.

But then you'd have a huge gap in capacity between the A35J (~350 seats) and the A380 (~500 seats). Putting too much emphasis on fleet commonality to the extent that you create huge capacity gaps like that can be just as inefficient from a cost perspective, as you may end up with many routes for which you don't have an ideal plane.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Then why order the 777-9? It would be smarter to order additional A350-1000s

And wait for the A350 double stretch.

It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 57):
Oh yes, they were goners. I wonder what these posters will have to say now since the A350-1000 clearly is picking up a lot of momentum.

They were, and always will be, a vocal minority of fanboys. No different than the above poster and several others, who are ironically jumping to predict the 77X's demise in this very thread.


This is a significant win for Airbus, and also for BA, as the 35J will be a great asset for their company going forward. However, the 77-9X should still be seen as a viable option, and I think they'll add it in the future as well....especially if the 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, which will join its fleet in the near future.


User currently offlinelebb757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 30223 times:

British: They should get the whole 787 family. 787-8s -9s and -10s would do a pretty decent job replacing 772s and 763s. The 7810s performance isn't that bad, so they should do just fine with most of the routes. As for the 744 replacement, I see some 779Xs coming since neither the a3510 nor the a388 have the right size.


Iberia:Although it is very likely that IB will end up going for the a350 as their long haul airplane, the 787 would be better for IB. 787-9s would be suitable for routes where either not much capacity is required or range is needed. The 7810s would work perfect for higher capacity routes to north America, the Caribbean and some African destinations. BTW, I'm pretty optimistic about the 787's hot-n-high performance!!


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7152 posts, RR: 57
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 30127 times:

I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia, allowing them to play the frequency or yield game on South American routes, and develop new markets in North America and Asia, alongside point to point services from Barcelona.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10047 posts, RR: 96
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 29961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

The A350 should be physically capable of being stretched to pretty much the same length as the 777 ...

I think a bigger issue is that it would end up like the 787-10.
The A350 airframe doesn't have the sheer weight capability of the 777. Yet  

Rgds


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 29927 times:

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...it's just too long to stretch that frame without sacrificing efficiency. (See A346).

Really.. You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350? Your A346 reference is bogus, the basic problem with the A346 was that it had 4 engines; it was way more efficient than the 744 which it was built to compete with but unfortunately it arrived at the same time as the The 777 and ETOPS.



BV
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The narrower diameter of the A340's fuselage required significant strengthening, which raised the OEW by a significant amount. Reference OEW for the A340-600 was 176t compared to 125t for the A340-300. Reference OEW for the 777-300ER, on the other hand, was 168t compared to 138t for the 777-200ER.

The A350's fuselage is narrower than the 777s, however reinforcing CFRP should be a fair bit lighter than reinforcing aluminum. As such, reference OEW for an A350-1100 compared to an A350-900 should be lower than for the 777, to say nothing of the A340.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29506 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

Hmmm...When did the A330/A340 come out? The A320? So going A340-200 to A340-300 to A340-500 and A340-600, or A330-200 to A330-300 to A330-300HGW, or A320 to A320 with Sharklets to A320NEO - these are not "tweakng"?

So since, what, 1990-ish, Airbus has launched TWO all-new programs, the A350 and the A380. And in the same time, Boeing has launched two all-new programs, the 777 and the 787. They also did Extreme Makeover - 737 Edition. back in the 90's.

Am I missing something?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.

Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 84):
Really.. You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350?

I won't argue the technical merits or lack thereof of either but the quantity of stretches as a generic number seems irrelevent. I would think there would be a certain element of proportionality that would play into such a comparison.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29336 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 84):
You can triple stretch a 777 but you can't double stretch an A350?

777 was stretched only once. 777-300 and -300ER share the same exact fuselage, as far as I know. The -9X would be second stretch.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):
But then you'd have a huge gap in capacity between the A35J (~350 seats) and the A380 (~500 seats).

BA had no issue with the "huge gap in capacity" between the 772 and 744 for many years.   

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 80):

It's pretty clear that a further stretch of the A350 beyond the A35J would not be feasible...

Why not? Boeing is perfectly able to double-stretch the narrower 787 and the wider 777, but Airbus can't do the same for a frame-width between? Maybe some wishful thinking?

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 82):
I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia

I don't see the A350 as being any less perfect for IB.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29228 times:

Quoting Carls (Reply 63):
I think we can hear something at the Paris Air Show.

Lets see I still have high hopes for LH ordering the 787-10X

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 82):

I agree that the 787 is perfect for Iberia, allowing them to play the frequency or yield game on South American routes, and develop new markets in North America and Asia, alongside point to point services from Barcelona.

A350-900 should do the job just as good as the 787.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 88):
BA had no issue with the "huge gap in capacity" between the 772 and 744 for many years.   

With that many 772 they had, they have rather send two 772 to NYC in an hour than one 777W  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10047 posts, RR: 96
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 29085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
The A350's fuselage is narrower than the 777s, however reinforcing CFRP should be a fair bit lighter than reinforcing aluminum. As such, reference OEW for an A350-1100 compared to an A350-900 should be lower than for the 777, to say nothing of the A340.

Don't forget that, like the 787, the A350XWB is an ovoid cross-section. So the actual fuselage height difference between the A350 and the 777 will be a lot less than the 10" difference between the widths.
The A350 is every bit as stretchable as the 777 in that respect.

But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28975 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

I can't see why an A350 couldn't bee double strecthed just like the 787, I put in another 8 frames to stretch with 5.1 meter to 77.3m and left everything else the same, ie the MTOW at 308t (which makes the engines OK as well at 97klbf). I raised the OEW with 7t to reflect the increased frame (to 160t which is ample and covers some of the rumored overweight), you now have a 400 pax frame that flies 7300nm spec range.

If 7100nm is the magic number for the 787-10 then 7300nm should be pretty usefull for a 400 pax A350-1100. Or you can start to up the MTOW (and engine thrust) to compensate. Up it to 320t and you have 8000nm range, should be pretty OK. The MLG is triple boogie and pretty tall (compared to the 787 which has tail clearance limiting the 787-10) so should be OK for a 77m bird weighing 320t (with a bit of beefing up for strenght). So the 777-9X could be given a run for it's money by Airbus if they wanted to, what says they don't design in this stretch already now, in fact all the changes to the engines for an additional 4klbf of thrust sound like RR is preparing bigger deeds going forward  Wow! .

Of curse Airbus don't start shouting about an -1100 right now, that is the best way to kill sales of a -1000 and making yourselves untrustworthy.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28924 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
The narrower diameter of the A340's fuselage required significant strengthening, which raised the OEW by a significant amount. Reference OEW for the A340-600 was 176t compared to 125t for the A340-300. Reference OEW for the 777-300ER, on the other hand, was 168t compared to 138t for the 777-200ER.

True but again misleading. Wing area increased on the A340-600 by 20% from 363-427 m2 over the A340-300 while wing area stayed the same on the 777-300ER over the 777-200ER. A significant amount of the A340-600 OEW increase was due to increased wing size.



BV
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28868 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.
Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

I'm not an Airbus fanboy   Boeing has lots of very capable and extremely hard working people working there. However, IMO Boeing also has some people in senior management I'm less impressed about. I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed... But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000. And I wonder how long EK's patience will be with the 777X. There is an article which says it will have a range of 8100nm, will that be enough for EK? I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO. And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.



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 offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28831 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):This, and it would only need 40 odd order from EK for additional A350-1000 to replace their first tranche of 77W's and the 777X is dead.
Ok, so people who predicted the demise/failure/"DOA" A350-1000 future were fanboys......what is this statement then?

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is

Even though it is MTOW limited, it would make an awsome people carrier for trans atlantic routes. Just as the 78J is going to be. Whilst I can see the appeal of the 8000nm+ ranges of the 35J/77X series of planes for some airlines and routes, a 78J & 35K with more capacity but 15-20% less range is a great solution to many routes. I feel the concept is sometimes looked upon with derision on this forum and I struggle to understand why. A fleet consisting of 789 & 78J brings massive comonality benefits whilst enablling the airline to right size/range an airframe to a route.

Anyone have an idea of range/payload of a 35K, seating capacity/cabin area?


User currently onlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 95, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28436 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is
I can't see why an A350 couldn't bee double strecthed just like the 787, I put in another 8 frames to stretch with 5.1 meter to 77.3m and left everything else the same, ie the MTOW at 308t (which makes the engines OK as well at 97klbf). I raised the OEW with 7t to reflect the increased frame (to 160t which is ample and covers some of the rumored overweight), you now have a 400 pax frame that flies 7300nm spec range.

Appreciate your effort here ferpe. Just one minor nitpick - Airbus show the length of the 35J to be 74.3 meters here and other sites give 73.9 meters. A 5 meter stretch would take the aircraft to 79 meters in length (assuming I have the correct numbers) - wouldn't this be pushing the boundaries somewhat ? Before ferpe's post I was going to ask where can you go from 74 meters ?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
Don't forget that, like the 787, the A350XWB is an ovoid cross-section. So the actual fuselage height difference between the A350 and the 777 will be a lot less than the 10" difference between the widths.
The A350 is every bit as stretchable as the 777 in that respect.

Thats an interesting point.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 94):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):But an A350-1100 would be MTOW limited for its size in its current guise, just as the 787-10 is
Even though it is MTOW limited, it would make an awsome people carrier for trans atlantic routes. Just as the 78J is going to be. Whilst I can see the appeal of the 8000nm+ ranges of the 35J/77X series of planes for some airlines and routes, a 78J & 35K with more capacity but 15-20% less range is a great solution to many routes. I feel the concept is sometimes looked upon with derision on this forum and I struggle to understand why. A fleet consisting of 789 & 78J brings massive comonality benefits whilst enablling the airline to right size/range an airframe to a route.

Another approach Airbus could take would be to just offer a lighter version of the 35J without any stretch (using 359 "bits") which would offer an aircraft of similar capabilies (could also do 400 pax in 2 classes) with far less development costs than a 350-1100. Its the same theme as the 787-10 which airlines appear to be very keen to acquire - why spend the development dollars if you don't need to ?


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 96, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28445 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 86):
Hmmm...When did the A330/A340 come out? The A320? So going A340-200 to A340-300 to A340-500 and A340-600, or A330-200 to A330-300 to A330-300HGW, or A320 to A320 with Sharklets to A320NEO - these are not "tweakng"?

So since, what, 1990-ish, Airbus has launched TWO all-new programs, the A350 and the A380. And in the same time, Boeing has launched two all-new programs, the 777 and the 787. They also did Extreme Makeover - 737 Edition. back in the 90's.

Am I missing something?

I'm talking about the here and now, the present, the day IAG sat down and compared the two OEMs' product line up. You are being disingenuous in trying to twist my comment into an historical statement, but if that's Boeing's line of defence, who am I to criticise. ::shrug::

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I'm not an Airbus fanboy   Boeing has lots of very capable and extremely hard working people working there. However, IMO Boeing also has some people in senior management I'm less impressed about. I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed... But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000. And I wonder how long EK's patience will be with the 777X. There is an article which says it will have a range of 8100nm, will that be enough for EK? I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO. And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I can only nod sadly in full agreement.

It's the bandaid on the A330 sketch coming full circle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_7k96DWjIY

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z192/PrimavistaGiantSchnauzers/Aircraft%20Archived%20Pics/381314_10151943669017925_1618829676_n1.jpg

Rgds



Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 97, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28398 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I'm not an Airbus fanboy

I don't mean to say that YOU are a fanboy. I am just asking how this comment is any different than the A351 DOA comments mentioned in this very thread as attributed to fanboys?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I don't need to mention how the 787 program was introduced and subsequently managed...

True.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO, first Boeing thought the 737NG could still compete until launch of the NSA. They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. But now, without an ATO for the 777X (and the 787-10X), Airbus is stealing away airlines like CX, QR, BA and probably JL and LH with their A350-1000.

I think you are once again looking through rose-colored glasses at the decision making process for Boeing. First, they have been very focused on the launch/issues with the 787. Second, they have been waying the 787-10X and the 777X programs to see if either/both should be launched. The former needed (ideally) to see the 787-8 get put into service so that they could get a better sense of the 10X's capabilities. They needed the 10X decision to be clearer so that they could properly position the 777X (if launched). And they needed to see where the A350-1000 was settling so that they had a better target or goal post.

Airbus stealing away some of these airlines is a foregone conclusion. Boeing did it with the 787 when it launched, stealing the likes of AC and NW at at time when the A330/A350 mk 1 were trying to slow the tide of orders and defections for the Dreamliner. There is a natural ebb and flow because it simply isn't possible or as easy of a decsion to launch a multi-billion dollar program. You want to be as certain as you can that you are making the best decision. The A350 went through that "finding itself" phase, ending up - ultimately - with the XWB. However, it wasn't exactly an easy process and at some points it was cringeworthy.

The end result - a clean sheet design - was uliimately the likely best option, but it isn't as if Airbus woke up the day after the Dreamliner was launched and said "Let there be XWB". To many of us at the time, it seemed like Airbus was having an internal war trying to figure out what to do - spend billions on a souped-up A330, or spend many billions (and many years) developing a clean sheet design. It was not an easy, quick, or clear-cut decision for Airbus, just as it isn't an easy, quick, or clear-cut decision for Boeing.

Ultimately, there are two truths IMHO: Boeing will lose sales campaigns prior to a launch, and there are many new(er) 777-300ER's flying the skies that won't be ready for replacement for many years. There will be order losses, but Boeing likely knows when the sweet spot for the replacement cycle will be happening and are fully planning ot have a product on the market to meet those needs.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
I also think EK will eventually order the 777X, but you must never have the arrogance to take for granted a customer will buy what you offer, look at AA and the NEO.

True, but can you honestly say that Boeing is being "arrogant" by not having launched the 777X yet?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I think Boeing has made many mistakes. However, the 787 saga has probably skewed to a degree our perception of the bigger picture. Had the 787 launched relatively smoothly and not gotten mired in all of the drama/problems to date, I think we would not be questioning the other program decisions as much. But it hasn't, and now every decision Boeing makes is cast in an uncertain or even negative light.

Personally, I am not thrilled with the 777X. I'd much rather see a clean sheet design, but it just isn't in the cards. The timeline would be pushing into the 20's and the cost would be huge. If they can spend 30% of the money and get 40% of the market at decent returns, that might just be enough to punt rather than go for the touchdown. This time.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineLeo467 From Switzerland, joined Jan 2013, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28373 times:

I fully agree!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
But even worse is that they seem not to learn from previous mistakes. Look at the slow reaction to the A320NEO... They were totally surprised by AA ordering hundreds of NEO's, resulting in a forced launch of the 737MAX. But Airbus had a 1,5 year lead by then.

And this after some arguably not too differing stories that helped Airbus to become such a strong competitor:

The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...

The reaction to the A380 with a hesitating offer of the 747X (!) around 2000, followed by a launch of the 747-8 almost 5 years later...

This is not ment to be Boeing bashing (and their "reaction" to the A340 proved to be extremely successful!), but I get the impression that a world leading company with great products repeadely puts itself in a difficult position by reacting late to moves of its key competitor. And they seem to make this mistake once more. The 350-1000 in its current form is out there: it's a clear threat to Boeings stronghold. It should not take orders from some of the biggest 777 customers to clearly formulate a response  In that sense - if it materializes (!) - an order from IAG/BA would really be a huge blow for them...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 99, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28245 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 95):
Airbus show the length of the 35J to be 74.3 meters here and other sites give 73.9 meters. A 5 meter stretch would take the aircraft to 79 meters in length (assuming I have the correct numbers) - wouldn't this be pushing the boundaries somewhat ?

That is overall length and the longest points are the nose and tips of HTP. The relevant parameter for cabin length and tail ground clearance is fuselage length, this I have as 72.3m and then 8 frames in addition where each frame is 0.635m (25'') makes it 77.3m. As for the cabin length and areas:

..........................................35J.........35K.......77W.......779
Cabin length m:................58.8........63.9.......59.3.......61.9
Cabin floorplan area m2:..320.........350........340........360

The 777X has the advantage of 10 abrest in Y which is why EK will always go for the 777-9X for the largest twin. For mainline carriers that does not accept that as a seating standard (BA might be one as posted above) the Airbus models would have an advantage.



Non French in France
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 100, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28206 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 96):
I'm talking about the here and now, the present, the day IAG sat down and compared the two OEMs' product line up. You are being disingenuous in trying to twist my comment into an historical statement, but if that's Boeing's line of defence, who am I to criticise. ::shrug::

Please don't accuse me of being disingenuous - there's really no need for that. I was simply replying to this:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 60):
It's history repeating itself and Boeing have only their complacent selves to blame.

Whilst one innovates, the other (with the exception of the Dreamliner) tweaks.

You said it was history repeating itself, which IMPLIES that we are referencing the past???

You implied that Airbus comes out with clean sheets while Boeing just tweaks, and I simply offered an illustration of how that isn't true. Sure, it might be true in the recent past, but these are 20-30 year programs. There are product cycles, market cycles, etc. It isn't as simple as throwing out clean sheets every few years. What's more, Boeing has been fantastically successful the past 10 years. Airbus? Absolutely, perhaps more so by most measures. At what cost would it be worth it for Boeing to "beat" Airbus and earn your respect? 50% more capital spending? 80%? Because frankly, there's apparently alot to be said for product lines full of "tweaked" products. Boeing is crying all the way to the bank.

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market.

Sigh. That was a quarter century ago. It was a novel idea at the time but ultimatey didn't pan out. So? Ironically, they looked at doing a clean-sheet, somewhat revolutionary design, which is apparently a bad thing to some, but instead chose to "tweak" the Classic into the NG, which is apparently a bad thing to others.

As my mom would say, "They can't win for losing".

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The reaction to the A380 with a hesitating offer of the 747X (!) around 2000, followed by a launch of the 747-8 almost 5 years later...

They were very clear that only one clean-sheet VLA was supported in the marketplace. When Airbus went solo, and there wasn't room for two clean sheets, the only two choices left were the 747X programs or doing nothing.

Does Airbus have a performance winner in the A380? Absolutely. Does Airbus have a financial winner in the A380? I guess that remains to be seen. Would either Boeing or Airbus have avoided losing billions if they had both launched clean sheet VLA's? Doubtful.

Boeing made the right choice to go slow in that segment. The 748i was clearly too little, too late. I doubt, though, that he wish they had gone clean sheet, as that would have hampered the 787 program.

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
(and their "reaction" to the A340 proved to be extremely successful!),

In other words, aside from their fantastic success with the 777 that prematurely killed the A340 (which apparently Airbus gets a PASS on in history), they are screw ups.

Got it.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 101, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28147 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 99):
The 777X has the advantage of 10 abrest in Y which is why EK will always go for the 777-9X for the largest twin. For mainline carriers that does not accept that as a seating standard (BA might be one as posted above) the Airbus models would have an advantage.

10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X, but what about the -8(L)X ? The A35J carries 350 pax in a 9 abreast cabin while the -8X carries 353 pax in a 10 abreast cabin. Which cabin should be 'better'?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 102, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28079 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):
10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X, but what about the -8(L)X ? The A35J carries 350 pax in a 9 abreast cabin while the -8X carries 353 pax in a 10 abreast cabin. Which cabin should be 'better'?

I see the 777-8X as a complement to the -9X, not as a competitive stand alone model re the A350-1000. There are to many compromises for this model, a bit like the A350-800. The wing and engine is sized for the -9X ie has a little to much drag and span for the -8X (it should be fine with a 65m wing and a 10% smaller engine) and the cabin is some 4-5 meters shorter then the -1000.



Non French in France
User currently offlinePC9 From Germany, joined Nov 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28080 times:

Quote from ferpe:

..........................................35J.........35K.......77W.......779
Cabin length m:................58.8........63.9.......59.3.......61.9
Cabin floorplan area m2:..320.........350........340........360


Interesting table. I wasn't aware that the cabin of the A350-1000 is shorter than that of the B77W. I thought because the A350-1000 and the B77W have the same overall length, the would also have the same cabin length.

Somehow Boeing seems to get 0,5 m more cabin length out of the same overall length. Does anyone know the reason for this?

[Edited 2013-04-03 02:44:15]

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 104, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28102 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):
10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X

Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 27786 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period.

No, Boeing's first reaction to the NEO was that they didn't need to re-engine, because the 737NG would be just as efficient as the NEO. Jaw-dropping.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I think you are once again looking through rose-colored glasses at the decision making process for Boeing. First, they have been very focused on the launch/issues with the 787. Second, they have been waying the 787-10X and the 777X programs to see if either/both should be launched. The former needed (ideally) to see the 787-8 get put into service so that they could get a better sense of the 10X's capabilities

The 787-8 is in service for 1,5 years now, and Boeing still doesn't know?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
They needed the 10X decision to be clearer so that they could properly position the 777X (if launched). And they needed to see where the A350-1000 was settling so that they had a better target or goal post.

Airlines have decided on multi billion orders for A350-1000s, so they must have a good idea what to expect. Specs for the A350-1000 have been clear for years: a 8000nm+ 350 seater 25% more efficient than the 77W. Airlines know these specs in far more detail, and so does Boeing. What are they waiting for? Design freeze? Flight testing? EIS? And there is always the possibility to adapt the final design after launch, like Airbus did with the A350-1000. Look at the 787-10X, recently Boeing found out it could boost the range to 7100nm. IMO, I don't think they had to postpone launch for that.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
You want to be as certain as you can that you are making the best decision.

True, but you can't wait too long. At some point you have to make a decision, and there will inherently be risks involved. But you can't bet on a horse after the race has finished.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Boeing likely knows when the sweet spot for the replacement cycle will be happening and are fully planning ot have a product on the market to meet those needs.

I hope so, because the market needs two strong manufacturers. But I'm not too confident.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):10 abreast is an advantage for the 777-9X
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.

That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.



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 offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 106, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27703 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.

It has been recognised that the company's main demographic base, i.e. Western European and North American, is increasing in both mass and size. The decision was therefore made not to go back and try 10 Y when the B77W came in.

If BA can make it pay, I can only see it becoming a marketing advantage in the future.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 107, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27604 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.

Is it a case of their passengers find it acceptable, or that their customers have few other viable options, or that the pricing is so advantageous to make the discomfort acceptable ?

BA operate in a very competitive environment with few monopolistic routes, on many of the most lucrative they have VS as a viable UK based alternative carrier. The airlines you quote don't share their home hubs.


User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 837 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27548 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped

This was quite a long time ago now, and as others have stated this is more common on other carriers. Just because it didnt work back then doesnt mean BA will never try it again. I see their dense Y config on the 787 (is it 3:3:3) evidence they are moving in this direction.

(Part of the reason it didnt work back then was because it was only exercised on the beach fleet and the product inconsistency made those pax feel they were less important. Having a higher config across the whole of a particular aircraft type will be more palatable as pax wont be complaining that they are being discriminated against).



We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27403 times:

Everybody, please don't overreact.
1 I haven't seen a p.o. yet. Everything said is speculating.
2 Even if IAG and JAL are going to order it is not the end of the world for the 77X. Boeing might as wel win some typical Airbus customers.
And even if all customers for now choose the A350XWB this will create a similar situation as with the A320NEO. Lead time to long, let's take the second choice.
As someone already stated: Boeing and Airbus cannot do without one another. And by the way: it would make this forum boring....



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 110, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):
The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...

The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans, but back when they did start development work, fuel was extremely cheap and therefore it saved no money.



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 104):
Its only an advantage if the passengers find it acceptable. As mentioned earlier BA tried 10 abreast on the 772 on its Carribbean leisure routes and their passengers voted with their feet and headed off to VS whose 10 abreast on the 744 was less cramped.

As I understand it, the 777X should have the same seat-cushion width as the 747 (with narrower aisles) so BA should be able to pull their World Traveller seats out of their 747-400s and install them into their 777-9s. So customers would notice no difference connecting from a 747-400 to a 777-9.


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 111, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26736 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans

Probably mounted at the rear of its fuselage.

Sorry, couldn't resist.  

Besides the business case vanishing with the price of fuel dropping, I thought that another problem with the 7J7 were those very fans, as the UDF concept had (and still has) its challenges in the area of cabin and outside noise. I also remember reading that, given the much higher revolution speeds of an UDF compared with a regular turboprop, containing blade-off events was a bit of a problem as well.



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 onlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 112, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26702 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
Quoting Leo467 (Reply 98):The proposed "game changing" 7J7 at the time the A320 was hitting the market. Hesitation and a stop of the project followed and it took major A320 orders from loyal boeing customers to come up with the 737NG almost 10 years later...
The 7J7 worked when fuel is expensive. If Boeing launched it now, it would probably find fans, but back when they did start development work, fuel was extremely cheap and therefore it saved no money.

McDonnell Douglas cancelled the MD-94X (which was very similar in concept to the Boeing 7J7) around the same time that Boeing cancelled the 7J7 - for much the same reasons that Stitch has outlined. The lack of airline interest was not unique to the Boeing project. A mere 5 or 10 years later and it could have been a different story.
Had either project succeeded then the implications for aviation could have been profound - particularly given that the 7J7 cross section is seen as highly desirable in today's world for Boeing's NSA.



Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-03 06:48:04]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 113, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting anfromme (Reply 111):
Besides the business case vanishing with the price of fuel dropping, I thought that another problem with the 7J7 were those very fans, as the UDF concept had (and still has) its challenges in the area of cabin and outside noise. I also remember reading that, given the much higher revolution speeds of an UDF compared with a regular turboprop, containing blade-off events was a bit of a problem as well.

That was indeed the case in the early stages of development, though GE was able to develop the GE36 to the point it could meet Stage III noise requirements and reduced the noise and vibration transmitted into the cabin by a significant amount.


User currently offlinesierra3tango From Bahrain, joined Mar 2013, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26467 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
That was then, but things change. AF, EK, EY, KL and apparently in future AC and LX have 10 abreast 77W's. And I probably forget a few more. Their passengers find it acceptable.



Having travelled a few times on 77W (in Y) operated by some of the airlines you quote, I and friends, family & colleagues avoid them like the plague; ie not acceptable; but we do use other aircraft operated by these airlines. Sometimes there isn't a choice so you have to put up with it. The few times I have suffered a 77W (10 across) have overheard comments like its "very cramped" or "very claustaphobic" etc etc

Once flew a BA 77W (with some on the above misgivings) 9 across in Y, it was a totally different experience. More than happy to pay a few more dollars just to avoid 10 across on a 77W on whatever airline


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1145 posts, RR: 13
Reply 115, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26341 times:

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 114):
The few times I have suffered a 77W (10 across) have overheard comments like its "very cramped" or "very claustaphobic" etc etc

Well, just to illustrate that it's not unanimous, my wife and I flew NZ's 10-across 77W a month ago, and it was fine. If I had any complaints it was related to seat pitch; the seat was about a half-inch too short front-to-back for comfort. I felt that I had enough side to side space and it didn't feel any more cramped or claustrophobic than any other widebody center section. My center section 744 experience some years back was *far* worse IMO.

Whether that's because I'm not as wide as some, or because I don't feel the need of extra space around me that isn't seat space, or because NZ just does 10-across better, I can't say.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinesierra3tango From Bahrain, joined Mar 2013, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26191 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 115):

Each to there own

Do understand your point about 747s, had a nighthmare flight on a DC10 decades ago which was 5 across in the centre section & guess who got the middle seat

Maybe slightly off topic but what happened to 'Thompson seating' or whatever it was called which proposed very slightly 'staggered' layouts in Y, thought Delta had done a deal with them. Maybe that might be the solution to my dislike of a 77W 10 across


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25880 times:

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 114):
Once flew a BA 77W (with some on the above misgivings) 9 across in Y, it was a totally different experience. More than happy to pay a few more dollars just to avoid 10 across on a 77W on whatever airline

BA might have elected to stick with 9 abreast, but they've skimped on just about everything else to do with the new product. The armrests only go up halfway, the seats lack lumbar support, the headrests are completely useless and the IFE feels cheap and tacky compared with what the competition offers. I was very underwhelmed given that this is BA's first update in Y in almost 20 years.

Personally, I'd prefer to have the extra 2-3" of pitch that EK offers over the extra 1" of width that BA offers but, like you say, each to their own...


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 118, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25720 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 89):
With that many 772 they had, they have rather send two 772 to NYC in an hour than one 777W

I think you will find that they send 7x daily 744 and 1x 772 to JFK . . . can't get much more seats out of available slots.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 93):
And now the 777X, an airplane they should have launched over a year ago. But no, Boeing hesitates, probably thinking they have enough time, the A350-1000 wasn't selling, EK will wait for us. . . . And there is where I think Boeing is making the same mistake again.

I think you are overanalysing here. I think what we see here is the fall out from the 787 disaster. The program is running four years late (not to mention the 747-8 delays), which tied up an enormous amount of engineering resources. Also, because of this mess, Boeing is pretty much re-engineering the 789 from square one, tying up even more engineering resources.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
First, the A320NEO was a no-brainer. A 737MAX? Not so much. Were the 737 platform as well-suited to the new powerplants going onto the NEO, it would have launched at almost the same time. Instead, Boeing was left with a tougher decision: Spend a few billion more than AIrbus for a less-optimal solution, or spend many billions more than Airbus creating an all new narrowbody? It wasn't as clear cut of a decision as Airbus had. Period

Again, engineering resources required for the NSA were pretty much tied up in 787 engineering. That delayed the EIS (and associated production ramp up) to such an extent that for some crucial customers it was no longer worth the wait to get their hand on decent number of slots, and they were more and more considering to accept NEO slots for 2018 and later.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
True, but can you honestly say that Boeing is being "arrogant" by not having launched the 777X yet?

No; they have no choice. If the 737MAX is scheduled for EIS 2017-ish, then there is not much margin left for 777X to EIS this decade, engineering resource wise. Don’t underestimate the vast amount of work (some call it extreme make over) on both the upcoming 737 and 777.

While I don't doubt the 787 will become a very successful program eventually (especially the -9 and -10X), the fall out of this program mess may hurt Boeing for many years to come.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1354 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25606 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 91):
Of curse Airbus don't start shouting about an -1100 right now, that is the best way to kill sales of a -1000 and making yourselves untrustworthy.



And probberbly the best reason: They don't have to untill Boeing is firm and locked on their eventual 779x offering. But two days later   


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 120, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25655 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 117):
BA might have elected to stick with 9 abreast, but they've skimped on just about everything else to do with the new product. The armrests only go up halfway, the seats lack lumbar support, the headrests are completely useless and the IFE feels cheap and tacky compared with what the competition offers. I was very underwhelmed given that this is BA's first update in Y in almost 20 years.

I flew on the BA 77W from HKG-LHR in Y and had a very different experience:

- First of all the headrests are not headrests, they are neckrests and in the new Y seats they are meant to be placed in the crook of the neck in order to support the head and back more effectively. If you use it properly, it is actually very comfortable and it made me laugh to see the number of people trying to use it like a traditional headrest. Besides, there are instructions in the High Life Magazine as to how to use it.

- The IFE was great compared to what was there before. The fact it has its own brochure (High Life just doesn't have enough information) is testament to this. I also found it easy to use and liked how you could operate it touch screen or with the controller.

- As I recall there was an element of lumbar support for for this to be effective you need to use the neckrests properly.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlinesierra3tango From Bahrain, joined Mar 2013, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25429 times:

Haven't we got so far off topic (not totally blameless myself) that the thread title should be changed?

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 122, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25383 times:

Please understand in my replies that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply see it different:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
No, Boeing's first reaction to the NEO was that they didn't need to re-engine, because the 737NG would be just as efficient as the NEO. Jaw-dropping.

Again - not to belabor the point - Boeing didn't have a "no-brainer" option like Airbus did in the A320NEO. I fully expect that they had a pretty good idea of what the NEO would be capable of and their "denial" was more out of necessity than true belief. In other words: They were stalling. We saw something similar when the 787 was launched with the A330. It went from it would be fully capable of competing, to A350 mk 1, to where we ended up with a clean sheet design. This evolution happened as carrier after carrier after carrier orderd scores upon scores of 787's. For reference (and for context in regards to your comments about Boeing):

Airbus initially rejected Boeing's claim that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner would make it a serious threat to the Airbus A330, stating that the 787 was just a reaction to the A330, and that no response was needed. When airlines pushed Airbus to provide a competitor, Airbus initially proposed the A330-200Lite, a simple derivative of the A330, which would feature improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[9] The company planned to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[9]

On 16 September 2004, then-Airbus president and CEO Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project during a private meeting with prospective customers.[9] Forgeard did not give a project name, and he did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. The airlines were not satisfied, and Airbus committed €4 billion to a new airliner design.[9] The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines and a horizontal stabiliser were to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage to make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[9] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer (ATO)", and formally named it the A350.[9][10]

On 13 June 2005 at the Paris Air Show, Middle Eastern carrier Qatar Airways announced that they have placed an order for 60 A350s. In September 2006 the airline signed an memorandum of understanding with General Electric to launch the GEnx-1A-72 for the aircraft.[11][12][13] Emirates decided against placing an order for the initial version of the A350 because of weaknesses in the design,[14][15] but has since ordered A350 XWBs.[16]

On 6 October 2005, full industrial launch of the programme was announced with an estimated development cost of around €3.5 billion.[9] This version of the A350 was planned to be a 250- to 300-seat twin-engine wide-body aircraft derived from the design of the existing A330. Under this plan, the A350 would have modified wings and new engines, while sharing the same fuselage cross-section as its predecessor. As a result of a controversial design, the fuselage was to consist primarily of Al-Li, rather than the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage on the 787. It was to see entry in two versions: the A350-800 capable of flying 8,800 nmi (16,300 km) with typical passenger capacity of 253 in 3-class configuration and the 300-seat (3-class) A350-900 with 7,500 nmi (13,900 km) range. It was designed to be a direct competitor to the 787-9, and 777-200ER.[9]

Airbus faced almost immediate criticism on the A350 project from the heads of two of their largest customers, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) and GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS). On 28 March 2006, in the presence of hundreds of top airline executives, ILFC President Steven F. Udvar-Hazy lambasted Airbus' strategy in bringing to market what they saw as "a Band-aid reaction to the 787", a sentiment that was echoed by GECAS president Henry Hubschman. Udvar-Hazy called on Airbus to bring a clean-sheet design to the table, or risk losing most of the market to Boeing.[17][18] Several days later Chew Choon Seng, then CEO of Singapore Airlines (SIA), made a similar comment: "Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail, cockpit" and adding advanced new materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage."[19] At the time, SIA was reviewing bids for the 787 and A350. Airbus responded by stating they were considering improvements for the A350 to satisfy customer demands.[20] At the same time, Airbus' then-CEO Gustav Humbert suggested that there would be no quick fixes: "Our strategy isn't driven by the needs of the next one or two campaigns, but rather by a long-term view of the market and our ability to deliver on our promises."

[edit] Redesign and launch

On 14 July 2006, during the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus announced that the redesigned aircraft would be called A350 XWB (Xtra-Wide-Body).[22] There was some previous speculation that the revised aircraft would be called the Airbus A370 or A280, with Airbus going as far as accidentally publishing an advertisement referring to the model as the "A280" on the Financial Times's website. Within four days, Airbus achieved their first sale of the re-designed A350 when Singapore Airlines announced an order for 20 A350XWBs with options of a further 20. CEO Chew Choon Seng said that "it is heartening that Airbus has listened to customer airlines and has come up with a totally new design for the A350."[23]


So, two years of denial, then warm-over, then redesign, then clean-sheet. Were Airbus arrogant? Were they stupid? Or were they in a tough spot where it was not an easy decision? I tend to think the latter. Ditto for Boeing.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
The 787-8 is in service for 1,5 years now, and Boeing still doesn't know?

I guess I don't understand. Do you think it's THAT EASY to make these investment, engineering, and marketing decisions? Becausse to me, I would think that there are many moving parts and it takes time for the final vision to gel. Some of that will come about from understanding the technical aspects more, some will come about from understanding the product positioning more, and some will come about from suffering some decisive loses in the order competition.

Frankly, in a 20-30 year product cycle, 18 months is simply not that critical of a timeframe. For example, the 787 was launched in January, 2003, with the launch customer order coming in April, 2004. It was over two years before the XWB was launched. Looking back, does it even seem to have mattered? Doesn't it seem like the proverial blip on the radar screen? To me, the time between the two is irrelevent compared to the actual final product. That's where I have more concern for the 777X, not the 18 months thing.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
Airlines have decided on multi billion orders for A350-1000s, so they must have a good idea what to expect. Specs for the A350-1000 have been clear for years: a 8000nm+ 350 seater 25% more efficient than the 77W. Airlines know these specs in far more detail, and so does Boeing. What are they waiting for? Design freeze? Flight testing? EIS? And there is always the possibility to adapt the final design after launch, like Airbus did with the A350-1000. Look at the 787-10X, recently Boeing found out it could boost the range to 7100nm. IMO, I don't think they had to postpone launch for that.

I don't think that's a fair statement. The A350-1000 (the bird we're talking about here) has evolved over that time. We have NOT known the specs for years - at least not the true, final result specs. There was plenty of speculation and apprehension on the performance claims of the aircraft, and IIRC there have been plenty of "tweaks" to the product up untilthe past 19 months or so. I don't think Boeing could spend a whole heck of a lot of time and money on the 777X until they had a pretty solid idea of what it needed to beat. Now they know and now they are "tweaking" their 7810X and 777X to get them ready for launch. I doubt this happens overnight.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
True, but you can't wait too long. At some point you have to make a decision, and there will inherently be risks involved. But you can't bet on a horse after the race has finished.

The A350XWB was two years in the making post-787 launch customer order. How'd that work out for them?

And, again, 18 months or even 36 months in the grand scheme of things is simply not going to kill a program like this, particularly when Boeing are primarily focused on a market segment that is still in it's replacement cycle infancy. IMHO.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 105):
I hope so, because the market needs two strong manufacturers. But I'm not too confident.

Boeing may screw the pooch, so to speak, but it won't be because they waited too long to launch the 787-10X or the 777X. It will be because those products simply aren't compelling. 18 months won't change that outcome, one way or the other.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 123, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25341 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
And probberbly the best reason: They don't have to untill Boeing is firm and locked on their eventual 779x offering. But two days later

True, and as a derivative of the A350, it would be a much easier product to engineer and launch than what the 777X is trying to do right now. It will also be less risky.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 121):
Haven't we got so far off topic (not totally blameless myself) that the thread title should be changed?

Guilty as charged. I applaud the potential order of the A350 by IAG - that we have to stomp on the products and decisions of Boeing for icing on the cake is just frustrating.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7545 posts, RR: 17
Reply 124, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24971 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 77):
...based on 10 across in Y. BA have tried 10 across in the B777 and their market rejected it out of hand

The three high density 772s operated in BA livery had their origins back in April 1995 when BA sold Caledonian Airways to package tour operator Inspirations. BA converted one of the former BCal DC-10 30s (G-NIUK) to a two-class high-density configuration (J32 / M279) and contracted Caledonian Airways to operate it in Caledonian Airways livery between LGW and NAS/GCM, SJU and TPA. This arrangement was terminated by BA after two years on 30 March 1997. From that date a not dissimilar arrangement with Airline Management Ltd (AML) came into force.

AML was a joint venture between BA and Flying Colours. The single DC-10, now back in BA livery, was flown by a BA flight crew. The cabin crew were from Flying Colours Airlines but they wore BA uniforms.

After one year the AML operation was expanded in March 1998 with the addition of two more former BCal DC-10 30s (G-BDHH and 'HI) to their fleet in the same high density configuration. New destinations, CUN, KIN, MBJ, POP and TOB, were added.

In February and March 1999 the three DC-10 30s operated by AML were replaced by three brand new 772s, (G-VIIO, 'IP and 'IR) whose cabins had been configured by Boeing before delivery for up to 383 passengers (J28 / M355) with the Economy Class seats arranged 3 - 4 - 3.

The arrangement with AML was terminated in April 2000 and the three aircraft were returned to BA. Over the next couple of months their cabins were reconfigured with 337 seats (J42 / M292 plus three crew rest seats). The Economy Cabin seats were now arranged 3 - 3 - 3. So they were in service with 10 abreast Economy Class seats for just over a year and actually operated by BA in this configuration for just a few weeks at the start of Summer Season 2000.

By the start of the Summer 2005 Timetable and following the launch of their World Traveller Plus cabin, BA again reconfigured the three holiday-route 772s . Now they were fitted with seats for up to 280 passengers (J40 / W24 / M219) with three crew rest seats. This configuration is very close to that of three-class BA Main Line 772s that are configured J48 / W24 / M203. It seems to reflect the Future Size and Shape programme announced by BA in early 2002.

I am guessing that the formation of AML was because BA were not happy to loose a profitable Caribbean tourist business when they sold Caledonian Airways. The later upgrading of these three aircraft plus the addition of a fourth (G-VIIT) that was transferred from BA's Main Line Fleet in November 2005, suggests that their change from a 10 abreast to a 9 abreast Economy Cabin was, as suggested above and in other Replies in this thread, a wise move.

I conclude that it is probably unlikely that ten-abreast seating will be reintroduced by BA at anytime in the near or medium term future.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8376 posts, RR: 7
Reply 125, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IAG just excercised optios of 18 787 for its BA unit. What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

User currently offlineflashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 126, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
It is a pity that B planning seems to be controled by the bean counters and not by the markets needs and Bs strategic planning department.

It is indeed a shame, but it was entirely predictable: some have said that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money, and much of the McD executive culture prevailed. McD was entirely controlled by bean counters where Boeing was more a company of engineers prior to the merger.

Since then? We've had:
- 787, where the bean counting resulted in laughable delays and program mismanagement
- 748, where the economics simply weren't there for a new derivative (hello, MD11?)
- and now, 777X, where we once again see the bean counters opting for the low-risk approach and reusing existing platforms, while the market is gravitating toward the innovator. Innovation means risk. They go hand in hand.

Yes, reusing the platform over and over and over and over has worked well for the DC-9 and the 737. Both of those are quite different beasts than 747 and 777. Boeing is now in a situation where they have only one leading widebody aircraft (787) and that lead is fraught with the knock on effects of delay after delay and design questions to boot.

This is what happens when you lead with bean counting. It leads to becoming irrelevant.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 127, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
IAG just excercised optios of 18 787 for its BA unit.

It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

Well, it must do something because an increasing number of airlines have ordered both.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 128, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24294 times:

Looks like it's shopping week at IAG's office. Let the fuel efficient 787 and A350 aircraft come in  
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

Carry more pax over the same range.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 127):
It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

Likely yes.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10047 posts, RR: 96
Reply 129, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 125):
What is it the A350-90 does a 787-9 can't ?

The same thing a 787-9 can do that a 787-8 can't?

Rgds


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20647 posts, RR: 62
Reply 130, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24203 times:

What is this?

British Airways parent IAG, Boeing reach deal on 18 Dreamliners

Quote:

IAG said it is also talking with Boeing on the commercial conditions for an order of 747s for Iberia, adding the carrier had first to complete its restructuring to rein in costs.


(My bolding.)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 131, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23780 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 122):
Please understand in my replies that I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply see it different:

It was a post well formulated and with good viewpoints, appreciate it.   

My meaning re Boeing's handling of the situation has less to do with their present situation re possible ways forward and their resource constrains, I take issue with their inconsistent communication. It can not be easy for their customers to know where to place Bs programs when their then Commercial Airplanes CEO (Albugh Q2 last year) says "we will take our 787-10 and 777X decisions this year with a planned availability for...and 777X end of decade". Then he leaves and a few months later the CEO backpedals in Q3 telco saying "we wont decide anything during 2012 and when we decide in 2013 we will see and by the way the 777X we might bring to market 2019 but could also be past 2020", then this gets reversed by BA marketing and CEO a couple of month later again saying "we have always said end of decade".

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 130):
British Airways parent IAG, Boeing reach deal on 18 Dreamliners

What they order of -8 or -9 today can be made up to be -10 by the day it is officially launched.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 132, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 23076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 127):
It's significant that IAG has converted these options now and not waited for -10s. I think that nails on the A350-900s & -1000s at BA.

I am quite confident that BA has the option to option the 787-10 with those options.

(Say that one three times fast!)


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 22857 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
I am quite confident that BA has the option to option the 787-10 with those options.

Wouldn't it make for sense for them to stay 787-8? Airbus have nothing to match it.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 134, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 22821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 133):
Wouldn't it make for sense for them to stay 787-8? Airbus have nothing to match it.

I suppose it depends on how BA wants to handle their 767-300ER replacements. They have 8 787-8 on order and those seat 25 more (11 CW | 1 WT+ | 13 WT) than their three-class 767-300ER. How many of their 767-300ERs are in the "single class" (252 or 259 seat) configuration and has BA made mention of what, if any, plans they have to replace them?

At a single-class 9-abreast config, the 787-8 seats 375 - a 116-seat jump from the UK Domestic configuration. And if they block the center seat of each row for Club Euro and have that cabin extend from Door1 to Door 2, that would be 348 seats - 86 more than the 767-300ER in Club Euro and Euro Traveller.

The articles also mention the 787s would be used for 747-400 replacement - a 787-10 should be able to fit 14 F | 48 CW | 40 WT+ | 158 WT for a total of 260 seats so it would work as a "Low-J" replacement in terms of premium cabin seating, but not in Economy. It does offer a nice bump (almost 25%) in World Traveller seating compared to the 224 seat 777-200ER, however.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 135, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 22675 times:

Here is a link to a more sensible description of the conversion of options:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...787-order-with-iberia-set-for-more

It makes it clear that it is a conversion of options to an upspecified 787 variant and is for 747 replacement in the BA arm and that the fuel efficient 787 might also go in a replace appropriate frames on the Iberia side once they get themselves sorted. There is not mention of a 748, this is a hoax.

As it is for replacing 747 one might suspect this is for the -10 once launched, nice for B with the first orders for the -10, their organization can need some good news.



Non French in France
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 29
Reply 136, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22616 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 131):
What they order of -8 or -9 today can be made up to be -10 by the day it is officially launched.

Plenty of flexibilty, and totally compatible with a 359-3510 order.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBlueLight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22582 times:

I refuse to fly any carrier in Y class that puts 10 abreast. I fly 15 to 18 times per annum from SIN to DPS, and I pay the extra $120 to $170 R/T it costs to fly a 9 abreast 777 on QR vs. KLM.

The problem for Boeing at this point is that across every category, the "standard" layout for all Airbus aircraft will now have wider seats than Boeing. And yes, please, before then bleating like stuck pigs whining about how seats are dictated by airlines, Airbus is actively marketing their position as being the "comfort" manufacturer.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 138, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22567 times:

A 787-10 and A350-1000 combination seems to be a good choice for BA and IB


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 139, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22480 times:

Tweets from Jon Ostrower:

"British Airways has 2 yrs to select a model for the 18 787s, could point to 787-10X launch. IAG says these 787 will replace "some" 747-400s."

"British Airways flies its 747-400s with ~290-350 seats, 787-10 would notionally seat ~320. A350-1000 also seen as 747-400 replacement."

"Q: in addition to a350s recently reported? // Yep, the A350 order is seen as "done deal."

So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 140, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22252 times:

If true, the future BA long haul fleet could look like this:

A380-800
777-9X
A350-1000
787-10
787-9
787-8

777-9X fits quite nicely between A350-1000 and A380 capacity-wise. Note that in BA's configuration it would most likely carry around 300 - 350 passengers.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22248 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
"British Airways has 2 yrs to select a model for the 18 787s, could point to 787-10X launch. IAG says these 787 will replace "some" 747-400s."
Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.

Hmm, to be honest, these additional 787s make it even less likely BA will ever order the 777X IMO. But who knows, stranger things have happened  

There is a separate thread about IAG's decision to order more 787s: IAG Order 18 More 787 For BA (by seansasLCY Apr 3 2013 in Civil Aviation)



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 offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 142, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22066 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 135):
It makes it clear that it is a conversion of options to an upspecified 787 variant and is for 747 replacement in the BA arm and that the fuel efficient 787 might also go in a replace appropriate frames on the Iberia side once they get themselves sorted. There is not mention of a 748, this is a hoax.

As it is for replacing 747 one might suspect this is for the -10 once launched, nice for B with the first orders for the -10, their organization can need some good news.

Thanks for the additional information. I retake my words, this seems like a strong hint towards the 787-10X.

This is also interesting:

"Source says a 787-10X could be 30% more fuel efficient per seat than the 747-400s they would replace." - Jon Ostrower



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11724 posts, RR: 33
Reply 143, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22046 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 139):
So it will be 787-10 and 350-1000 which replaces the 747 and 777 then for quite some time. Eventually the 777X might come into play as well. Interesting mix.

But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21961 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):
But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.

People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-CPH (320-BA), VXO-BMA (S20-TF), ARN-CPH (738-SK), CPH-LHR (320-BA)
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21867 times:

787-10 is ideal for US east coast where BA requires frequency over capacity.

350s can be used on longer routes where capacity and range and maybe freight are more important


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21787 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):
But still, those 18x 787 and 25x A350 are still not enough to replace the whole 744 and 772 fleet, even if you add the current A380's on order.

Are we sure the initial order for A350 will only be 25? I've missed that somewhere in this thread, thought the number would be higher.

Furthermore, the news that IAG has reserved 787 slots for IB,to be ordered "once restructuring measures for the Spanish unit take hold", makes me wonder if IAG will already place an A350 order for IB now. Replacement of A343s (with 787s) seem more urgent than replacement of A346s (with A350s), or are the A330s just a short term solution, and will those be replaced by 787s eventually?



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 offlineLeo467 From Switzerland, joined Jan 2013, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21735 times:

What I really like is their "2 years to select the type". If they manage to negotiate a similar paragraph for part of their A350 order (/options). This would give IAG quite some flexibility to finalize their choice between the 78J/359 once they have a better picture on both planes (ATO/timing/specs on 78J; operational data on 359). Any "unused" orders could still be "used" for both carriers on additional 789 and 3510....

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21615 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 144):
People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!

They said last week that they were not interested in further A380s


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 149, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21681 times:

I posted over a year ago stating that BA would order the A35J to replace the vast majority of the 747 fleet only to be flamed to death by the Boeing brigade. And they still may have a point, as one of the justifications I made for BA going with the A350 was engine commonality with a possible future A380-900.

This isn’t unprecedented, BA has shown in the past its preference to have similar engines on multiple frames; such as the 767’s and 747’s. I can see the A389 fitting nicely on some of BA’s more congested routes…

So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

The 787's will be used to replace the 767's - I don't see any advantage in using the stretched frames to replace traditional 747 routes - These imho will be the sole domain of Airbvus with the A350 and A380.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 150, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 21517 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 148):
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 144):People have failed to mentioned that BA is likely to top up its A380 order in the future to cover the higher capacity routes. It's a no-brainer really!
They said last week that they were not interested in further A380s

They also said they were very interested in the 777X   
IIRC, BA said they were not likely to order further A380s, but it wasn't ruled out (and BA still has 7 options).

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
one of the justifications I made for BA going with the A350 was engine commonality with a possible future A380-900

There is no hint of an imminent launch of an A380-900, let alone of its available engines. Might be T-XWB's, but also modernized T-900s, and why not derated GE-9x's? Would surely improve the GE9x ROI, and certainly EK would like such an option...



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 offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 151, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 21433 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 149):
So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21335 times:

:
So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

That statement suggests that it would not be worthwhile for Airbus to launch such an aircraft if so few airlines could use it...

[Edited 2013-04-04 03:50:24]

User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 453 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21324 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):
They also said they were very interested in the 777X

Well, that they may still be, as A350-1000 and 779X wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):
IIRC, BA said they were not likely to order further A380s, but it wasn't ruled out (and BA still has 7 options).

  
They didn't rule it out, they just didn't see any additional orders in the short-to-medium term. Which is fair enough given they have yet to take delivery of their first A380.



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 offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 154, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21206 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 152):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 150):So flame away…. But there is no denying what a CASM beast the A389 would be with the TrentXWB's.... and BA is certainly only of the few airlines which would be able to utilize such a frame.

That statement suggests that it would not be worthwhile for Airbus to launch such an aircraft if so few airlines could use it...

Wasn't my quote...



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 offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2942 posts, RR: 26
Reply 155, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21101 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 151):
But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

British Airways have 7 options which they will certainly exercise, in addition to the 12 on order.

You contradict yourself with your own statement. On the one hand, you suggest that BA "were not interested in any more A380s," though then go on to say that BA "were primarily looking at long haul twins."

Primarily: Definition - For the most part.

Accepting that the B748-i has been eliminated from all future considerations, the only alternative to long haul twins for the remainder of the fleet overhaul, however small, is therefore going to be the A380, be it the A388 or the almost inevitable A389.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 156, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21004 times:

It is a fallacy to believe these two orders (787 and A350) represents to sum total of replacements for the present BA long-haul fleet, or that it shuts the door on any present and near-future long-haul options (apart from the B748). BA, like e.g. LH, has a tradition of placing orders in batches. This order will be followed by another one a few years down the line, probably for a similar number of frames.

What we can say, with a plausible degree of certainty, is that at present the future fleet of BA will look like this:

A380
A351
A359
B789
B788

There may well be a place in the mix for a 777X and a -10, then again there might also be more of the same or even something newer. We will known when BA publishes its next order for long-haul aircraft.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7152 posts, RR: 57
Reply 157, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 20982 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 151):

But this goes against BA's statement saying they were not interested in any more A380's and were primarily looking at long haul twins for future replacements.

They were not interested at the moment.



The world is really getting smaller these days