Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-900 Vs. B787-10  
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 40060 times:

It seems likely that Boeing will launch the B787-10X at the Paris airshow next week. From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

It seems unlikely to me that the B787-10X can really be so incredibly more efficient compared to the A350-900. After all the A350 is brand new. I realize that the A350 is designed to be "more aircraft" i.e. more range and heavier. However, I wonder if Boeing is not being honest with us in much the same way that they claim the B737 is much more efficient than the A320 (Which is BS).

When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 737 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 40016 times:

Boeing will give a scenario that benefits them, as would Airbus. It is too early to tell what the -10 will offer compared to something that has only flown one time. I'm not sure but I dont really think the -10 is a competitor to -900. The -9 is its rival right?? I may be wrong?

User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5366 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 39917 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 1):
I'm not sure but I dont really think the -10 is a competitor to -900.

The 787-10 will have a similar (320) number of pax in a 3-class layout to the A300-900 (314).

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
It seems unlikely to me that the B787-10X can really be so incredibly more efficient compared to the A350-900. After all the A350 is brand new.

Well, remember that the A350 wasn't intended to advance the technology as much as Boeing was trying to do; it was supposed to be more-conservative, and a little bit of a bet that Boeing would fall on its face.

For example, it doesn't have bleedless engines, and it doesn't use full CFRP barrels.

Remember that, first, Leahy said that the 787 would just be catching up with the A330, so no changes at all were necessary. Then he said that, well, the A330 could just be reengined with whatever advanced engine technology (short of bleedless) was coming along. Then, there was the A350 design that was basically an Al-Li A330. Then there were the new wings and tail and stuff, but with the A330 body. Finally, there was the so-called XWB body, which is 5" wider than the 787 (enough to shoehorn an extra coach seat into), but 11" narrower than the 777. (Gotta love Leahy; he knows how the dimwits will report his marketing spin to the public: I still remember seeing CBS News reporting at launch time that this aircraft would be unique because of its "extra-wide body". ) Of course, the public doesn't buy airplanes, airlines do, and they know the fuselage width of their aircraft. The public, poor things, wouldn't realize that the extra fuselage width will actually result in producing less shoulder width per passenger.)

[Edited 2013-06-15 16:51:45]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 39881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-10 should be many tons lighter in empty weight than the A350-900 and should have engines with similar SFC. It will also seat about 18 more passengers as the cabin looks to be about two meters longer. Both will help it's CASM vis--a-vis the A350-900.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 39812 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
After all the A350 is brand new.

So since the 787-10 has not yet been designed nor built that makes it what, old....  
Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
I realize that the A350 is designed to be "more aircraft" i.e. more range and heavier.

So does that mean that the 77E is more efficient that the lighter A330?

Too early for this thread, let's wait and see the final specifications of the 787-10 then we can do comparisons to the A350 prototype which should have some flight time under its belt.


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 39738 times:

Looks to me the 78J will really be a perfect A333 replacement and the A359 the same for the 77E/L.

I'm liking that Boeing and airbus are not directly competing with their 787 and A350 offerings thus giving airlines more options.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 39452 times:

Does anyone know what the difference in range is supposed to be? The 787-10 is supposed to have less range than the A359.

The 10% number has to be distorted, perhaps in some scenario that favors the 787-10. That seems like a big number considering that the 788 has a 20% advantage over the 767 (presumably the 762, a not particularly efficient aircraft).


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 39382 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

This is not unlike saying that the A330-300 has more than 10% lower CASM than the 777-200LR. The same tricky assumptions apply, and the resulting conclusions have the same (dubious) validity.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39262 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
Does anyone know what the difference in range is supposed to be?

Going by published brochure ranges with just passengers and baggage aboard, the A350-900 will fly about 1000nm farther than the 787-10 (8100nm vs. 7100nm).


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39154 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

For what it is worth the A359 has a MTOW some 13t more than the 7100nm 787-10 yet its max fuel load is only 9t more . On the face of it , this suggests a somewhat higher OEW for the A359.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9829 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39008 times:

The A333 has similar efficiency benefits over the 772LR on flights under 4000 miles, so I don't see a reason why the 787-10 can't be more efficient on shorter routes due to its lower weight. They fill somewhat different needs. I think a 777x and a350-1000 could have similar differences. It is all about the wing and weight of the plane. Different airplanes are optimized for different missions. The A320 and 737 are unique in that the are so close to parity. The wide body market is a bit different so it is genuinely possible to show one wide body as significantly better than the other for the purpose of marketing.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 38974 times:

I guess the engineers and designers can go home. Arguing over paper airplanes.   


Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 38818 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 5):
Looks to me the 78J will really be a perfect A333 replacement and the A359 the same for the 77E

I think this is a good characterization.

The 787-10 should be lighter while carrying more passengers (in most configurations) and more cargo. The 359 should have a distinct range advantage and cabin comfort while having similar SFC but its hard to say one frame is this % better than another especially this far in advance.

I think the more important question is which aircraft is ideal for which route structure and an airline's cabin preferences. For example the A350 could have a cost advantage on a medium length route if the airline chooses to fit the 787 with 8 abreast like JAL and ANA do (and probably SQ/CX would).

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 38518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 11):
I guess the engineers and designers can go home. Arguing over paper airplanes.  

If the A350-900 is a paper airplane, she just set a world record for length of flight from a toss yesterday.  


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 38382 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

It will almost certainly be an apples to oranges comparison because there are so many variables for the marketeers to play with

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
For what it is worth the A359 has a MTOW some 13t more than the 7100nm 787-10 yet its max fuel load is only 9t more . On the face of it , this suggests a somewhat higher OEW for the A359.

As you say, the 787-10 is almost certainly lighter than the A350-900. However, it's the fuel burn that counts, and if the A359's extra weight has gone into a) lower SFC engines, and b) larger span, lower drag wings, that doesn't tell us what we need to know.
Those mere 9 tonnes of fuel extra take the A350-900 a good 1000Nm further ...   

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

This interesting thread by Ferpe has some decent aero modelling to support a comparison of wing philosophies.
Slide 65 shows his last model.

He calculate fuel flows (based on the Breguet range equation) to be:-

5781 kg/hr for the 787-10
5643 kg/hr for the A350-900

ferpe would be the first to ask me not to take his modelling as gospel, so I won't offer it as such.
It is though the most thorough modelling I've ever seen on A-net.

That indicates that the fuel burns are very close with the 787-10 having maybe a slightly higher fuel burn.

What THAT tells me is that airline configuration will have a key role to play in CASM.
The cabin areas are remarkably similar, the 787-10's being longer and narrower. As Stitch points out, that should allow the 787-10 to fit 2 extra rows of (narrower) seats

At anything beyond about 4 500Nm-5000Nm, though, the A350-900 is likely to start showing a payload advantage, conferred by its greater range.

What does that mean for sales?
Who knows?
I think both planes will do very well  

Rgds


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 38238 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 2):
For example, it doesn't have bleedless engines, and it doesn't use full CFRP barrels.

It does not have them not because Airbus didn't want to do them but because Airbus engineers concluded that there is no clear benefit in either of those solutions while complications / risks go up. Recent 787 battery fiasco seems to have proven them right.

[Edited 2013-06-15 22:16:56]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 37852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Danny (Reply 15):
Recent 787 battery fiasco seems to have proven them right.

Airbus was going to use Li-Ion batteries, as well, so they must have agreed with Boeing about the benefits of them.  


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 37804 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900

Boeing is well known to use less dense seating configuration to increase CASM of its competitor, so I wouldn't pay any attention to its PR talk.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 37760 times:

A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

Both OEMs make these absurd comparisons to show their product in a better light.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5366 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 37707 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 15):
It does not have them not because Airbus didn't want to do them but because Airbus engineers concluded that there is no clear benefit in either of those solutions while complications / risks go up.

You mean the same people who initially said that the 787 was only going to catch up to the A330?

And if you don't have the technology (say to do the barrels), it's very easy to say that there's "no clear benefit" to doing it that way.

But maybe that is in fact the case. We shall see.

In short, the reality is that we won't see which solution is "better" until the A350 actually gets some time on the line. And then we will still probably have a debate about it.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 37677 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

I have done it a while ago and still stand by it.
The Airbus plane will be more efficient per CASM for sure, but far from 25%. 15 - 20% is what I realistically expect.
Same goes for the 777-8X.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 36840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

If efficiency = fuel burn, then airlines such as EK have broadly supported that the A350-1000 does indeed burn that much less fuel.
But fuel is only one part of the "efficiency" equation.
The A350-1000's CASM cannot be better than 15-16% lower than the 773ER's.
I for one am on record as saying so

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 19):
And if you don't have the technology (say to do the barrels), it's very easy to say that there's "no clear benefit" to doing it that way

It's even easier to say when its true.

What they have done is made trade-offs which is absolutely appropriate.
No matter how much the 787 trail-blazed by the way, it is one thing to watch someone else execute a new technology and quite a different matter to have a go yourself.

Boeing insiders on here have suggested the all-electric architecture hasn't delivered a major benefit over the bleed architecture - yet.
Will it in future? maybe. Enough to justify the risk to the programme that they caused?
That will be forever in debate.
As for the panels, they are very big panels, and I'm pushed really to find anything about them that is less risk than the barrels.
They're just a different shape. They DO have an advantage of being smaller in one axis, and thus more handleable and manageable whilst being constructed. The trade-off is more joints.
That's a trade-off.
But pretty much all of the things that actually ended up screwing the 787 programme could have screwed the A350 as well. (like side-of-body joins, like unfinished travelling work etc).

Rgds


User currently offlinegf777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 36436 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
I wonder if Boeing is not being honest with us in much the same way that they claim the B737 is much more efficient than the A320 (Which is BS).

I am not saying that the 737 is more efficient in every thing, but having worked on both of them as an engineer, you would spend as much as double on maintenance on the 320 comparing to what you would on the 7373, which means more flying time, thus more money. in the long run of course.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 35750 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

Both are different aircraft.

Short note: if you look at all the numbers, the 787-10 is a perfect A333-300 replacement while the A350-900 is an A340-300 and 777-200ER replacement. The 78J should be a no-brainer for the 9 hours sectors while the A359 will serve 13-14 hours sectors. Additionally the A359 can also serve those 9 hours sectors with more payload. Both airplanes will also be used to open new routes.

Long note: read reply #14 by astuteman.

So what does this mean in the real world? I think the answer is simple: both aircraft will sell very well.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I think both planes will do very well

  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 34752 times:

Quoting gf777 (Reply 22):
So what does this mean in the real world? I think the answer is simple: both aircraft will sell very well.

  

Looking at the wide body model spread, Boeing will have a better coverage, since it will have the 787 and 777, while Airbus will only have the A350. Does this mean Airbus will need to bring out a smaller widebody at some time in the future?


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 34521 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
the A359 can also serve those 9 hours sectors with more payload.

e.g. freight - I can see a lot of CX 359s flying regional routes with bellyfuls of freight.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 24):
Does this mean Airbus will need to bring out a smaller widebody at some time in the future?

There is a theoretical capacity gap in Airbus' line-up between 321 neo and 358. But is there a demand gap - given that the (largely Americas-based) 762/763 replacement market is really the 788's to lose? If so Airbus need a new smaller wing to attach to a shortened xwb body, and optimised engines - as the 358 engines are non-optimised de-rated 359 engines. Do-able, but at a cost.

Much more likely in my view, and less costly, and with a more obvious demand gap to fill, is a 3510-length fuse with 359 engine, MLG and wing - the same "regional specialist" concept as the 7810 but bigger.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 33584 times:

Keep one thing in mind when reading the published passenger numbers. Boeing have based them on squeezing 9-abreast into what really is an 8-abreast cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 33832 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):
If so Airbus need a new smaller wing to attach to a shortened xwb body, and optimised engines....Do-able, but at a cost.

Sounds like an 737-600 or an A318 but with the added cost of a new wing and a re certified type certificate. Nitch aircraft never seem to sell in the numbers the marketing poeple forcast, i.e. 747SP, A340-500, 777-200LR.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 33445 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):

My idea would be to skip the A358 and doing the 787-10 version of the A350-1000, 1100 model. 380 seats 6500nm range..

Then go for a 230 seat medium range NB built out of the A320. About the size of the 752. Do a 777-X sort of update and base it on the A320 fuselage. This would handle the 788 on the lower end very fine, it would eat it for lunch.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 32870 times:

Next generation of long range aircraft should have 200 PAX in 3 Class configuration. Hope technology will allow manufacturers to achieve better CASM than current generation long range models.

If they keep building big planes, pretty much they are limiting their customer base to ME3 and few other European carriers and ultimately forcing other airlines to quit international market. Even ME3 cannot fill 380 seats on every flight.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 32501 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
Keep one thing in mind when reading the published passenger numbers. Boeing have based them on squeezing 9-abreast into what really is an 8-abreast cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

Except airlines are the ones putting 9-abreast seating into that "8-abreast cabin". Whether you think that is a "level playing field" or not is completely irrelevant, Boeing is reflecting what the airlines are doing. I would have a hard time taking Boeing's numbers seriously if they used 8-abreast seating for their calculations.

Besides, if Boeing continued to use 8-abreast seating everyone would be up in arms about how they are artificially lowering the number of passengers to give the plane longer range etc.


User currently offlineYYZAMS From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 32447 times:

Oh geez. I was wondering how long before this thread would start up.

As a passenger I would like to fly on both to feel the difference, but for technical aspects I will read the wiki and the posts here while weeding through the "Boeing is Best! Let's hear it for the hometeam!" or "Airbus is Awesome!" posts. Hopefully the discussion doesn't go awry.

                                


User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 32209 times:

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 31):
"Boeing is Best! Let's hear it for the hometeam!" or "Airbus is Awesome!" posts.

That of course isn't the point of this thread. This is a very legit question. The B787-8 is about 20-25% more efficient than aircraft such as the B767, an aircraft that is over 20 years older. If the B787-10 is over 10% more efficient than the A350-900 then Airbus has made a big mistake. 10%+ lower CASM just isn't a number that I believe can be true.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9829 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 32252 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

Huh? The A350 cabin is only about 5 inches wider than the 787 so I am not sure how you come up with your seat width comparisons. The 787 might not have as wide of an economy seat but 5 inches across 9 seats is hardly reason to say that they should not be compared as both 9 abreast cabins for the purpose if CASM. Only 2 airlines have chosen 8 abreast so it is more of a unique configuration with 9 being standard. I think Boeing marketing made a dumb decision showing off the plane early on with 8 abreast since now when people get in the 9 abreast plane they have the preconception that the airline has put unusually slim seats in.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 31987 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):
There is a theoretical capacity gap in Airbus' line-up between 321 neo and 358. But is there a demand gap

There is no demand for such an airplane and I have a completely different view on this.

Boeing and Airbus asked their customers what they really want and the answer was bigger planes. The 787 is bigger than the 767, the A350 is bigger than the A330. Airlines also accepted the gap between A321/739 and 788 sized airplanes. And this will only grow in the future; I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

[Edited 2013-06-16 09:12:53]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 31991 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 29):

Hence my idea of doing an A350-1100 and an A325 instead of the A358. One model combats the 777-9 and one combats the 788. 360-380 seats on the 1100 and 220-240 on the larger NB.

The A350-900 could cover the small A358 niche IMO, many seem to go this route anyway. Only one would need a bigger investment the A325, the 1100 would be a simple stretch of the 1000. This way Airbus could cover 150-380 seats with twins and the VLA with the A380.

That gap between the A321 and the A358 would go away and the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380 would shrink.

Do it in time of the A330 going the 767 way.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2361 posts, RR: 25
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 30151 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 35):
360-380 seats on the 1100

I wonder if there is an actual business case for airbus in this....

Sure, they could do it. But will it sell.


User currently offlinedlphoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 29845 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
Keep one thing in mind when reading the published passenger numbers. Boeing have based them on squeezing 9-abreast into what really is an 8-abreast cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

Most airlines chose to configure their 787s with 9 abreast Y.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
here is no demand for such an airplane and I have a completely different view on this.

Boeing and Airbus asked their customers what they really want and the answer was bigger planes. The 787 is bigger than the 767, the A350 is bigger than the A330. Airlines also accepted the gap between A321/739 and 788 sized airplanes. And this will only grow in the future; I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand". Boeing designed the 787 as a lower CASM A330 it was well received; When the A350 was launched airlines already had a roadmap for A330 replacement, they needed a model to substitute the 777 hence the pressure on Airbus to develop a larger model.

Regarding the TATL 200-250 seater - apparently there is not enough demand to justify development;
====
One thing we can learn from History is that the airplane that has the lowest CASM for a certain mission type will sell better, and that A and B both improve performance to the point where the "Stretch-low performance variant" of a platform eats into (devours will be more precise) the market share of the "Smaller high performance variant". The latest example would be the A330 eliminating the market for B77E/L.
Assuming there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 787 design it has a potential to take over market from the A359. The same should happen with the A35x and the 778x.

Happy Travels
DLP


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 29552 times:

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 37):
Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand".

I'm talking about the future, over 10 years. Shifting to larger models has always been the trend. Why would you order an 787-8 if

1) There is an 787-9 available within 2 years (assuming a healthy backlog after 2020)
2) Trip cost of an 787-9 with equal filled seats as the 787-8 is only a bit higher
3) The extra seats will generate more revenue (remember: traffic will only grow in the future)
4) The economics of the 787-9 will simply be better

We've seen this in the past and are seeing it today:

> 767-200: dead
> A330-200: slowly dying
> 777-200ER: almost dead

Why would this not happen to the 787-8?

[Edited 2013-06-16 11:49:18]


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, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 28928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

I think that's where the longer term is at. Hence I can't see Airbus doing anything other than "optimising" the A358.
I don't think we'll see another 250 seat widebody.

I can see the A321NEO and 737-9MAX having their range pushed as far as it will go in the short term.
I'm betting that in 15-20 years time an NSA for either OEM will contain a 200-seater with c. 5 000Nm range

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 37):
Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand".

How many orders has the 787 had in the last 5 years?
How many orders has the A330-200 had in the last 5 years?

I accept the 787 has mitigating circumstances. But how many conversions from 787-8 to 787-9 are we seeing?
There is still a market out there clearly, but I don't think it's going to get bigger, only smaller.
At the other end however, we're now seeing conversions from A350-900 to A350-1000.
I think we'll see more money invested in the top end in the long term.

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 28615 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 29):
Next generation of long range aircraft should have 200 PAX in 3 Class configuration.

Most 787s currently in service are in two class configuration and the average seating is about 215. Some of these are in J/Y /Y configuration but if you added a true F class these configurations would be less than 200.
http://cruisinaltitude.com/2012/11/2...r-seating-configurations-seat-map/

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
you think a 16.8 inch seat

To be fair I believe only LAN has a 16.8 inch seat. Most airlines are opting for 17.2 and 17.3 (United) inch seat. Certainly A350 18.5" seats is a differentiating factor for airlines.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

At 250 deliveries and the basis for the KC-767 Tanker the -200 was definitely a successful program. The -300ER definitely helped end that program but so did the 737 NG which could complete US transcon flights undermining the 200's business case. I understand your point that the -9's extra seats may come for free but there is still a large gap between the MAX/NEO and the 787 so I don't see them really attacking the 787 from the bottom too much (at least for 15 years) and the -8 may be as large as some airlines can fill. Over 70% of 787-8 customers do not currently have orders for -9s. Once the -9's less learned backflow to the -8 it could definitely have some lasting roll on long thin routes. Overall I think you are right and the -9 will be the better selling program but I just do not think the situation is as analogous as we might think.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 27707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Once the -9's less learned backflow to the -8 it could definitely have some lasting roll on long thin routes. Overall I think you are right and the -9 will be the better selling program but I just do not think the situation is as analogous as we might think

For me, the question is (especially for Airbus - Boeing already have the 787-8), is there enough market at, or below 787-8 size, to invest in a new airframe going forward?
I can't see any more than ongoing optimisations of the A358 personally.
IMO these optimised A358's, plus the 787-8 will cover off this segment until it dwindles, sometime in the future.

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 27419 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
For me, the question is (especially for Airbus - Boeing already have the 787-8), is there enough market at, or below 787-8 size

Here in the States 'crossover' vehicles were really popular for a while and still kinda are. For those that are unaware its an SUV but made on a car chassis. So it gets car-like gas mileage but has the capacity of an SUV. I really thought there should be an equivalent in aircraft: A bigger aircraft (twin aisle) that could get nearly single aisle gas mileage. After understanding the Billions that needs to get invested for a new frame certified and realizing that using an efficient frame on short distances is not terrible I have slowly let go of the idea.

In the end, I agree with you. I think there might be a need and could sell some frames but it will be a better use of resources to concentrate on optimizing the -800 and try your best to squeeze as much range as you can out of the 321 NEO.

If the airlines had the need for anything different, the airlines would be working on it and I don't think they are.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 27450 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Certainly A350 18.5" seats is a differentiating factor for airlines.

At 9-abreast, the A350 has a 17.7" seat cushion width / 18" armrest-to-armrest width.

And as much as a.netter's whine about 17" wide seats, the fact is that airlines put them in because it earns them more money (less weight per seat and/or more seats per row) because passengers continue to accept them.


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 26294 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
Keep one thing in mind when reading the published passenger numbers. Boeing have based them on squeezing 9-abreast into what really is an 8-abreast cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

Wrong, and wrong.

The majority of 787 buyers are doing 9 abreast with seat widths similar to other products out there. From Wiki:

"In the nine-abreast, 3–3–3 standard layout, the XWB's seat width will be 45 cm (18 in) which will be 1.78 cm (0.7 in) wider than the equivalent seat layout for the 787." So a 9 abreast 787 features a 17.3" +/- seat width. Not unusual at all.

The A350 can - and likely will - "accommodate" 10 abreast. From Wiki:

"For high density configurations, 10 abreast seating is available on the A350. This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin, where seating is similar to a 9 abreast A330, 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 25780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
In the end, I agree with you. I think there might be a need and could sell some frames but it will be a better use of resources to concentrate on optimizing the -800 and try your best to squeeze as much range as you can out of the 321 NEO.

I think the widebody market is moving upwards in size.
That's why I think the 787-9 and 787-10, A359 and A3510 will sell like hot cakes, and the 777X is going to be an extremely successful.
it's also why I agree with the comments of Doric's CEO that the A380 is going to be around for a VERY long time, and be a lot more successful than anyone on here is prepared to credit today (which gives us a LOT of room to play with    ), although I accept it will still be in a "niche" compared to the twins.

As you said, I think airlines are going to a) abuse 787-8's or A330's and b) push for ever more capability from the largest narrowbodys.
As a dead repeat of a earlier comment, my opinion puts the A359 and 787-10 right in the sweet spot.
I'm willing to bet in a decade's time that sweet spot will be moving from 300 seats to 350  

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 25625 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
As a dead repeat of a earlier comment, my opinion puts the A359 and 787-10 right in the sweet spot.
I'm willing to bet in a decade's time that sweet spot will be moving from 300 seats to 350  

In terms of wide bodies I think you are probably right. Limited slots, higher gas prices, and more traffic can clearly only lead to one eventuality. Clearly with the sheer number of 772, 77E, A333, A343s sold in the last 20 years is a testament to that being the place to be. With all of the sales of the 77W and A380 and airlines choosing high density configurations it could be argued that the transition above 300 is underway.

One thing working against this movement is that there will clearly be a lot fewer 744s out there then there was just 15 years ago (Didn't JAL have 100?) and for the most part those have been traded down. The A380 counterbalanced that to a limited extent and will certainly have more of an effect going forward.

If the A359/781 is the sweet spot then one standard deviation to either side should be pretty solid too. Thats why IMO an optimized A358 is still kinda important.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 25377 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
I can't see any more than ongoing optimisations of the A358 personally.

  

It is too late to launch an A330neo and it's also not worth investing in a new 250-class seater. Optimizing the A358 a bit further is a low-risk investment.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 25136 times:

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 44):
"For high density configurations, 10 abreast seating is available on the A350. This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin, where seating is similar to a 9 abreast A330, 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width."

people complain endlessly here about the 17" seats in a 10Y 777, and yet you insist that 16.4" seats are the correct way to configure a A350.

Also the 787 9Y is no worse than a 737 6Y...


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 48):
yet you insist that 16.4" seats are the correct way to configure a A350.

I'm not sure that this comment is consistent with this one, though...

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 44):
This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin

It is technically correct to point out that the A350XWB can, and will see 10-across configuration.
It's equally sensible to suggest that this is an LCC configuration and thus unlikely to be used by mainstream carriers

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
One thing working against this movement is that there will clearly be a lot fewer 744s out there then there was just 15 years ago (Didn't JAL have 100?) and for the most part those have been traded down. The A380 counterbalanced that to a limited extent and will certainly have more of an effect going forward.

For what its worth I think this has to do with economics as much as size.

The 773ER was the closest in size to a 774 (just happens to be smaller) and has far better economics.
I'm pretty sure that if the 773ER has been the same size as the 777-9X (retaining the range) it would have sold just as well.

The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4988 posts, RR: 41
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
I think the widebody market is moving upwards in size.
That's why I think the 787-9 and 787-10, A359 and A3510 will sell like hot cakes, and the 777X is going to be an extremely successful.
it's also why I agree with the comments of Doric's CEO that the A380 is going to be around for a VERY long time, and be a lot more successful than anyone on here is prepared to credit today (which gives us a LOT of room to play with    ), although I accept it will still be in a "niche" compared to the twins.

I can only agree with your vision. The upward trend is of course also logical considering the fact that more and more people can afford to fly world wide. That will result in surges of all traffic and in sales of airliners. We also see the A321 and B737-900 becoming more popular and the smaller versions becoming less popular in sales. So the trend is not only going on in wide-body sales.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49):
The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

The B748i will leave no impressive mark in history of civil airliners, which is a shame since i remain a big fan of 4-holers in the sky for passenger travel. But the technology has overtaken the airframe, or will do so soon with much and much better economics.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24492 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49):
The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

Agree with that, astuteman - and share your implied regret!  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
The A380 counterbalanced that to a limited extent and will certainly have more of an effect going forward.

tortugamon, how do you conclude (as most of the rest of us have) that the 748 is likely to be phased out because of the challenge of the 'big twins' (except perhaps in its freighter role), but then arrive at the (frankly, 'opposite') conclusion that the A380 will somehow 'survive and prosper'?

Apart from the (frankly silly) 'non-binding leaseback deal' that has recently been publicised, the A380 (like the 748) has landed no proper orders for at least the last six months. It seems pretty obvious, on the face of it, that (mainly due to increased engine power) both manufacturers (and the airlines) can now think in terms of 'big twins' carrying 350 passengers or more, over distances up to about 8,000nms.? With all the advantages of having only two engines burning fuel, requiring maintenance etc.?

Thus eventually (and probably quite soon) putting not just the 748i, but ALSO the A380, out of business?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4988 posts, RR: 41
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 51):
Apart from the (frankly silly) 'non-binding leaseback deal' that has recently been publicised, the A380 (like the 748) has landed no proper orders for at least the last six months.

Maybe you have missed the MoU for 20 new A380's released today?   


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24391 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 52):
MoU

Oh dear, EPA001. 'MoU' stands for 'Memorandum of Understanding.' Which, as I said, is not legally binding..........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24380 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 53):
Oh dear, EPA001. 'MoU' stands for 'Memorandum of Understanding.' Which, as I said, is not legally binding..........

MoUs are very common and will usually be firmed up at a later stage. Let's have this chat again in a few months   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24341 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 51):
but then arrive at the (frankly, 'opposite') conclusion that the A380 will somehow 'survive and prosper'?

Because of the simple fact that the 747 is at the end of her 40 year program life and the A380 is just starting hers. The A380 is already quite a bit more efficient than the -8i and will continue to be improved.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24324 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 54):
Let's have this chat again in a few months

Fair enough, KarelXWB mate.

Provided that we can agree that, in the meantime, neither the 748 NOR the A380 are getting any orders?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13218 posts, RR: 36
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24175 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 56):
Provided that we can agree that, in the meantime, neither the 748 NOR the A380 are getting any orders?

Sorry, but I don't agree. I evaluate the VLA market on sales from year to year, not from day to day. So in January 2014 we can draw a conclusion based on the sales in 2013.

Now let's go back on-topic; this is an A350 / 787 thread.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24004 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 55):
The A380 is already quite a bit more efficient than the -8i and will continue to be improved.

But only when it uses some part of the better than 65t MZFW advantage that it has over the 8i. Otherwise, generally, why would LH be operating both types?


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23935 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49):
The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

I take it you consider "all" to be a large part...the 77W has already taken "a large part" of the 748i market, and I expect the 779X to take the rest.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 55):
Because of the simple fact that the 747 is at the end of her 40 year program life and the A380 is just starting hers.

Just because it is just starting its life does not give it an automatic lease on it. If the economics do not justify its existence then it will fade away. The 737 is approaching 50 years of life, and is showing no signs of ending. Age has nothing at all to do with it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 51):
tortugamon, how do you conclude (as most of the rest of us have) that the 748 is likely to be phased out because of the challenge of the 'big twins' (except perhaps in its freighter role), but then arrive at the (frankly, 'opposite') conclusion that the A380 will somehow 'survive and prosper'?

FWIW I for one haven’t marked the 748i as “DOA” yet, just identified that it’s like just got even harder.

Why is the A380 different?
a) the A380 is far more differentiated from the 777-9X than the 748i and
b) the A380 is far more easily “upgradeable” than the 748i, being designed to be so.
perhaps?   

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 56):
Provided that we can agree that, in the meantime, neither the 748 NOR the A380 are getting any orders?

I don’t see you dismissing MOU’s for other types in the same way…

I wonder if we’ll end the week concluding that the 787-10X “has no orders” and thus is dead in the water …   

Sort of make this thread redundant I guess

Rgds


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23827 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 57):
Now let's go back on-topic; this is an A350 / 787 thread.

Agree entirely, KarelXWB. As for being 'off-topic,' please bear in mind that I was responding to this post:-

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
That's why I think the 787-9 and 787-10, A359 and A3510 will sell like hot cakes, and the 777X is going to be an extremely successful.

it's also why I agree with the comments of Doric's CEO that the A380 is going to be around for a VERY long time, and be a lot more successful than anyone on here is prepared to credit today

I agree with astuteman's view that the rise of the ultra-long range 350-seat-plus 'big twins' is going to snuff out the 748i.

Where I disagree is that I believe that they are going to snuff out the A380 as well.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23794 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 61):
Where I disagree is that I believe that they are going to snuff out the A380 as well.

If they provide better fuel burn (per seat), less maintenance, less purchase cost, less infrastructure requirements, and sufficient passenger capacity (all of which I expect they will), the only reason to buy the A380 will be for slot restricted routes. I do not expect them to "snuff out" the A380; but I do expect it to continue to sell in very anemic fashion.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23612 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 59):
Just because it is just starting its life does not give it an automatic lease on it. If the economics do not justify its existence then it will fade away. The 737 is approaching 50 years of life, and is showing no signs of ending. Age has nothing at all to do with it.

I'm not saying age is the end of all, what I was implying (and what astuteman worded much better than me) was;

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
b) the A380 is far more easily “upgradeable” than the 748i, being designed to be so.
perhap



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23485 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 63):
I'm not saying age is the end of all, what I was implying (and what astuteman worded much better than me) was;

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):b) the A380 is far more easily “upgradeable” than the 748i, being designed to be so.

What form, travelavnut (or astuteman), in your opinion, would any such 'upgrade' take?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23423 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 64):
would any such 'upgrade' take?

Not remotely an expert on this subject   But looking at other projects like the A330, B777 and well, almost all modern airliners, I think we can expect quite an performance improvement over the next 2 decades or more. I really don't see why the A380 would be any different than previous airliners. MTOW increases, engine PIPs, possibly even re-engining (sp?), aero-tweaks and of course stretches (don't think a shrink is in the cards for the A380).

(unfortunately) I find it hard to believe the -8i has the same amount of upgrade possibilities.

I think you're question is more about the required investments, I really have no idea. But in that case also I don't see a big difference with other projects. My layman feeling is that it would be much more costly for Boeing to wriggle out performance improvements out of the -8i though.

[Edited 2013-06-17 09:32:10]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23413 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 51):
tortugamon, how do you conclude

I'd like to respond but I agree this is off topic. If there is follow up Nav20 lets take it to another thread (I suggest this one: A380 Markets, So Far As Predicted (by g500 Jun 15 2013 in Civil Aviation)) and will be glad to discuss. Until then:

A380: As air traffic increases (any doubt?), oil prices stay high or go higher (any doubt?) and airports have slot restrictions (LHR only has two runways and night flying restrictions!), an airliner with 500+ people per flight with the lowest seat mile costs, only one flight crew, and an extremely comfortable cabin is very hard to bet against. Yes two engines are more efficient than four. Full stop. But seating 550 vs 350 people makes up for that. And a hypothetical A380-900 only improves all of the dynamics discussed. The 748i does not have lower seat mile costs than the 77W and still has four engines which makes for higher operating costs = different situation than the A380. I think the 8i will be around for at least another 10 years (though and it would be much longer if it wasn't for the A380) because it does not cost much extra to keep that as an option as they continue to make the 8F which will be around for much longer.

The orders will come. It may be a 20-30/units per year aircraft for a while but there were at least 25 years which the 747 delivered less than 30 units and that was successful. No 18 month period do an aircraft program make. Once they already have the technology, people, the production line, supply chain, etc in place it would take many years with zero orders before they would even think about shutting the line down and losing all of that work. If there are zero orders for 5+ years (I dont think we will make it through the next five days) then we can talk about it being 'snuffed out' but really this is not a difficult argument to make. Hell, even Boeing expects this to be a 760 unit market (38/year for next 20 years) and they are conceding that the 8i will not be a big part of it. http://www.boeing.com/assets/images/...images/cmo_overview_chart2_lrg.gif

Come on board the A380 train Nav20, all the cool people are doing it  . I will be happy to respond in the other thread if you want to discuss further.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 23338 times:

But any upgrade of the A380 must withstand economic analysis. Tweaks of the engine and airframe, like has happened on pretty much every airliner, are a given. But upgrades such as new engines, a new wing, or a stretch, are very expensive and must have a business case to support them. And the only reason they might be supportable on the A380 and not on the 748 is that the market for the 748 has failed to materialize, squashed as it is between the A380 on the top, and the 77W (soon to be the 779X and A3510) from below. It also depends somewhat on how good the new big twins will be; if an A389 with new engines will offer a substantial cost per seat advantage, and there is enough increase in air travel to justify an even larger VLA, it might materialize. But if the new big twins turn out to be better than expected, the A380 will have tough sledding, even with every improvement imaginable.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 23251 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 67):

Agree with everything you say, however;

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 67):
But if the new big twins turn out to be better than expected, the A380 will have tough sledding, even with every improvement imaginable.

Is that true though? We still have slot restrictions on major airports, I really believe there will be a place for VLA's connecting those hubs. Also I'm not convinced twins can offer a better seat to mile cost than the A380 (you have to fill the seats of course). But again, I don't have numbers, just a gut feeling. I'm sure someone like astuteman can offer some real data.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 23083 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 68):
We still have slot restrictions on major airports, I really believe there will be a place for VLA's connecting those hubs

Yes, and that will be the main impetus for the A380. But unless air travel increases substantially, the number of airports with slot restrictions will still be small, limiting the need for VLA's. However, if traffic does increase dramatically, it will be a whole different picture. But remember, an airline's main motive is to make money. If there is more demand for seats than supply, the price will go up, increasing profits. Slot restrictions will only then serve to limit competition, enabling prices to stay high. The only alternative is then to use other nearby airports (which most cities with heavily used airports have) to get around this.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 22914 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Yes, and that will be the main impetus for the A380. But unless air travel increases substantially, the number of airports with slot restrictions will still be small, limiting the need for VLA's. However, if traffic does increase dramatically, it will be a whole different picture

This is exactly what is happening - perhaps not in the Western part of the EU and perhaps not in the US. But in Asia there are extremely high population densities in certain areas that combined with robust economic growth creates an entirely different situation.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 22640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 49):
For what its worth I think this has to do with economics as much as size.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 49):
The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

I believe Trip Costs are what have stalled the 747-8's sales.

With similar trip costs to the 747-400, the 747-8 has significantly higher trip costs than the 777-300ER. So you have to sell those extra seats in order to make the plane work.

And if you can sell those extra seats, you might as well buy the A380-800 as it has even more seats to sell.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 22477 times:

Here's one difference between the A350 and 787. Courtesy of Jon Ostrower.


And now the real comparison: 787 v. A350 under the skin. #PAS13 by Jon Ostrower, on Flickr



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8775 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 22366 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
A380: As air traffic increases (any doubt?), oil prices stay high or go higher (any doubt?) and airports have slot restrictions (LHR only has two runways and night flying restrictions!), an airliner with 500+ people per flight with the lowest seat mile costs, only one flight crew, and an extremely comfortable cabin is very hard to bet against. Yes two engines are more efficient than four. Full stop. But seating 550 vs 350 people makes up for that. And a hypothetical A380-900 only improves all of the dynamics discussed.

Many true statements there. But there is only one problem:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):

I believe Trip Costs are what have stalled the 747-8's sales.

  

Trip costs are inflexible. You have to fill that airplane even on Tuesdays in winter.

It is little understood on this forum how the financials of a smaller jet often outperform larger jets.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 22277 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 73):
But there is only one problem

I do not believe that anything I said contradicts Stitch's comment but I agree that his reasoning is very sound and more concise.  

Anytime you want to compare my thoughts to that smart dude, bring it on. That's great company  .

tortugamon


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 22043 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 70):
This is exactly what is happening - perhaps not in the Western part of the EU and perhaps not in the US. But in Asia there are extremely high population densities in certain areas that combined with robust economic growth creates an entirely different situation.

And if that continues, it will give the A380 a much needed boost. But I am not sure it will continue.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What happened to the A350-900 and 787-10?

Isn't it time to put the soap boxes away on this thread?

Rgds


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 21898 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
What happened to the A350-900 and 787-10?

I forgot; what the heck are they?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21522 posts, RR: 53
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21751 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 64):
What form, travelavnut (or astuteman), in your opinion, would any such 'upgrade' take?

Airbus had "oversized" the A380-800 wing from the start so it will carry a stretched version as well. Basically the -800 could have been even more efficient if they had reduced the wing to what this version actually needed.

The much-discussed -900 version had not been firmed up from the start, but it was part of the design even from the beginning. There was even a -700 in early floor plans but this shrink was probably more designed to put additional PR pressure on the 747. That Boeing actually met that likely feint with the 747-8 may have been a mistake.


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

The 787-10 should be many tons lighter in empty weight than the A350-900 and should have engines with similar SFC.

Nitpick: Thanks to the 2nd intermediate turbine stage, the Trent XWB should have 4% lower fuel burn than the T1000. Most of the other improvements to the TXWB will be PIP'd into the T1000.

I think we will have a competition!    For on longer flights, the A359 will have a slight advantage while on shorter missions the 78J.

Gentlemen, start your A vs. B!     


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21685 times:

Has anyone seen a sample seat map for the 314-seat 350-900 or a 323-seat 787-10x? I know they do not mean much but when I try to figure out the seating for the 787-10 I come up with closer to 333 seats based on Boeing's 'typical' seat pitches of (61/39/32) for (F/J/Y). If the cabin is really 2m longer for the 781 vs the 359 its odd that the 'typical three class seating' is only 9 seats different. I may not be allocating enough to galley/head space.

Just for reference my 787-10 seating would be (18/56/259).

tortugamon


User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21652 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):

The A350 will actually not have much wider seats at all. Because it is only 5 inches wider, if you add that extra width to each seat (at 9 abreast) it comes to .55 inches per seat. So with the same width aisles as the 787, the A350 will have 17.8"" seats while the 787 will have 17.3". I don't think any airline thinks any economy class passenger will actually notice this difference.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 80):
Has anyone seen a sample seat map for the 314-seat 350-900 or a 323-seat 787-10x?

Closest I have is one done by widebodyphotog back in 2006 which had 301 seats:

13 First Class at 61-inch pitch and 2+1+2 configuration
54 Business Class at 39-inch pitch and 2+2+2 configuration
234 Economy Class at 32-inch pitch and 2+4+2 configuration

If we take the Economy to 3+3+3, that raises the count by around 28, which would be 329 seats.



The only seat maps I have for the A350-800 and A350-900 are two-class ones:

A350-800: 276 seats
36 Business Class at 60-inch pitch and 2+2+2 configuration
240 Economy Class at 32-inch pitch and 3+3+3 configuration

A350-900: 315 seats
48 Business Class at 60-inch pitch and 2+2+2 configuration
267 Economy Class at 32-inch pitch and 3+3+3 configuration



Emirates have said they can fit the same number of seats in the A350-900 as they can the 777-200ER so that would be 290:

12 First Class in 2+2+2
42 Business Class in 2+2+2
236 Economy Class in 3+3+3

In such a configuration, Business Class would be 7 rows of 2+2+2 on the A350-900 as opposed to 6 rows of 2+3+2 on the 777-200ER. On the 777-200ER, Economy is 20 rows of 3+4+3, 3 rows of 0+4+0 (one just aft of Door 3L/3R - Row 27 - and two just forward of Door 4L/R - Rows 40 and 41) and three rows of 2+4+2 ( Rows 37, 38 and 39).

The A350-900's cabin is about 135 inches longer than the 777-200ER. So subtracting 47 inches for the extra row of Business Class leaves 88 inches for Economy, which is about 2.5 rows.

At 3+3+3, you could fit 234 seats in 26 rows, leaving two seats extra for the final row, making 27 rows. The 777-200ER has 25 rows, so there is sufficient extra space to fit the two extra rows necessary to accommodate the seats.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 21444 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
Closest I have is one done by widebodyphotog back in 2006 which had 301 seats:
If we take the Economy to 3+3+3, that raises the count by around 28, which would be 329 seats.

Boeing's seat maps seam to do 2-2-2 in F so if you make that adjustment you hit my number of 333. Again, not that it matters because these premium class assumptions are dated. J/Y+/Y seems to be the trend.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
The only seat maps I have for the A350-800 and A350-900 are two-class

Two class appears more realistic. I think CZ was the first 787 customer to have an F class (only 4 seats I think).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
A350-900: 315 seats

Interesting that three class would only have 1 seat less  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
Emirates have said they can fit the same number of seats in the A350-900

It looks like it would be about 305 seats for the 781 in EK configuration (not that they will probably order it).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
Rows 37, 38 and 39

I wonder if B will change the contour of the aft fuse to get 10 breast out of these last seats on the 777X. May not be possible.

tortugamon


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8775 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 21223 times:

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 81):
Because it is only 5 inches wider, if you add that extra width to each seat (at 9 abreast) it comes to .55 inches per seat. So with the same width aisles as the 787, the A350 will have 17.8"" seats while the 787 will have 17.3". I don't think any airline thinks any economy class passenger will actually notice this difference.

Provisional   

This is less than the A320 / 737 difference. It is _inconsequential_.

Not sure; just leaping to conclusions. That's what I do.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
Anytime you want to compare my thoughts to that smart dude, bring it on. That's great company

Compare our RR ratings to his. Why are you even talking to me? Thanks though     


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5366 posts, RR: 22
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21140 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 72):
Here's one difference between the A350 and 787. Courtesy of Jon Ostrower.

One is messier-looking?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21081 times:

I posted this in the 787-10x launch thread as well but it may be more fodder for better arguments over here (they tend to be nicer in the other thread  )

While GE is going through the development of the GE9X there is opportunity that some of these new, cutting edge technologies to be incorporated into the GENx later down the line. This could really give the 787-10x an advantage relative to the A359.

Not sure if this means that composite front fan-case and ceramic matrix composites come into play but it is interesting.

"GE has no plans to put GE9X technology back into the GE90, but because it will first test the changes in GENx demonstrators, the experience will allow us to define ways to take technologies back into the GENx, says Fitzgerald."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_06_17_2013_p0-588827.xml&p=1

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 86):
While GE is going through the development of the GE9X there is opportunity that some of these new, cutting edge technologies to be incorporated into the GENx later down the line. This could really give the 787-10x an advantage relative to the A359.

And what do you think RR will do then? They HAVE to stay competitive on the 787
Any such advantage is going to be short lived - or stillborn

rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20978 times:

RR has the Trent1000-TEN, should be about 3% better on SFC than package C.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20975 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 87):
And what do you think RR will do then?

RR will have to step up and at least match any improvement, absolutely. However, GE will have the benefit of being able to dedicate more resources to these new technologies because it will be part of the R&D for a different program, the GENx improvements come for free. You know more; maybe technology improvements between engine OEMs transfers very quickly and RR can adapt quickly, put it in the Trent Ten and then put it into the XWB for the A359 and establish parity again. I would think there would be a lag.

Do you think that a composite front fan-case is possible? I am most excited about the use of CMCs, not sure if that is too substantial of a change for the GENx (or Trent Ten) or not.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20913 times:

GE is researching some new thrust tech for the military, variable thrust, this tech will probably trickle down to civilian engines with time, it might be as revolutionary as the GTF in a way, a big jump in efficiency. Although stuff like this comes with a long lead time, they aim this for the gen6 fighter program.

The drawback of current engines, they are efficient in a narrow thrust band.


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20806 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 56):Provided that we can agree that, in the meantime, neither the 748 NOR the A380 are getting any orders?
I don’t see you dismissing MOU’s for other types in the same way…

I wonder if we’ll end the week concluding that the 787-10X “has no orders” and thus is dead in the water …

Word.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 48):
Quoting planesntrains (Reply 44):"For high density configurations, 10 abreast seating is available on the A350. This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin, where seating is similar to a 9 abreast A330, 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width."
people complain endlessly here about the 17" seats in a 10Y 777, and yet you insist that 16.4" seats are the correct way to configure a A350.

I'm not sure what you're going on about? Someone stated that the A350 CANNOT do 10 abreast - I was just pointing out that Airbus is offering that option and at least one carrier - AirAsiaX - has bitten.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 20585 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 80):
Just for reference my 787-10 seating would be (18/56/259).

(18/58/254) They must be taking 3 middle row seats from the first row of Y to make two seats of J and it must be some aft fuse that is responsible for the loss of the other 5 Y. We were close.
http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-10_announcement/

tortugamon


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
VN Considering B787-900, A350-900 posted Wed Apr 11 2007 08:32:58 by Flying-Tiger
FI: 787-10 To Face A350-900 Challenge posted Mon Jan 29 2007 11:26:06 by RichardPrice
Airline Alliances A350 Vs B787 posted Tue Aug 22 2006 12:44:10 by WINGS
CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388 posted Thu May 18 2006 06:55:50 by WingedMigrator
Interesting A350 Vs B787 Statement posted Fri Apr 28 2006 10:17:56 by Flying-Tiger
Efficiencies Claim: A350 Vs B787 posted Thu Jun 16 2005 08:14:24 by Sq212
772NG Or 787-10 To Compete With A350-900? posted Fri May 20 2005 00:53:18 by NorCal
What Is The A350-900 R? And Is There A Freighter? posted Fri Jun 14 2013 18:08:32 by QatarA340
EVA Air Considering B787-10 And B777X posted Sat May 11 2013 13:10:25 by LAXintl
Finnair Pays 90M Eur For A350-900 posted Wed Feb 20 2013 03:04:21 by iksu