Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JAL Orders 31 A350 Part 2  
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8906 posts, RR: 76
Posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28542 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Hi guys,

part 1: JAL Orders 31 A350 Part 1 (by wilco737 Oct 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue here.

Thanks.

wilco737
  


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
255 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 28264 times:

Interesting two weeks for Airbus and the A350. First LH and now JAL. Didn´t John Leahy said after the Paris Air Show that he is taking the rest of the year off and is going fishing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...after-nearing-2013-sales-goal.html

Honestly I see him sitting at a lake wearing a fisherman´s hat, holding the fishing rod in one hand, his cell in the other and closing all the deals. He truly is a natural salesman.

As for Boeing losing this order for the 787 issues, despite what JAL officials are saying now, I definitely believe they were a factor in the decision. Earlier this year a JAL chairman has been quoted saying that it is unhealthy for an airline to rely only on one manufacturer. They can not say it out loud now because in the future JAL will buy Boeing planes again but that time Boeing will have to fight for that order knowing that getting JAL as a customer again is not a given......



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 28153 times:

I would like to spin a bit on this comment from phxa340 in the first thread:

"While the 777X was probably to big for JAL and lost that order, they picked up one from LH because it was the right size for them. Its a constant give and take for the manufactures."

The OEMs have composed the competitive line-up very differently in the DA to the SA, at single aisle it is head to head on all sizes. For dual aisle there is an almost perfect straddling of capability of frames which are all similarly competitive:

B788
A358
B789
A359
A35J
B779

The 78J and the 778 are a bit odd balls as they do not have the typical performance patterns of 8000nm nominal payload range (in the end this means they are solid 6500-7000nm performers). What this all mean is that we will see a real mix of orders and many airliners that orders both OEMs new aircraft like AF/KLM, LH, SIA......

I think we can already see what the chief sales mens are pounding the venerable table back home for  :

- A 787-10HGW which gets 8000nm range. Expect the decision within a year or so...

- The A350-1100, John Leahy said not way 3 months ago, now at ISTAT he said we are looking if the market warrants such a variant  Wow!

[Edited 2013-10-08 00:27:51]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 28114 times:

Bloomberg has a very interesting article on the 'behind the scenes' of this deal:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...tress-with-sake-and-ski-lifts.html

some quotes:

Bregier logged 50,000 miles on four trips to Tokyo in his first year at the helm of the European planemaker.

In December he made the 13-hour flight to meet JAL executives for the first time in his new capacity as CEO and also secured an audience with future prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

Only a month later, the Frenchman made a sidetrip to Davos, the biggest gathering of government and industry leaders, to hook up with Inamori only days after JAL was forced to park its fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners in a global grounding.

By March, Bregier was back in Japan, and he invited a team of JAL experts to Toulouse for visits in May and again in June.

“The real challenge was getting them to develop confidence in Airbus"... "until this point really knew us hardly at all.”


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 28007 times:

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 3):
Bloomberg has a very interesting article on the 'behind the scenes' of this deal:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1....html

Good article, thanks for posting. Also interesting is this quote:

"“We made it challenging for them in introducing the 787 and we’ll work to correct that,” Kostya Zolotusky, Boeing’s managing director of capital markets and leasing, said yesterday after the JAL announcement. The loss to Airbus is “a heartbreak,” he said. "

So even Boeing is seeing a linkage. Guess they must be Boeing-bashers...  


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 27816 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 4):
Guess they must be Boeing-bashers.

Yeah they are bashing themselves to get things in order and getting the problems solved.  



Flying high and low
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 27667 times:

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 3):
By March, Bregier was back in Japan, and he invited a team of JAL experts to Toulouse for visits in May and again in June.

Funny, I remember MSN4 doing a few long-haul trips over France in May and June. Not sure if these were the JAL test flights though.

As for the A380, Yoshiharu Ueki added:

Quote:
After announcing the Airbus order Monday, JAL President Yoshiharu Ueki %u2014a former pilot who flew 747s%u2014declined to say whether he plans to buy A380s. But he said that the A350s JAL ordered and the superjumbo are almost identical to fly because of the way Airbus designs them.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 27374 times:

We all know Richard Aboulafia gets it wrong sometimes, but this quote in the mentioned Bloomberg article is interesting:
"“With the A350 order there’s now the risk of JAL getting a 777 replacement years before ANA does,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation advisory firm in Fairfax, Virginia. “Therefore, an ANA A350 order is likely,” "


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 27256 times:

Hey guys, missed part one, and really busy. Someone give me a brief rundown of what was said?

My 2 cents- B didn't pick up the pieces, was not transparent, or simply didn't placate JL enough after the 787 debacles. The japanese media stirring jitters in the public about the safety of the 787 certainly did not do anything to help

Another point, and maybe a possible hypothesis: IN order for JL to avoid accruing more debt, they are probably doing an all around overhaul, not just management. If you all recall they began mass hiring recently. Pilots are next to be hired.

The A350 certainly looks to be the 777 replacer, as to me 777X is too big for a lot of Japanese routes.

Boeing needs to think of something quick in order to stay on board in Japan. I think they should start kissing ass.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 26611 times:

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 3):
Bloomberg has a very interesting article on the 'behind the scenes' of this deal:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1....html

That is exactly what Airbus needed to do to land this A350 order.
JAL, like most companies in Japan, will not just order equipment on a whim just because the initial cost is cheaper. We look for support, reliability, etc, all the factors in the product life cycle.
Then,

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 7):
"“With the A350 order there’s now the risk of JAL getting a 777 replacement years before ANA does,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation advisory firm in Fairfax, Virginia. “Therefore, an ANA A350 order is likely,”

ANA could careless what JAL operates. If JAL flew 744 with state-of-the-art business class seats. They would try to one-up that on-board product rather than the actual aircraft.

I am still crossing my fingers on a 748 order on the day the last 744D goes out.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 26194 times:

Now ANA is the next focus:

Quote:
ANA Holdings wants around 35 aircraft to replace its long-haul Boeing 777s and, like JAL, is considering both the A350 and the Boeing 777X, the re-engine, updated variant of the popular long-range wide-body jet.

After the JAL setback, ANA is fast becoming a "can't lose at any cost" deal for Boeing, whose executives are under pressure to "do everything they can" to win the deal, said an industry source close to the U.S. planemaker.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...oeing-airbus-idUSBRE9970DS20131008



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 25918 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10):
Now ANA is the next focus:

Interesting read for sure.
So, with a statement like "can't lose at any cost" how do A350 and 777X compare on merits?

As far as I recall, the 777X was designed with a lot of influence from Gulf carriers. Boeing had always perceived the A35J as the real threat regardless of the A.net mantra that it will be a poor seller.

And still recall how Emirates and Qatar were not so happy with Airbus when they redesigned the A35J .

Quote:
Clark said. %u201CWe%u2019re trying to persuade Airbus to realign the A350-1000 more toward the ER, increasing both its capacity and its range.%u201D
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-a350-as-boeing-stalls-on-777.html

and then he comes back with this statement:

Quote:
%u201CWe kind of put them on notice that frankly we were quite happy with the way it was,%u201D Clark said in an April 26 interview.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-a350-1000-orders-from-etihad.html

Airbus followed what the global market wants and they dug in until orders for the 1000 started to pour in, and now they are reaping the benefits of their decision.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 25761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10):
Now ANA is the next focus:

Well Boeing failed twice with that strategy with Japan Airlines (first the 747-8 and now the 777-9), so not sure it's going to do them any good with All Nippon if both models are not the right fit for them, as well.



Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
So, with a statement like "can't lose at any cost" how do A350 and 777X compare on merits?

I expect it will be the same - A350-1000 is the better match because it's a 1:1 direct drop-in replacement for the 777-300 and 777-300ER.

What will be interesting to see is if NH also orders the A350-900. Unlike JL, their domestic 777-200s are 9-abreast in Economy and NH;s original conversion of 15 787-8s to 787-9s was to replace those domestic 777-200s. NH have subsequently added another 15 787-9s, which is more than sufficient to replace their international 777-200ERs.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 1):
Didn´t John Leahy said after the Paris Air Show that he is taking the rest of the year off and is going fishing.

He did. And went out fishing for more significant orders from other blue chip customers like LH and JL, and he succeeded.  .

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 7):
We all know Richard Aboulafia gets it wrong sometimes, but this quote in the mentioned Bloomberg article is interesting:
"“With the A350 order there’s now the risk of JAL getting a 777 replacement years before ANA does,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation advisory firm in Fairfax, Virginia. “Therefore, an ANA A350 order is likely,” "

It would be fantastic news for Airbus if Richard Aboulafia would get his predictions right this time. But let's wait and see what ANA will decide in the spring of 2014 before making assumptions on the possible orders.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10):
Now ANA is the next focus:

And this one will be hard fought over indeed.

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
Airbus followed what the global market wants and they dug in until orders for the 1000 started to pour in, and now they are reaping the benefits of their decision.

Yes, there believe in themselves has paid off and is being rewarded by the market with huge votes of confidence. They have earned it imho.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Well Boeing failed twice with that strategy with Japan Airlines (first the 747-8 and now the 777-9), so not sure it's going to do them any good with All Nippon if both models are not the right fit for them, as well.

Well, anything can still happen here imho. Will be very interesting to see how this one will play out.   .


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25582 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 1):
Didn´t John Leahy said after the Paris Air Show that he is taking the rest of the year off and is going fishing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...after-nearing-2013-sales-goal.html

Honestly I see him sitting at a lake wearing a fisherman´s hat, holding the fishing rod in one hand, his cell in the other and closing all the deals. He truly is a natural salesman.

No, no, the point is: who is he inviting to his fishing trips?

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 3):
Bregier logged 50,000 miles on four trips to Tokyo in his first year at the helm of the European planemaker.

On a more serious note: this sale seems to be Bregier's, quite personally, in fact. After all, from the article, we get that he's been making sales in Japan years before his time at Airbus. Not only that, but with Leahy's heart problems of recent years, someone at Airbus must be looking for a new top salesman.

About Leahy: am I the only one that found him short-breathed in the recent video interview?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 14):
On a more serious note: this sale seems to be Bregier's, quite personally, in fact. After all, from the article, we get that he's been making sales in Japan years before his time at Airbus.

Well, with his experience in Japan it was only logical to use this to secure this deal. And the Japanese usually value this experience and the knowledge people from other countries have about their country, culture and customs very much.

And so this major and to Airbus very important JL deal was won by Airbus.

[Edited 2013-10-08 07:22:50]

User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25325 times:

What exactly is B's thinking with the 77X? Grow the current design to become a VLA competitor, cannibalize 748 sales in hopes of eating into A38X sales as well? (With recent news of DLH cutting their options / no new A380 orders in over one year then perhaps this strategy is working?)

Did it ever cross B's mind that they should...

1. Admit that the 777 has been a success.
2. Realize that growing the 777 into the 77X could leave a gap for A to step in and serve those who just want a newer 777 and not something bigger with more range?
3. Build a 1:1 size replacement of the 777 series with 21st Century technology like CRFP wing/fuselage/new engines?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
What exactly is B's thinking with the 77X?

They're thinking of trying to offer a product to compete with the A350-1000 on 777-300ER replacement RFPs.


Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
Did it ever cross B's mind that they should...

1. Admit that the 777 has been a success.

I think they know that.  
Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
2. Realize that growing the 777 into the 77X could leave a gap for A to step in and serve those who just want a newer 777 and not something bigger with more range?

The 777-8 at 10-abreast Economy offers similar capacity to the 777-300ER at 9-abreast with better range. The 777-9 offers a bit more capacity than the 777-300ER at either 9-abreast or 10-abreast with similar range.



Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
3. Build a 1:1 size replacement of the 777 series with 21st Century technology like CRFP wing/fuselage/new engines?

Such a plane could only compete with the A350-1000 on price, resulting in depressed margins for both OEMS, and would enter the market upwards of a decade later.


Personally, I think Boeing should have pushed GE to launch the GE9X the day Airbus announced the A350-1000 and hung it off the 777 Freighter, 777-200LR and 777-300ER. They could have had it in service years before the A350-1000 and nipped the A350-900L and A350-900F in the bud and they would not have needed to dedicate significant resources to the program, so they could have continued with it even as the 787 program ran aground.

But they didn't, so...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25216 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
Grow the current design to become a VLA competitor

Certainly not. The 777-9 is only a 2.7 meters stretch and will house 20 more seats than the 77W.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
1. Admit that the 777 has been a success.

I'm sure they do.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
2. Realize that growing the 777 into the 77X could leave a gap for A to step in and serve those who just want a newer 777 and not something bigger with more range?
Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
3. Build a 1:1 size replacement of the 777 series with 21st Century technology like CRFP wing/fuselage/new engines?

The issue is, even with new engines and new wings a 1:1 77W replacement would not match the fuel burn of the A350. The airframe is heavier, hence Boeing needed to add more seats to equal the fuel burn per passenger of the A350-1000. And the extra revenue of those seats can cover the higher trip cost.

[Edited 2013-10-08 07:55:25]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2158 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25164 times:

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
Interesting read for sure.
So, with a statement like "can't lose at any cost" how do A350 and 777X compare on merits?

Seeing that according to A net lore Airbus gives away aircraft, to win the ANA order Boeing would have to give away the 777x and some money....    

In my view this is a way stronger message to Boeing about fixing the 787 problems that the LOT, UA and Norwegian... PR problems. They need to regain confidence in 2 of their most loyal customers, and Airbus (as per the article) went the whole 10 yards to ensure credibility and confidence. They built up the relationship and this is the outcome.

Now I think that in the next 3 months we will see tons of orders for the A350, the 789 and 77X, because slots will be filing, deliveries will get quite far in the future, and I guess that if EK orders a truckload of wide bodies, everyone and their dog will wan t to get in line, I dont think ANA will wait 6 months to make an order...

Very interesting 4 months ahead we will have !

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 24890 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 18):
The issue is, even with new engines and new wings a 1:1 77W replacement would not match the fuel burn of the A350. The airframe is heavier, hence Boeing needed to add more seats to equal the fuel burn per passenger of the A350-1000. And the extra revenue of those seats can cover the higher trip cost.

I don't understand this. OK, the 777 airframe is heavier than the A350's, but why then should stretching the 777 improve its weight? Remember, the 778 is bigger than the 772 and the 779 is bigger than the 77W.

On a different note, is this the first time JL has been an RR customer? I'm going through their past fleet and I can only come up with PW and GE engines.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 24837 times:

Jeez Boeing better start kissing ass and letting some NH people on the 77X design board if they wanna sell to them. Otherwise, NH will jump ship and buy the 350.


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 24801 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
I don't understand this. OK, the 777 airframe is heavier than the A350's, but why then should stretching the 777 improve its weight? Remember, the 778 is bigger than the 772 and the 779 is bigger than the 77W.

The weight increase of the stretch is not that big, but those 20 extra seats will reduce the fuel burn per passenger significantly. Plus those seats will generate extra revenue when you can fill them.

Let's do the math with easy numbers:

> A351: 200 kg / 35 pax = 5.7 kg per pax
> B778: 270 kg / 35 pax = 10 kg per pax
> B779: 340 kg / 55 pax = 6.1 kg per pax



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineMillenium From Sweden, joined Jul 2012, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 24800 times:

With all these orders coming in for the 787 and A350 I thought it was time for a little comparison of the "777-200" size aircraft market. (7400-8500 nm frames - 787-10, A340-500 and 777-200LR does not fit this criteria)

Aircrafts sold.
A340-300 = 218 (All serial aircraft produced)
777-200+ER = 510 (All serial aircraft produced)
787-9 = 391 (No serial aircraft produced)
A350-900 = 499 (No serial aircraft produced) Figure includes SAS and JAL orders (8+18) not included in Airbus latest order update.

So so far we have 728 aircrafts to be replaced with 890 aircrafts. This marked seems to be quite well covered...

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

http://www.pdxlight.com/787.htm

http://www.a350xwb.com/x-tra/od

[Edited 2013-10-08 08:58:31]

User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7524 posts, RR: 43
Reply 24, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 24557 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 2):
The 78J and the 778 are a bit odd balls as they do not have the typical performance patterns of 8000nm nominal payload range (in the end this means they are solid 6500-7000nm performers).

It was my understanding that the 777-8X would be the ultimate ultra long-haul champion.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25099 times:

I can actually see the 778 selling better than the 77L, 350 seats with a high payload capacity, exactly what the77W is not today.

User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25040 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 7):
We all know Richard Aboulafia gets it wrong sometimes, but this quote in the mentioned Bloomberg article is interesting:
"%u201CWith the A350 order there%u2019s now the risk of JAL getting a 777 replacement years before ANA does,%u201D said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Teal Group, an aviation advisory firm in Fairfax, Virginia. %u201CTherefore, an ANA A350 order is likely,%u201D "

Difference is, Boeing actually seems to pitch the 787-10 as well as the 777X. With JL, it apparently was just the 777X.
For JL, earlier availability of the A350 was a major factor in the decision (the A350 becoming a fantastic airplane as well of course   ) I don't think there will be much difference in availabilty between the A350 and the 787-10... And the airplanes that need earliest replacement are the 772A's.
So I wouldn't be surprised to see RA proven wrong again  
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21):
Jeez Boeing better start kissing ass and letting some NH people on the 77X design board if they wanna sell to them.

I believe NH actually is part of that team... No guarantee of an order of course.



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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25229 times:

Would QF be a candidate for the 778? Range and decent payload, in a twin. Or would ETOPS stop that idea?

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25111 times:

With respect to NH RFP, I hope Airbus wins it, for the sake of equal market share in Japan. It's time for a change.

Quoting sweair (Reply 27):
Would QF be a candidate for the 778?

Yes. I could imagine QF operating both -8 and -9.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineraggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 24998 times:

Slightly off topic perhaps, but I can't help but think that Airbus has won quite a few customers that have until recently been VERY loyal Boeing widebody customers for long haul aircraft , the likes of UA, BA, CX, ET and now JL.




raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 30, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25060 times:

Here's a Japan Times opinion article:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...s-swooped-in-at-right-time-for-jal

This Airbus boss knew exactly what he was doing. he played every single card right with the Japanese. This dude is a genius. Maybe Boeing needs some management shake-ups.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 26):
I believe NH actually is part of that team... No guarantee of an order of course.

Well if they're part of the team, then there's a chance.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24937 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 4):
So even Boeing is seeing a linkage.

There is no way that JAL bought the A350 just because of their experience with the 787. If the A350 did not work well for them, the next set of decision criteria (whatever it is) would not have been enough to close the deal. I personally think the A350 was the better fit, but even if it was just a comparable fit to competitive aircraft earlier availability (and less risk of late deliveries like they experienced with the 787 botched EIS is included in this factor), and their inevitable fantastic pricing (CAPA says it may have even been below cost!) will certainly be contributing factors. People should not be saying that the 787 experience was the cause for the A350 JAL sale; just like you say in another thread:

"They will buy the best aircraft that can perform the mission at lowest total cost of operation and ownership"

Quoting holzmann (Reply 16):
Grow the current design to become a VLA competitor

2.6m stretch is enough. As Truman/Napoleon once said: "Never … murder a man who is committing suicide". No need to try to compete in that niche market.

Quoting Millenium (Reply 23):
"777-200" size aircraft market.

The 787-10 out ranges the 772 and the 773 and should be an excellent 77E replacement as well.

Quoting sweair (Reply 27):
Would QF be a candidate for the 778?

I think there is a small chance that QF could open up ORD or JFK with this aircraft. EK has mentioned SYD-FCO with significant payload as appealing to him (I am not sure how he plans to operate that route). Yes I see them as buyers of the 777x.

tortugamon


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24876 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21):
Jeez Boeing better start kissing ass and letting some NH people on the 77X design board if they wanna sell to them. Otherwise, NH will jump ship and buy the 350.

Last thing Boeing wants is some tight lipped Japanese drawing anything. Still trying to figure out what is wrong with the battery they designed.

General sales strategy to counter such order is go after a all Airbus customer. NH is not all Boeing, JAL is not first Japanese Airbus WB customer.


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7524 posts, RR: 43
Reply 33, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24842 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
The 787-10 out ranges the 772 and the 773 and should be an excellent 77E replacement as well.

Boeing's replacement for the 777-200ER is the 787-9, isn't it?



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 34, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 33):
Boeing's replacement for the 777-200ER is the 787-9, isn't it?

It offers the same capacity when configured in 9-abreast Economy and 6-abreast Business Class.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 24430 times:

I just looked at the numbers and the aircraft age and it appears to me that this A350 order is to replace JAL's 15 772s, 11 77Es, and 7 773s. This reminds me of SQs A350 purchase. As JAL clearly keeps their aircraft beyond 20 years their 77W replacement is most likely not on firm purchase. In fact, other than EK I can't think of an airline that has already ordered an aircraft that will be their 77W replacement. I mention EK because in 2017 they will be retiring some 77Ws and it appears they will use A380s or A350s for those early retirements.

Obviously using the A350 options will be the most likely option for them or even using the A351s to replace their 77Ws and move the 77Ws to 773 routes may make sense as well.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 33):
Boeing's replacement for the 777-200ER is the 787-9, isn't it?

As stitch mentions above, its seating can be very comparable in certain configurations. However, if an airline wants to slightly grow their capacity (as many airlines do: see 787 replacing 767s) with their 772/77E replacement than the A359 (3m longer) is a great option or if they don't need 100% of the 77E range than the 787-10 (4.5m longer) at 30%+ seat cost improvement would be excellent as well.

I see the 787-10 as an A333, 772, 773, and many 77E replacement.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24278 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):

There is no way that JAL bought the A350 just because of their experience with the 787.

No of course not, but as has been surmised several times now, their 787 experience partly or wholly contributed to a re-think of their American / Boeing only relationship-based strategy, and allowed Airbus a chance to sell their aircraft on its merits for the first time.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
just like you say in another thread:

"They will buy the best aircraft that can perform the mission at lowest total cost of operation and ownership"

Sure. Except until now for JAL and ANA, the sentence used to read "They will buy the best aircraft BOEING HAS ON OFFER that can perform the mission at lowest total cost of operation and ownership".

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 32):
Still trying to figure out what is wrong with the battery they designed.

Pathetic nonsense. You really do seem to have an irrational problem with Japan, keeping on harping on how over-rated they are and how they deserve to be "snubbed". Do you have any evidence at all GS Yuasa's battery design is wrong? If so, please send it ASAP to the FAA and NTSB, they seem to have missed it!


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24141 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 36):
Do you have any evidence at all GS Yuasa's battery design is wrong? If so, please send it ASAP to the FAA and NTSB, they seem to have missed it!

It is in a steel case. Can you give one other example where an aircraft manufacturer forced to put battery in a steel case.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24072 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 37):
It is in a steel case. Can you give one other example where an aircraft manufacturer forced to put battery in a steel case.

So that proves conclusively the battery is at fault then, no possibility of external triggers? Amazing powers of deduction! Like I said, you MUST send this breakthrough insight to the FAA, Boeing, and the NTSB because clearly they have not figured that out yet.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 39, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23954 times:

ANA's upcoming order is said to be for around 35 aircraft to replace older 777s. When I look at their fleet I see 787s replacing 767s and 772s. So that leave 77Es (12) , 773s (7), and 77Ws (22). Their youngest 77W is 9 years old and some they have not even received yet. So I see this order as a 77E and 773 order (19). I have a hard time seeing where 35 comes from.

http://airguideonline.com/2013/10/08...ircraft-to-replace-its-older-777s/

I see the 787-10 as a solid 773 replacement and a capacity upgrade to many 77Es. I also could see a 777-9x replacing a 77W while moving the 77W to regional configuration and swapping out 773s. If ANA does not like what they are seeing with the 787-9/787-10 then the 77E/773 replacement could go to the same A359/A351 combo. Like JAL, I do not see this as a 77W replacement yet but it certainly lays the ground work.

tortugamon


User currently onlineMillenium From Sweden, joined Jul 2012, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23871 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
The 787-10 out ranges the 772 and the 773 and should be an excellent 77E replacement as well.

You are correct that the 777-200 is not a 7400-8500 nm frame so i have removed it from my list below. I absolutely respect your opinion on the 787-10 but for simplicity I have not added it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
I see the 787-10 as an A333, 772, 773, and many 77E replacement.

I think 787-10 has a special position and might come to replace some of these frames in my list below but only those witch are not used to their full potential. I think it will mostly carve out its own airline route/network sweet spot and many hopes that it will sell in large numbers, in this respect one must say it has had a very good start. So maybe we are in agreement here.  

Aircrafts sold (Updates).
A340-300 = 218 (All serial aircraft produced)
777-200ER = 422 (All serial aircraft produced)
787-9 = 391 (No serial aircraft produced)
A350-900 = 499 (No serial aircraft produced) Figure includes SAS and JAL orders (8 18) not included in Airbus latest order update.

This gives 640 aircrafts to be replaced with 890 aircrafts so far.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23797 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 38):
So that proves conclusively the battery is at fault then, no possibility of external triggers? Amazing powers of deduction! Like I said, you MUST send this breakthrough insight to the FAA, Boeing, and the NTSB because clearly they have not figured that out yet.

It doesn't exonerate battery either. At some point Boeing should switch battery supplier. SAFT did considerable work for Airbus, Tesla Motors and General Motors are other candidates for a reliable battery.


My response was to this post.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21):
Jeez Boeing better start kissing ass and letting some NH people on the 77X design board if they wanna sell to them. Otherwise, NH will jump ship and buy the 350.

If somehow JAL thinks this order is a snub against Boeing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. 35% B787 is from Japan.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 42, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 3):
“The real challenge was getting them to develop confidence in Airbus"... "until this point really knew us hardly at all.”

Thinking laterally - I wonder if this campaign influenced Airbus's decision to switch to Ni-Cad batteries on the A350 for the time being, as part of the "confidence" build ...

Interesting side point...

Quote:
Shares in Airbus-parent EADS, which advanced 2.2 percent yesterday to a record on the order announcement, were trading 31 cents lower today at 49.96 euros as of 9:54 a.m. in Paris. The stock has advanced 69 percent this year.

I wonder where our Australian friend is ...

Quoting Centre (Reply 11):
Airbus followed what the global market wants and they dug in until orders for the 1000 started to pour in, and now they are reaping the benefits of their decision.

  

I tend to be in KarelXWB's camp wondering when they'll be forced to revisit the production arrangements for the A350-1000 ... the "critical" gulf carriers are all rushing to show no sign at all of cancelling their -1000 orders..

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 43, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23366 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 37):
It is in a steel case. Can you give one other example where an aircraft manufacturer forced to put battery in a steel case.

Other high capacity Li-ion batteries like in cars, they all have steel cases. The smaller capacity one like in computer pacs should have it if they could, there are several freighter crews lost to these non encapsulated batteries.



Non French in France
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 395 posts, RR: 11
Reply 44, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23116 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 41):
If somehow JAL thinks this order is a snub against Boeing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. 35% B787 is from Japan.

a) Why should JAL as a non-government airline care?
b) From all that we know about this order, the 787 wasn't even in the running here.
c) Airbus have announced that they intend to increase their industrial footprint in Japan.

It's also strange how when people suggested that LH would order all-Airbus for political/industrial reasons (because of Airbus' bigger industrial footprint in Germany, compared to Boeing), they presented that as negative, while now, with JAL suddenly ordering Airbus instead of Boeing, we are being reminded that it would have been wiser for JAL to order Boeing because of Boeing's bigger industrial footprint (by way of having outsourced work) in Japan. Double standards, anyone?



Sláinte!
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22832 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 30):
This Airbus boss knew exactly what he was doing. he played every single card right with the Japanese. This dude is a genius. Maybe Boeing needs some management shake-ups.

Too late.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 46, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22703 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
What will be interesting to see is if NH also orders the A350-900. Unlike JL, their domestic 777-200s are 9-abreast in Economy and NH;s original conversion of 15 787-8s to 787-9s was to replace those domestic 777-200s. NH have subsequently added another 15 787-9s, which is more than sufficient to replace their international 777-200ERs.

A related question: the JAL A350 order is for 772/773 replacement. Which aircraft in the JAL will the 787-9 replace? All 787s on order will be delivered long before 777 retirement starts.

[Edited 2013-10-08 13:46:31]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineairlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22690 times:

This is a major eye opener for Boeing-for sometime there has been way too much confidence and complacency over at Seattle.

In this conjuncture, I am really interested as to what Boeing has to offer other than the 7778-9 project other than elastically stretching the 737 787s


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22613 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 44):
b) From all that we know about this order, the 787 wasn't even in the running here.

That may well be true but thanks at least partly to the 787, Airbus was for the first time genuinely in the running. And I think that is what the "linkage" boils down to.


User currently offlineJA743J From Japan, joined Sep 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22345 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
A related question: the JAL A350 order is for 772/773 replacement. Which aircraft in the JAL will the 787-9 replace? All 787s on order will be delivered long before 777 retirement starts.

777 retirement should start pretty soon. Oldest domestic 772 are delivered in 1996, so by the time 789 arrives, it would be close to its retirement age. Since there is no way those 772 can survive until 2019, which A350 delivary starts, 789 shoud replace domestic 772.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22329 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 43):
Other high capacity Li-ion batteries like in cars, they all have steel cases. The smaller capacity one like in computer pacs should have it if they could, there are several freighter crews lost to these non encapsulated batteries.

Electric/Hybrid cars have thin layer of metal to protect passengers from impaled battery in case of an accident. They don't have a 1/8 inch thick steel case with custom vent system.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 51, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22291 times:

Quoting JA743J (Reply 49):
777 retirement should start pretty soon. Oldest domestic 772 are delivered in 1996, so by the time 789 arrives, it would be close to its retirement age. Since there is no way those 772 can survive until 2019, which A350 delivary starts, 789 shoud replace domestic 772.

Thanks.

So 46 777 aircraft to replace and 31 A350s and 10 789s on order. If they firm the remainder 25 A350 options in the future, it will give them a lot of growth too.

[Edited 2013-10-08 14:28:07]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 52, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 39):
ANA's upcoming order is said to be for around 35 aircraft to replace older 777s. When I look at their fleet I see 787s replacing 767s and 772s. So that leave 77Es (12) , 773s (7), and 77Ws (22). Their youngest 77W is 9 years old and some they have not even received yet. So I see this order as a 77E and 773 order (19). I have a hard time seeing where 35 comes from.

They have 24 767-300s and 25 767-300ERs to replace with 36 787-8 on order, so that leaves a gap of 13. They converted 17 787-8 to 787-9 to replace their domestic 777-200s, of which they have 16. They also have some 777-200ERs in the domestic configuration. They subsequently added 13 787-9, which I am guessing are tasked to replace the remaining 767s.

I am guessing the RFP is 787-9, 787-10, 777-9 from Boeing and A350-900 and A350-1000 from Airbus and will be for 777-200ER, 777-300 and 777-300ER replacement.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 42):
Thinking laterally - I wonder if this campaign influenced Airbus's decision to switch to Ni-Cad batteries on the A350 for the time being, as part of the "confidence" build ...

I still think it was to prevent any new certification requirements or operating requirements from impacting EIS. Airbus have said they intend to return to Li-Ion on the A350XWB in the future and they have to be taking a weight penalty using NiCD for the four main batteries.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
A related question: the JAL A350 order is for 772/773 replacement. Which aircraft in the JAL will the 787-9 replace? All 787s on order will be delivered long before 777 retirement starts.

I'm assuming they will be used to replace the current long-haul 777-200ER fleet and possibly to future up-gauge new routes (like NRT-SAN/SJC).



Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 47):
This is a major eye opener for Boeing-for sometime there has been way too much confidence and complacency over at Seattle.

You're assuming Boeing did little to nothing to try and win this RFP. I am sure they knew full well the full-court-press Airbus has been doing for years to get the A350XWB into their fleet and I expect Boeing worked hard to try and win it. Unfortunately for them, the 777X just wasn't the better plane for the missions JAL was looking at.

[Edited 2013-10-08 16:14:53]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8091 posts, RR: 7
Reply 53, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21340 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
You're assuming Boeing did little to nothing to try and win this RFP. I am sure they knew full well the full-court-press Airbus has been doing for years to get the A350XWB into their fleet and I expect Boeing worked hard to try and win it. Unfortunately for them, the 777X just wasn't the better plane for the missions JAL was looking at.

JAL is movong to a split international operation from both Narita and Haneda, so the smaller A350 probably appealled to them where the 777X is bigger. Boeing wil still be in the JAL fleet for decades as most of teh 787's have not been delivered. AT some point JAL has to grow, if Emirates can fly to every corner of teh world, JAL can fly to more then it does currently.


User currently offlineiahmark From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21298 times:

Good thread, the A350 is looking like a formidable competitor and the way things are going it will match the 787 in number of orders.
This JAL order going go Airbus is showing the 787 grounding left a bad taste in some airlines, also the continuing issues and the normal tests of the A350 are making airlines take notice.

However I think the main problem is the size of the 787-10, too small and lacking range to compete with the A351; Boeing should up gauge it (make a little longer since is still a paper plane …72 meters at least) so it can better compete with the A351’s economics; let face it, the 777-8X won’t be the big seller they expect , it is basically a longer 777LR but in the routes it will be used its economics will be trounced by the A351 which is shaping to be the newer, leaner & meaner 77W!

As an insurance policy Boeing should consider making a new wing and give the green light to a possible 787-11 version; as somebody mentioned earlier in this thread John Leahy left the door open about the possibility of an A350-1100 to challenge the 777-9X.

About the 777-9X , it’s a good plane, maybe a tad too big , it will sell better than the -8X version as long as Airbus doesn’t come true with the -1100, if that happens Boeing may in trouble as the 777-8/9X series is old technology , that when the hypothetical 787-11 could make a difference.

Cheers!!


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 815 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21148 times:

JAL operates its international 777s at 9-abreast, and its 787s at 8-abreast. It may be unwilling to put passengers 10-abreast in a 777X.

If you compare a 9-abreast A35J with a 9-abreast B779, the former probably wins on per-seat economics by a significant margin.

That may be part of the explanation for JAL's decision.

It seems to be a trend: premium carriers (CX, SQ, QR, ...) opt for the A350, while carriers that are willing to put economy passengers 10-abreast in a B777 are inclined toward the 777X (LH, EK, ...).

Btw, ANA operates its international B777s in 9-abreast configurations and its B787s in 8-abreast configurations...


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21136 times:

Quoting Millenium (Reply 40):
A350-900 = 499 (No serial aircraft produced)

As the first A330s are 20 years old, I think it is likely that many of these orders will replace these aircraft.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
Which aircraft in the JAL will the 787-9 replace?

I think they will up-gauge some 767s (49 on hand). They do not have enough 788s on hand/order (25).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
I am guessing the RFP is 787-9, 787-10, 777-9 from Boeing and A350-900 and A350-1000 from Airbus and will be for 777-200ER, 777-300 and 777-300ER replacement.

As their youngest 77Ws are less than 10 years old and they typically keep their aircaft for over 20 years I have a hard time seeing them confirming their replacement this far in advance.

Quoting iahmark (Reply 54):
A351 which is shaping to be the newer, leaner & meaner 77W!

If you add 9-abreast as a qualifier then I agree with you.

Quoting iahmark (Reply 54):
Boeing should consider making a new wing and give the green light to a possible 787-11 version;

No they should not. The 787 does not need to compete with the A351. That is the 777's job. They will have two new models (778 & 779) and one 'old' (77W) and a capacity of more than 8/month to compete with it for a number of years to come. I see no reason why the 77W can't compete on availability and price much like the A330 has against the 787. After all the 777 has received over 600 more orders than the A351 since the A351 was launched.

Quoting iahmark (Reply 54):
777-9X , it’s a good plane, maybe a tad too big

Its only a 2.6m stretch. The 77W was in a good spot but adding two rows of coach makes it too big? I have a hard time understanding this logic.

Quoting iahmark (Reply 54):
Boeing may in trouble as the 777-8/9X series is old technology

Newer wings, engines, and cockpit systems that the A350. Even the cabin interior will get an overhaul over the 787. Hybrid laminar flow will be included for only the second model in history. I also have a hard time with this logic. We can say its heavy, and that is very true but lets not call it old technology yet. Or at least lets wait until its at least launched before we say it.  

tortugamon


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 57, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20866 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Personally, I think Boeing should have pushed GE to launch the GE9X the day Airbus announced the A350-1000 and hung it off the 777 Freighter, 777-200LR and 777-300ER. They could have had it in service years before the A350-1000 and nipped the A350-900L and A350-900F in the bud and they would not have needed to dedicate significant resources to the program, so they could have continued with it even as the 787 program ran aground.

Really? Isn't this what Airbus wanted to do with the original A350 or more like A330 v2.0? New engines alone couldn't make the existing 777 competitive for very long. The shelf life of these merely reengined 777s would've been very short, only a few years at best and probably not worth even the relatively modest engineering resources to do. I think this would have been a non-starter; far better to devote that money, however small, to significantly refresh the series as will be done now. Airbus learned quickly that the earlier A350 would've been DOA and I think Boeing would have had a similar epiphany had it taken a similar move.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 58, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 57):
Really? Isn't this what Airbus wanted to do with the original A350 or more like A330 v2.0?

Yes. And when you consider how many orders it had, and how many orders the A330 has secured in the decade since Airbus first pushed the idea of the A350, it probably would have been very, very successful.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 57):
New engines alone couldn't make the existing 777 competitive for very long.

Sure it could. The A350-900 and A350-1000 are very closely dimensioned to the 777-200 and 777-300 so they don't offer any more capacity and little extra performance. What they do offer is double-digit lower operating costs and that is why they're selling so strongly.

A 777neo would have offered a significant reduction in fuel burn and that would have improved payload performance at design range and beyond (less fuel weight loaded means more payload weight loaded). As well as the 777 has sold since the A350XWB was launched, I believe it would have sold even better in 777neo form.



Quoting AvObserver (Reply 57):
Airbus learned quickly that the earlier A350 would've been DOA and I think Boeing would have had a similar epiphany had it taken a similar move.

Airbus bought into Boeing's hype just like the airlines did. The A350XWB has done them well, and it does keep them relevant in the large airplane market, but the original A350 would have been very successful and very profitable (thanks to much cheaper development and capital costs).


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 59, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 20763 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 53):
AT some point JAL has to grow, if Emirates can fly to every corner of teh world, JAL can fly to more then it does currently.

Yes but with the Japanese: population aging and shrinking; economy not being the mighty behemoth it once was, and; capital city's international airport structure fragmenting (as you mention above) - I can't see JL wanting to cover more of the world with anything larger than the A35J.

They, in my opinion, need to improve their long-haul international offering from more secondary ports than just KIX - like CTS, NGO, FUK, SDJ - so as to compete more effectively against KH and OZ. It's really easy for many Japanese people to take a flight to ICN and then onwards as compared to NRT or KIX. Or to HKG then on to many points in Australasia. The 787 should help mitigate this issue for them.

I don't see a need for the 779X at this juncture but times change.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20582 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 55):
Btw, ANA operates its international B777s in 9-abreast configurations and its B787s in 8-abreast configurations...

ANA has made a change: they are now accepting their international 787s in 9 abreast in Y.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 58):
A 777neo would have offered a significant reduction in fuel burn and that would have improved payload performance at design range and beyond (less fuel weight loaded means more payload weight loaded).

The engine is critically important and a 5% XWB beat is solid. 5 less years and should expect near parity where the weights would pose bigger problems.

Also, the wing is an important piece of the TSFC equation. I see the NEO version as a short term solution.

tortugamon


User currently offlineJA743J From Japan, joined Sep 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20573 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 59):
They, in my opinion, need to improve their long-haul international offering from more secondary ports than just KIX - like CTS, NGO, FUK, SDJ - so as to compete more effectively against KH and OZ. It's really easy for many Japanese people to take a flight to ICN and then onwards as compared to NRT or KIX. Or to HKG then on to many points in Australasia. The 787 should help mitigate this issue for them.

Both JAL and ANA failed miserably in KIX when the airport opened. Operating long-haul outside of Tokyo would be suicide. I can may be see some 787 operating out of KIX and NGO, but other cities would stand no chance. (By the way, do you know how small Sendai is?)
Japan is Tokyo centric than you think. Also, all airports you mentioned has a flights to HND and/or NRT by JAL and/or ANA. They even deploy int-configured 77Ws to ITM and NGO for premium pax to have uniformed service all the way. I just don't see the need for any long-haul operations outside of Tokyo.


User currently offlineJA743J From Japan, joined Sep 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20513 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 59):
They, in my opinion, need to improve their long-haul international offering from more secondary ports than just KIX - like CTS, NGO, FUK, SDJ - so as to compete more effectively against KH and OZ. It's really easy for many Japanese people to take a flight to ICN and then onwards as compared to NRT or KIX. Or to HKG then on to many points in Australasia. The 787 should help mitigate this issue for them.

No. It would be a disaster. Both carriers failed miserably when KIX opened in mid-90's. Apparently, front seats and long-hauls do not sell outside of Tokyo. And that's when fuel cost next to nothing compared to today's standards. (The fact you put Sendai in the list suggests you really don't understand Japanese demographics)

Japan is more Tokyo centric than you think. Besides, all airports you mentioned have flights to HND and/or NRT by either or both carriers. JAL/ANA even deploy thier int-configured 77Ws to ITM/NGO-NRT routes so that premium pax have uniformed service experience all the way. With 787, they might be able to do LAX or LHR to KIX or NGO, but other cities has zero chance.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 63, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20184 times:

There is a good article done by Seattle times where I for once 110% agrees with R Aboulafia:

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ngjalxml.html#.UlR_1W7u32s.twitter

There is a lot of talk about the salemens performance re JAL, there is only so much he can do when the companies managment sets him up badly:

"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s .

He sees the JAL order as a terrible missed opportunity, caused by Boeing leadership’s stop-and-go approach to launching the 777X, which has been talked about for a couple of years and is now expected to formally launch next month.

“787 and 777X should have won Boeing unquestioned dominance of all the key customers,” Aboulafia said. “The problem is the management of Boeing. They have been incredibly passive about getting this program launched.”

Airbus previously won two key A350 orders from Cathay Pacific and IAG, parent company of British Airways and Iberia. Both were significant losses for Boeing.

“How many times do you hit the snooze button on the alarm?” Aboulafia said of Boeing’s management."   

Boeings top managment caused the disaster program around the 787, then this big decision vacuum where the A350-1000 can reign alone for many years. Can't blame the engineers or sales guys when the top steers with both eyes on Wall Street, it has caused the BCA big strategic losses one after the other.   



Non French in France
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20031 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s .

The 77X, as good as it will ever get, was 100% in the race for this order. And it lost.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
which has been talked about for a couple of years and is now expected to formally launch next month.

Why should past managment talk be the reason for JAL to not order the 77X? If it would have been a better fit for them?
The offered 77X spec would not have been better, if it would have been launched earlier.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24641 posts, RR: 86
Reply 65, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
There is a good article done by Seattle times where I for once 110% agrees with R Aboulafia

Mr. Aboulafia has so constantly under-estiamted the A350XWB, I find it difficult to take anything he says about it seriously.

I've never forgotten the pantomime that happened at the Paris Air Show in 2007, when Aboulafia kept setting a bar for the A350XWB and every time Airbus met the bar, he raised it higher.

Is Aboulafia Actually Paid? (by Sebolino Jun 25 2007 in Civil Aviation)?

First up, it had to sell 100 frames, which it did, easily. So raised the bar - it had no sales to a "blue chip" customer, quite ignoring - or forgetting - the Singapore order.

So then he raised the "GE problem":

"The A350 badly needs GE's backing, he said"

Which didn't stop Singapore from ordering it, so then he raised the ILFC problem:

"Unless ILFC orders the A350 quickly it will not have that official stamp of approval by the most important financier of aircraft in that class," he said." - which ILFC promptly did, having suggested it would at the start of the show. Its just that Mr. Aboulafia didn't take the many hints:

I.L.F.C. To Order 20 X A350XWB - Confirmed (by PanAm_DC10 Oct 18 2007 in Civil Aviation)

In the linked article he seems to be saying Japan has bought a turkey, but how can he be so wrong (and so partisan) os often and still have any credibility with regard to the A350XWB, or almost anything Airbus?

mariner

[Edited 2013-10-08 22:42:59]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 66, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19969 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
Mr. Aboulafia has so constantly under-estiamted the A350XWB

As said, "for once" I agree with Richard, he finally woke up about 2 years ago after realizing that the 77W would not hold against the A350-1000 and then starting rooting for the 777X program to be launched. I only agree with him that the biggest problem at Boeing seems to be the CEO and the board looking to much at the short term bottom line. They are deliberately inviting Airbus back into the part of the long haul market Airbus lost with the 340 being no match for Boeings more cleverly conceived 777.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19881 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 60):
The engine is critically important and a 5% XWB beat is solid. 5 less years and should expect near parity where the weights would pose bigger problems.

Not really. You assume that the TXWB will not have any PIP's in the next 5 years where as in reality engine makers find a 1% gain yearly so the TXWB in 5 years will be very close to what is projected for the GE90x but with a million flying hours under its belt. Added to which the 777x is 6-7 years away from EIS!

The 777x weight problem is not going away.

[Edited 2013-10-08 23:49:01]


BV
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24641 posts, RR: 86
Reply 68, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19871 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 66):
s said, "for once" I agree with Richard, he finally woke up about 2 years ago after realizing that the 77W would not hold against the A350-1000 and then starting rooting for the 777X program to be launched. I only agree with him that the biggest problem at Boeing seems to be the CEO and the board looking to much at the short term bottom line. They are deliberately inviting Airbus back into the part of the long haul market Airbus lost with the 340 being no match for Boeings more cleverly conceived 777.

Each to their own. What I read was this:

"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s ."

Not "clearly superior" enough to convince Japan Airlines.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 69, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19746 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
is this the first time JL has been an RR customer?

Eventually everyone sees sense.  
Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
There is a good article done by Seattle Times.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...itter

...that includes this important point:

"The A350-900 is due to enter service in 2015, and JAL won’t get its first one until 2019, providing time to iron out any wrinkles in the systems.

The 777X is due to enter service as a new airplane in 2019 or 2020."

I suspect that's significant after the teething problems (or worse) on the 787. Would JAL (or even ANA) be very confident that the first 777Xs off the line will work as advertised? Take A350s with five years of service under their belt and you shouldn't have a problem.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19667 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 67):
in reality engine makers find a 1% gain yearly so the TXWB in 5 years

New engines improve roughly 1% per year. Engines pips do not improve 1% every year. I am hard pressed to find any engine that achieved 1% improvement every year for anything longer than the first couple of years. The TXWB is only a couple points better than the Trent 1000 but the GENx is at least 1% better than the Trent 1000 and that will be the starting block for the GE9x so they are starting for an enviable position. Also, the same improvements to the TXWB will be capable on the GE9X so the delta between them will remain. Who knows what will actually happen but the current wisdom is 5% and I think the 777x will need it in order to match seat economics with the A351 so it can win on RFP from added revenue.

tortugamon


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 71, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19637 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 68):
Each to their own. What I read was this:

"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s ."

Not "clearly superior" enough to convince Japan Airlines.

That part I don't agree with, there is a big hole from 300 seats to 400 where Airbus offering is better until the 787-10HGW gets done and the 777-8 prove itselves of being competitive also on 10-12 hours legs.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19614 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
Engines pips do not improve 1% every year. I am hard pressed to find any engine that achieved 1% improvement every year for anything longer than the first couple of years.

Ok, I'll give you that, its not a linear relationship but the TXWB is rummoured to be better than spec at EIS.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
GENx is at least 1% better than the Trent 1000 and that will be the starting block for the GE9x

With respect that is utter BS. The GE9x and the GENX are totally different beasts, I'd also dispute the 1% figure anyway.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
Also, the same improvements to the TXWB will be capable on the GE9X so the delta between them will remain.

Not really, ask RR where their engine will be in 2020, that delta may remain but not the delta between a 2013 TXWB and a 2020 GE9X

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70):
Who knows what will actually happen but the current wisdom is 5% and I think the 777x will need it in order to match seat economics with the A351 so it can win on RFP from added revenue.

Yup, its going to need it.. nope, its not going to get it. Its the usual fuzzy maths that Boeing dazzles A.net menbers with but it does not wash with airlines.



BV
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19561 times:

Currently for the 787 GE has the better engine, SFC wise anyway, with the TEN model the T1000 will catch up with GE again.

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19603 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 68):
"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s ."

Not "clearly superior" enough to convince Japan Airlines.

Absolutely.

And the 787 & 77X superiority claim is even more laughable if we quickly try to find some of his blue chip operators that habe bought into a pure 787 & 777X fleet. There is none currently (it's a bit early I have to admit here). QF could become one but anyway there will not be many in the future. There are simply not many blue chip airlines, that have not already ordered A350's.

So contrary to his believe, both the A359 and the A351 have occupied quite a sweet spot in the whole market.

It seems solidly sitting at the at the middle and expand to the remote market areas from there is at least as clever, as making two very large investments and trying to tackle the middle of the market from two extreme ends. Because the strengths of the 787 and the 77X designs lay definitively outside the 300 to 350 seat range.

Picking the A350 as cornerstone, airlines might have mediocre versions at the boundaries of their fleet so to speak (efficency constraint A358 and maybe range constraint A3511). But going 787&77X they will have the mediocre versions in the middle of their setup (efficency constraint 778X and range constraint 781).

Of course the 767 (and A330) replacement market alone is big and deserved a dedicated design. So the 787 as it is was no mistake. I consider it as great success.

But I still believe, that (large scale) upgrades of the 787 would be better for countering the A350 than really large scale 777 upgrades. Because sometimes in the future, there will be a 350 seat, 8000nm 787 version anyway. Otherwise the 787 would be the first aircraft that would not have grown in size&capability that much....


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 75, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19421 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
"The A350 badly needs GE's backing, he said"

Which didn't stop Singapore from ordering it, so then he raised the ILFC problem:

Don't forget Air France.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19335 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
the TXWB is rummoured to be better than spec at EIS.

True. Here the rumor you accept as probable. What about here:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
nope, its not going to get it. Its the usual fuzzy maths that Boeing dazzles A.net menbers with but it does not wash with airlines.

Some respected members have agreed that 5% is likely and we know that the 5% figure is built into GE's contract so why should that not be expected until better information becomes available?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
I'd also dispute the 1% figure anyway.

GE has 66% market share or something to that effect. Its helps me to feel confident in the figures that have come out and supported here.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
The GE9x and the GENX are totally different beasts

In many ways you are correct. But the core and structure is meant to be remarkably similar as a stated interest in the GE9x platform is to beat RR by rolling back GE9x composite technologies into the GENx in order to continuously improve those engines as well. From what I can tell, these structures appear similar. But certainly size/ratios/materials are different.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
but not the delta between a 2013 TXWB and a 2020 GE9X

Right, the 5% figure is not at identical points in time but at EIS I believe. These will not always be static, I agree.

Quoting sweair (Reply 73):
Currently for the 787 GE has the better engine, SFC wise anyway, with the TEN model the T1000 will catch up with GE again.

But GE will surely launch another as well once they have the GE9x technologies to back-flow. Neither will stop improving and the program will benefit from it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 74):
range constraint 781

I am not sure if 7knm is that much of a constraint as an A330 replacement. It is said it will be able to handle 95% of 77E routes. We will see what will happen but I think it will be very successful and we will, indeed, see an IGW version down the road.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 77, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19319 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 76):
I am not sure if 7knm is that much of a constraint as an A330 replacement. It is said it will be able to handle 95% of 77E routes. We will see what will happen

The 787-10 may very well be presented by Boeing as a real 7000NM plane and an ideal 77E replacement, but we've learnt from LH that they ran the numbers on their network and found out the 787-10 is not a suitable A343 successor because it can't effectively reach west coast usa or south america from FRA.

The 787-10 may very well have the range, but according to LH, that's only because it's eating very deep into its payload, so I'd be very interested to see just what is ment with 'handling 95% of the 777E routes' is it can't handle half the A343 routes LH operates (by their own saying)?

Clearly it doesn't mean 'hauling as much payload as the 77E on them', which shouldn't be such a surprise, because if the 787-10 could really do that, then the A359 would be an extremely heavy and overdesigned plane, something it clearly isn't from it's commercial successes.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19245 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 76):
True. Here the rumor you accept as probable. What about here:

No! Its a rumour I clearly stated this..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 76):
Some respected members have agreed that 5% is likely and we know that the 5% figure is built into GE's contract so why should that not be expected until better information becomes available?

Well to state the obvious GE do NOT KNOW what the TXWB's SFC is / will be now or in the future so if this is in any contract its a pretty laughable and stupid contract. This is why engine manufactureres usually compare their new engines to their old engines because they know what these specs are, promissing to meet a target that you have no way of knowing smacks of desperation, a little bit like the 787 engine competition where both OEM's made unrealistic claims that they could not live up too..

[Edited 2013-10-09 02:06:03]


BV
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 395 posts, RR: 11
Reply 79, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18992 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s .

That's the same guy that with regard to the A350 said you really need two engine options for an airplane to be competitive. Something he hasn't ever brought up with regard to the 737, 77W/77X, or 748.
What he's saying there is also funny as it comes from the same guy that slammed Airbus for its initial A350 Mk. I, which took exactly the same approach as the 77X is taking today (more carbon fibre, new engines, new wings, stretch, make inside cabin a bit wider). Back in the day, Aboulafia's line was that a revamp couldn't possibly beat a clean-sheet design. Now that Boeing are using the revamp approach, he suddenly says the exact opposite.

He's really not making it easy to take him seriously.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
The 77X, as good as it will ever get, was 100% in the race for this order. And it lost.

  

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
Mr. Aboulafia has so constantly under-estiamted the A350XWB, I find it difficult to take anything he says about it seriously.

  
Fully agree on the other points in your post as well - I also still haven't forgotten Aboulafia's travesty of bar-raising/goalpost-moving at Paris 2007. He did change tack somewhat in 2011 when he suddenly started advocating the 77X, which wouldn't have been necessary if he had been right about the A350 to begin with. However, he never actually admitted that he had constantly underestimated the A350.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 66):
I only agree with him that the biggest problem at Boeing seems to be the CEO and the board looking to much at the short term bottom line. They are deliberately inviting Airbus back into the part of the long haul market Airbus lost with the 340 being no match for Boeings more cleverly conceived 777.

I do agree that management at Boeing was exceptionally poor during the launch and development of the 787 (and the 747-8, for that matter).
I also do agree that they launched the 787-10 way too late - they originally started talking about it (and the fact that its launch was just a question of time) in 2005. They didn't then launch it for another eight years.
However, having said all that, I don't see how, with the 787 issues and the troubled 747-8 development, Boeing could have realistically launched the 77X any earlier than this year.



Sláinte!
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19005 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
There is a good article done by Seattle times where I for once 110% agrees with R Aboulafia:

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...itter

Good article.

Even if you ignore Aboulafia's comments, the article makes a pretty strong linkage (there's the dreaded word again) between JAL's experience with the 787 and their decision to reduce dependence on a single supplier, opening the door for Airbus to be able to sell its aircraft on its merits rather than be closed out due to relationships.

Quotes:

"Shortly after the 787s were grounded due to problems with overheating batteries, the airline’s reliance on Boeing as a sole supplier was decried as “abnormal” by its former chairman, Kazuo Inamori.

The airline’s first-ever Airbus order appears to be part of his legacy.

Another part of the reason for the defection may be JAL’s frustration with the 787 Dreamliner’s in-service problems.

JAL operated the Dreamliner that caught fire on the ground in Boston in early January, prompting the worldwide grounding of the fleet."

And then these tidbits:

"The airline resumed 787 flights in June, but since then has cataloged multiple reliability issues.

JAL maintains a tally of technical incidents with the 787. Since June, five JAL Dreamliners turned back while in the air, nine were forced to return to the gate before takeoff due to technical issues, and in two cases other aircraft had to be substituted at the last minute.

Technical problems on six other Dreamliners resulted in delays of more than two hours.

Analyst Hamilton said that litany of reliability issues may have weighed more heavily against Boeing in JAL’s boardroom than the grounding due to the batteries."

The last sentence above is especially worrying, given the experiences of Norwegian and LOT as well post-grounding. JAL seems to have kept their issues more quiet, but didn't mean they didn't have similar issues.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24641 posts, RR: 86
Reply 81, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 80):
Even if you ignore Aboulafia's comments, the article makes a pretty strong linkage (there's the dreaded word again) between JAL's experience with the 787 and their decision to reduce dependence on a single supplier, opening the door for Airbus to be able to sell its aircraft on its merits rather than be closed out due to relationships.

I'm sorry, I find the article so Seattle-centric, so obsessed with the idea that Boeing failed it suggests that the A350 didn't win the order on its own merits, it won the order on Boeing's failures.

So it subscribes to the idea that the Boeing product is "clearly superior" but that the Being management is flawed.

Sure, the 787 problems may have played into it, but I don't believe the airline would have bought the A350XWB unless they thought it was the right aircraft for their needs.

Airbus people worked their arses off to get this order, with a fine product, and I think they - and the aircraft - should be given all proper credit for that.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18896 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 81):
Sure, the 787 problems may have played into it, but I don't believe the airline would have bought the A350XWB unless they thought it was the right aircraft for their needs.

Mariner - absolutely. I think what people are missing is that it is not an either-or. It is a one-two sequence.

Step 1 was JAL finally willing to look beyond Boeing for its aircraft needs. That was driven by their 787 experience.

Step 2 was Airbus demonstrating they had a better product for JAL's needs.

In the past, Airbus would not even have gotten to Step 1 regardless of merit, they would have been eliminated at Step 0, which is "Give Airbus a call for courtesy sake, but we will only buy the best Boeing has to offer".


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 83, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
There is a good article done by Seattle times where I for once 110% agrees with R Aboulafia:

Well, he says some sensible words, but not all words I can agree with. And the market is also not agreeing with him there.  .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s .

The Boeing offerings are at best on par, and that is all subjective to how you look at these products, and their capabilities. For in the end the market will decide. The B787, the A350 and most likely the B777-X will all be commercial successes, though for the B787 it might take a very long while to be commercially profitable for Boeing. But with the A350 closing in on 800 orders, making it the most successful new wide body to the market so far, is driven by the market and the quality of the Airbus offering. I know the B787 had about 850 orders at EIS (it probably sold over a 1,000 copies, but there were also lots of cancellations) but the A350 is considerably larger and more expensive then the B787. Making it sales count (which might also stand at 850 copies or so at EIS) even more impressive. Who would have thought that 5 years ago?   

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
The 77X, as good as it will ever get, was 100% in the race for this order. And it lost.

Indeed it did.   .

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
Mr. Aboulafia has so constantly under-estiamted the A350XWB, I find it difficult to take anything he says about it seriously.

You are not the only one with this "problem".  .

Quoting mariner (Reply 68):
Not "clearly superior" enough to convince Japan Airlines.

Indeed it was not. JAL chose the best plane for them, which by definition must be superior to win the RFP.

Quoting PM (Reply 69):
Eventually everyone sees sense.  

   .

Good times for RR indeed with their exclusivity on the A350-program. For the -1000 they will not face competition, and for the -800/-900 no other engine manufacturer has stepped up to pick up the glove thrown at them.  .

Quoting PM (Reply 69):
The 777X is due to enter service as a new airplane in 2019 or 2020."

I suspect that's significant after the teething problems (or worse) on the 787. Would JAL (or even ANA) be very confident that the first 777Xs off the line will work as advertised? Take A350s with five years of service under their belt and you shouldn't have a problem.

They will have played a role for sure, but I find it difficult to quantify to what extend that role might have been decisive. In the end I believe the merits of the Airbus offering secured at least 95% of this deal.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 74):
So contrary to his believe, both the A359 and the A351 have occupied quite a sweet spot in the whole market.

They have, and the order number is proving this without any doubt. This will be the most successful wide body program ever took on. I believe it will beat the sales of the A330/A340 combination in the end by quite a margin.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
Well to state the obvious GE do NOT KNOW what the TXWB's SFC is / will be now or in the future so if this is in any contract its a pretty laughable and stupid contract. This is why engine manufactureres usually compare their new engines to their old engines because they know what these specs are, promissing to meet a target that you have no way of knowing smacks of desperation, a little bit like the 787 engine competition where both OEM's made unrealistic claims that they could not live up too..

Yes, those claims are quite speculative. Especially when even GE and Boeing were surprised by how much better then anticipated the GE90 worked on the B777, especially the B77W. So those numbers (of both the Trent-XWB and the GE9x) are not fixed yet. Any such claim as made by GE should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially since the Trent-XWB already is at or beating the specs even before EIS. And the Trent XWB for the A350-1000 will only start its test runs early 2014 if i am not mistaken. And that Trent XWB is again a step further then the "standard" Trent XWB.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 79):
Back in the day, Aboulafia's line was that a revamp couldn't possibly beat a clean-sheet design. Now that Boeing are using the revamp approach, he suddenly says the exact opposite.

Well, he has its own agenda here. So what is good for the one, is bad for the other. Has nothing to do with the quality of the offerings by the OEM's, it has everything to do with his own agenda here.  .

Quoting anfromme (Reply 79):
He's really not making it easy to take him seriously.

Correct. Though still too many people listen to him. Luckily CEO's at civilian airliners and their fleet planning departments are making a lot more sense them him. The more that goes on, the less credible Richard Aboulafia will become. He has lost lots of ground over the years in that department already. And at this pace in a couple of years hardly anyone will take Richard Aboulafia serious anymore.  .


User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 84, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18700 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 83):
Luckily CEO's at civilian airliners and their fleet planning departments are making a lot more sense them him. The more that goes on, the less credible Richard Aboulafia will become. He has lost lots of ground over the years in that department already. And at this pace in a couple of years hardly anyone will take Richard Aboulafia serious anymore.

Other than provide some embittered quotes to news outlets from time to tome, his professional stage in the aviation industry is now close to zero, since airlines make up their own mind about fleet procurement and have constantly disagreed with his points of view in no small way. He started looking like a complete idiot right after Paris 2007 where Airbus slapped him in the face each time he set out to move the goal post by getting past it 2 fingers in the nose even and he does so even more as time goes by and the XWB turns out to be a formidable platform to take on both the 787 and the 777.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 85, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18281 times:

The WSJ now has this story with John Wojick, Boeing's top salesman.

Quote:
The order is a setback in Mr. Wojick's efforts to defend Boeing's turf from Airbus and build a more aggressive, customer-focused sales culture since he took the top sales job just over a year ago. It puts heavy pressure on the 56-year-old executive to avert a similar Airbus deal with the second of its two key Japanese clients, All Nippon Holdings Inc., which is said to be nearing a decision on a major purchase.

"Our failure on 787 has caused people to want to understand why we believe 737 Max & 777X will be a different story."

...

"Quite frankly we were failing at meeting our commitment to our customers," Mr. Wojick recalls. "Some of us may have been able to handle our emotions a little better than others."



Google for "Boeing's Top Salesman Works to Rebuild Customer Trust" to find the article.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetropical From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18215 times:

I don't think even the most rabid Airbus hater on these boards or elsewhere on Earth is even 1% as passionate in his visceral hatred of and obsession with the European plane maker as Mr. Aboulafia is.

If Airbus planes could walk on water, the man would say it's only because they can't swim.

Sad, sad case.

[Edited 2013-10-09 07:18:55]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 87, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17895 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
Well to state the obvious GE do NOT KNOW what the TXWB's SFC is

Of course they don't but they will have an excellent idea by EIS and that is the number they are going to try to beat. It may not be perfectly transparent to us but engine OEMs know what the other is doing and they quickly incorporate industry best practices. I have very little doubt that GE will know the TSFC of the TXWB at EIS. And it works the other way too.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
promissing to meet a target that you have no way of knowing smacks of desperation

Actually, I think it links the success of the engine with a metric that matters to the OEM/airline. I am actually pleasantly surprised this level of semi-objective measuring is being built in.

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 84):
XWB turns out to be a formidable platform to take on both the 787 and the 777.

I am not sure these programs truly compete with each other. I cannot think of the last time that the RFP was between the 787 and the A350. The 787-10 will change that. The A358 clearly competed but I don't think we are talking about that much anymore. The A359 and A351 really do not compete with the 788 and 789. The A350 was sized to compete with the 777 and forced the 777x to move to a larger size. The A359 is an optimized frame in a very good position and if an airline needs a 77E range replacement and could use a capacity bump than there is no better frame out there. I think the A351 clearly does compete with the 777. However the 777 has outsold the A351 by over 600 units since the A351 was launched with the 77W accounting for a very significant portion. It will get interesting for sure.


tortugamon


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 88, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17795 times:

Hey guys, nuff with the li-ion discussion....it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 41):
If somehow JAL thinks this order is a snub against Boeing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. 35% B787 is from Japan.

your sentence doesn't make sense....again.
It is a snub against Boeing. They're replacing an entire fleet with the rival group's airframe. This is a huge win for Airbus.

Quoting glideslope (Reply 45):
Too late.

I sadly think so too.....Boeing therefore has one other option-shake up the 77X or bust out the 797....or create a whole new line.

OR maybe B can collab with Mitsubishi and make their own widebody?   
Something I'd be willing to invest all my hard-earned cash in, actually. Hell, I'd go to pilot school just to be a test pilot for this imaginary venture   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 88):
The order is a setback in Mr. Wojick's efforts to defend Boeing's turf from Airbus and build a more aggressive, customer-focused sales culture since he took the top sales job just over a year ago. It puts heavy pressure on the 56-year-old executive to avert a similar Airbus deal with the second of its two key Japanese clients, All Nippon Holdings Inc., which is said to be nearing a decision on a major purchase.

I have some questions about this guy and I wanna hear the opinions from the more educated members on this guy:
How long has he been with B?
Has he been a salesman for other firms previously?
How well does he understand the Japanese?
Has he made trips to Japan? Has he inspected personally any of the 787s involved in incidents?

I ask this because doing stuff like this is practically a dream job for me. Flying back and forth between Japan and the USA, the go-between for Boeing and Japanese customers and suppliers.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17753 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 90):
Of course they don't but they will have an excellent idea by EIS and that is the number they are going to try to beat.

You stated earlier in the thread that GE have already entered legally binding contracts with this number that you now admit that they do not yet know, cannot possibly know for another year... That they have guarenteed to beat an unspecified SFC number, which they cannot know, by 5%..

And you think that this is a sound business practice?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 90):
Actually, I think it links the success of the engine with a metric that matters to the OEM/airline. I am actually pleasantly surprised this level of semi-objective measuring is being built in.

LOL, well yes its a handy metric but its really just picking numbers out of the sky, what if hypothetically, RR announces next year at EIS that the TXWB is indeed 2% better than expected, what happens to GE's 5% promise? GE has made itself a hostage to fortune, it has promissed to beat performance indicators that it has no control over.



BV
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17595 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 91):
maybe B can collab with Mitsubishi and make their own widebody?

Really, Mitsubishi cannot even make its own RJ. What is Japanese WB market? What is the O&D traffic.

777X is designed just for EK.

Long term future is with China. B787 will be more successful because Chinese and Indians want to have non-stop/one-stop option to North America. Most likely from their own hubs. Large hubs thriving on transit passengers will be history. Airbus will do better on regional WB routes.

Winning against a 17 year old design(777) is not something to harp on.

Spite vs Merit discussion will go on forever. I think A350XWB won on its own merit.


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 91, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17592 times:

Quoting JA743J (Reply 62):
No. It would be a disaster. Both carriers failed miserably when KIX opened in mid-90's. Apparently, front seats and long-hauls do not sell outside of Tokyo. And that's when fuel cost next to nothing compared to today's standards. (The fact you put Sendai in the list suggests you really don't understand Japanese demographics)

Saikeirei!!! I bow to your superior knowledge.

Quoting JA743J (Reply 62):
Japan is more Tokyo centric than you think. Besides, all airports you mentioned have flights to HND and/or NRT by either or both carriers.

Having lived in Tokyo (near Ebisu-eki and in Shibuya proper) for four years in the early 90's, I'm aware of how Tokyo-centric Japan is - and how very much the two major carriers are. I'm also aware how much this has made them victim to (particularly) the Korean carriers for Japan based travelers outside of Tokyo. I guess what I had forgotten was, for this was not the status during my time, the rise of HND as a long-haul international base - which allows for stronger competition with ICN. NRT used to have terrible domestic connections.

Anyhow, I think the combination of A35J, A359, 789 & 788 will offer JL the best combination of craft for their various, and no doubt about to increase, long-haul and regional Asian international routes.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17434 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
Spite vs Merit discussion will go on forever. I think A350XWB won on its own merit.

I don't think anyone has suggested the A350 was ordered simply out of spite.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 93, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17298 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 90):
That they have guarenteed to beat an unspecified SFC number, which they cannot know, by 5%..

No they are planning on beating the engine of their competitor by 5%. I am not privy to the contracts but the information that has been released has not stated specific TSFC numbers, just the improvement percentage over the competitor.

GE9x vs TrentXWB
Overall Pressure Ratio- 61:1 vs 52.1
Bypass Ratio: ~12 vs 9.3

If they are confident that they can achieve these ratios with the further use of ceramics then by definition their engine will be more efficient and therefore I don't see why it is that outrageous to assume they can beat the competitive engine by 5%.

It will be about 1% per year better than the Trent (actually less) which we both agree is about the percentage new engines gain over old engines. It may appear to be a black box to some but I think these engine OEMs know how they are going to make their single percentage gains.

If GE can't beat it by 5% they probably don't deserve to be making engines anymore and I am sure RR will see to it.

tortugamon


User currently offlineJA743J From Japan, joined Sep 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17231 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 92):
I guess what I had forgotten was, for this was not the status during my time, the rise of HND as a long-haul international base - which allows for stronger competition with ICN. NRT used to have terrible domestic connections.

I read somewhere that 70% of Japanese domestic flights are to/from HND, so naturally, rise of long-hauls out of HND would solve the problem. Also, years you were in Japan probably was when NRT had the longest waiting list for available slots. When the 2nd runway opened right before the World Cup, domestic connections in NRT improved significantly.


User currently offlineZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17178 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
I think A350XWB won on its own merit.

??? DTW2HYD??? is this You? or has someone hacked your account?

-cheers-


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17189 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 91):
777X is designed just for EK.

....and that is why LH is the launch customer ?



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16825 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 89):
That they have guarenteed to beat an unspecified SFC number, which they cannot know, by 5%..
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):
No they are planning on beating the engine of their competitor by 5%.

Here is the quote from GE:

"The GE9X will be the most fuel-efficient engine GE has ever produced on a per-pounds-of-thrust basis, designed to achieve a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER and a 5% improved specific fuel consumption versus any twin-aisle engine at service entry. In addition, the engine will deliver an approximate 10-to-1 bypass ratio, a 60-to-1 overall pressure ratio and margin to Stage 5 noise limits."

http://www.geaviation.com/newengine/

tortugamon


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 98, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16761 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
"The GE9X will be the most fuel-efficient engine GE has ever produced on a per-pounds-of-thrust basis, designed to achieve a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER and a 5% improved specific fuel consumption versus any twin-aisle engine at service entry. In addition, the engine will deliver an approximate 10-to-1 bypass ratio, a 60-to-1 overall pressure ratio and margin to Stage 5 noise limits."

So yes, that's saying it'll make the 779X, at its entry into service, 5% better specific fuel consumption than the A35J, at its entry into service.

What is specific fuel consumption please someone? Sounds like an obfuscating term to me.

Also, how many years later will the 779X's service entry be than the A35J? And does anyone think for a moment that improvements to the RR efficiency won't be made over that period?

And that Boeing plane will still have a heavy-ass frame to haul into the air when compared with the Airbus.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 99, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16739 times:

You guys are too much focusing on the engine alone. The GE9X is newer so yes, it will be better but you have to look at the complete airframe. The better engine will compensate for the heavier airframe. In fact, Boeing said the fuel per per passenger will be about the same as the A351.

[Edited 2013-10-09 14:59:49]


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, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 100, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 99):
In fact, Boeing said the fuel per per passenger will be about the same as the A351.

They have, but that claim is only valid if you can sell the extra seats the B777-9 has over the A350-1000 to real passengers. If those extra seats would remain empty, the fuel consumption of the B777-9 will fall behind of that of the A350-1000.

And all customers are very aware of this. So if they think they can fill the B777-9 up to capacity, they might favour that option. But if they can not do that enough, the customers have other options as we have seen with the many high profile orders the A350 has secured from blue chip customers all over the world.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 101, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16659 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 100):
They have, but that claim is only valid if you can sell the extra seats the B777-9 has over the A350-1000 to real passengers. If those extra seats would remain empty, the fuel consumption of the B777-9 will fall behind of that of the A350-1000.

True, although if you can fill an 10-abreast 777-300ER today than filling an 777-9 tomorrow should not be that hard (especially not in high season) because it will only have 20 extra seats.

[Edited 2013-10-09 15:13:41]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 102, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 98):
What is specific fuel consumption please someone?

The encyclopedia definition is it is the amount of fuel necessary to provide a given thrust for a given unit of time.

The TSFC GE9X benefits from the very high pressure ratio they are planning.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 103, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16722 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 98):
So yes, that's saying it'll make the 779X, at its entry into service, 5% better specific fuel consumption than the A35J, at its entry into service.

Yes, that is the claim.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 98):
What is specific fuel consumption please someone?

Wiki has some answers for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumption

Generally its use is normalized for thrust but the quote does not use the word 'thrust'.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 98):
And that Boeing plane will still have a heavy-ass frame to haul into the air when compared with the Airbus.

It certainly will. And it will have a gigantic wing to attach the new wings too. I imagine most will be excited to see that and the folding wings.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 99):
In fact, Boeing said the fuel per per passenger will be about the same as the A351.

Right.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 100):
They have, but that claim is only valid if you can sell the extra seats the B777-9 has over the A350-1000 to real passengers.

Ah, the argument against A380s now being used against the 777 (x that is)! What an ironic and cruel world  

Good thing at 7 abreast in J, 9 abreast in Y+, 10 abreast in Y, and more cargo, it will have added revenue when they can fill the seats to make up for the higher trip costs. The 77W isn't that much smaller than the -9x and it does ok so with normal upsizing in 10 years time I imagine it won't be too much of a headache.

I suspect we will see A351s and 777xs in many of the same fleets as they will both be excellent for their desired purpose.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 104, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16499 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
Here is the quote from GE:

Yes, I know I have read the quote.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 98):
So yes, that's saying it'll make the 779X, at its entry into service, 5% better specific fuel consumption than the A35J, at its entry into service.

Yup thats the claim.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Yes, that is the claim.

So why do you deny this in post 93?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Ah, the argument against A380s now being used against the 777 (x that is)! What an ironic and cruel world

OK, I do see the irony here  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
The TSFC GE9X benefits from the very high pressure ratio they are planning.

Does this not introduce an element of risk to the design?



BV
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16432 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 104):
So why do you deny this in post 93?

Please do not put words in my mouth; I do not see how I denied any claim. I was not comparing a mature engine to a newborn engine just like I don't think GE is. Newborn (EIS) vs newborn and Mature vs Mature is the only way to compare these things. Of course we don't know the actual numbers but we have an idea of how much better one engine may be vs another.

This is very off topic. Nothing to do with JAL here.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16415 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Please do not put words in my mouth; I do not see how I denied any claim.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, they are your own words, and while we are on the subject of your words please explain this, first you say we know its in the contract, then you say (correctly) that you are not privvy to any contracts.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 76):
Some respected members have agreed that 5% is likely and we know that the 5% figure is built into GE's contract so why should that not be expected until better information becomes available?
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):
I am not privy to the contracts but the information that has been released has not stated specific TSFC numbers, just the improvement percentage over the competitor.

The point is not that GE have stated a TSFC number that they will better, they have not but they have 'guarenteed' to beat RR's TSFC number, which they cannot know by 5%, (In the end this is going to be a real number btw) First you deny it then you accept it, then you deny denying it.

I'm fine with people changing their possition but at least admit that you have changed.



BV
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 107, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16357 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 106):
first you say we know its in the contract

GE have made their claim public. Call that a contract if you will, but if they feel comfortable to make the claim publicly I cannot fathom why similar detailed performance expectations would not be in the GE/Boeing contract when they agreed to exclusivity. If that does not satisfy my claim that GE has contractually guaranteed hit that number then I give up and accept that I am wrong because I am not going to scour the internet looking for any other information on it.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 106):
The point is not that GE have stated a TSFC number

I do not even know what a TSFC number looks like; I just know that GE has promised to beat RR's by 5%. I don't think I said anything to conflict with that.

So tired of the back and forth BV. If we want to talk about people changing their positions first you say that the 5% is:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 72):
Its the usual fuzzy maths that Boeing dazzles A.net menbers with but it does not wash with airlines.

but now you clearly accept the 5% is GE's very public claim:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 104):
Yup thats the claim.

Not a lot of fuzzy math in TSFC.

Again, this is not productive to this thread. If you have any follow up lets go to the 777x thread. This has nothing to do with the JAL order.

tortugamon


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 108, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16358 times:

Everyone knew that LH was going to order a replacement for the A340-300 fleet, which is now aging quite a bit. The A350XWB-900 was the plane LH wanted, and that's why they placed such a large order (24 firm orders with 30 options) for the A359.

I think JL had to place this order, given the retirement of the 747 and the fact JL's 777 fleet outside of the recent 77W deliveries were starting to age. Expect JL to assign the A35J to the NRT to SFO/LAX routes once the plane become available.


User currently offlineJA743J From Japan, joined Sep 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16303 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 108):
Expect JL to assign the A35J to the NRT to SFO/LAX routes once the plane become available.

Why these two routes?
Japanese carriers tend to put their latest products to either JFK or LHR flights first.
Since A351 should be equipped with latest interior (I think they will call them Sky Suite 350), I don't think LAX or especially SFO would have the priority.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 110, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15931 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):"Aboulafia said he still strongly believes Boeing’s offerings in the large widebody category — the 787 and 777X families — are clearly superior to Airbus’ single family of A350s .The 77X, as good as it will ever get, was 100% in the race for this order. And it lost.

Correct, the A350 is a better fit for JL than the 777X.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 63):
Airbus previously won two key A350 orders from Cathay Pacific and IAG, parent company of British Airways and Iberia. Both were significant losses for Boeing.

As for CX, the 787 was too small, and after the A350-900 order a follop up order of -1000s was logical. But the 777-9X could very likely be in CX' future fleet. BA was another matter I believe. Airbus very smartly moved in because the 777X had not ATO (and, OF COURSE, the A350-1000 will be a great plane - but I believe BA could very well have chosen the 777-9 over the A35J just like LH did).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
"Our failure on 787 has caused people to want to understand why we believe 737 Max & 777X will be a different story."

Best thing for Boeing would be a smooth flight testing and EIS of the 787-9. Followed by far more reliability than the 787-8. And I'm optimistic Boeing has learned from their mistakes and show it with the 787-9.



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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15403 times:

The WSJ is reporting that the marketing head of Boeing Mike Bair, is stepping down. No reason given yet, but we can all speculate...

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 112, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15323 times:

Quoting timpdx (Reply 111):
The WSJ is reporting that the marketing head of Boeing Mike Bair

Bair was not the head of marketing. VP. He was the ousted leader of the 787 program.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 113, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
Bair was not the head of marketing. VP. He was the ousted leader of the 787 program.

His current title within Boeing is vice president of marketing and business development. At 57, he's 8 years under Boeing's mandatory retirement age for executives so his retirement may be voluntary or it may be at the (private) request of the CEO and/or Board.

There is a new thread to discuss this specific development - Boeing To Change Up Sales Team / Strategy (by phxa340 Oct 10 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15046 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 107):
but now you clearly accept the 5% is GE's very public claim:

I accept that 5% is GE's public claim always have but as I have clearly stated 3 or 4 or 5 times it is 5% on top of a target that GE cannnot possibly know (RR probably don't even know for certain, they are still developing the engine) yet GE makes a guarentee of beating this unknown TFSC figure by 5% and Boeing runs with this to project a magically efficient aircraft this has to be fuzzy math, or dishonest or speculative or pulling numbers out of the sky, you choose.

Why is this relevent? Well because if JL believed in Boeing claims why did they not go ahead and order the 777X as they have an undeniably strong relationship with Boeing.

Clearly timing, size and not being a launch customer may have come into this but also the seat mile costs and fuel burn.



BV
User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14983 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 37):
It is in a steel case. Can you give one other example where an aircraft manufacturer forced to put battery in a steel case.

If putting the putting the battery in a steel case was such a grotesque move, why didn't Boeing advise against it?

Could the 777X go the way of the first A350 project? (more or less an A330 Neo at the time)

Could Boeing decide on building a clean sheet design if the A350 continues to make big inroads into blue chip Boeing's customers?

Is the 777X project more advanced than the first version of the A350 before it became the XWB?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 116, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 114):
GE makes a guarentee of beating this unknown TFSC figure by 5% and Boeing runs with this to project a magically efficient aircraft this has to be fuzzy math, or dishonest or speculative or pulling numbers out of the sky, you choose.

So you argue that new engines typically don't improve upon older engines by roughly 1% per year or that GE is incompetent? The TXWB will be roughly 5 years old when the GE9X enters service so I am not sure why Boeing should not expect similar improvements. I don't know about 'Boeing Fuzzy Math'; maybe you can elaborate what you mean to which math you refer?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 114):
Well because if JL believed in Boeing claims why did they not go ahead and order the 777X

I was not privy to the negotiations. I would think though that they could still believe Boeing claims (as LH did) and still order the A351: I would think it has to do with the fact that they don't have a need for a larger aircraft, they don't want to go to 10-abreast as their clientele expect space, Japan has shrinking population rates, a stated desire for not relaying on multiple vendors, the fact that the A351 will be available years earlier, and I imagine they got a fantastic deal as well.

If we needed another reason, oh yeah, the A351 should be a fantastic aircraft if it can beat the 77W by 20%+ so why wouldn't they order it? The 779 is expected to have similar seat costs to the A351; if you don't need the extra seats why would the A351 not be your ideal aircraft of choice?

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 117, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14806 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting a380900 (Reply 115):
Could the 777X go the way of the first A350 project? (more or less an A330 Neo at the time)

Could Boeing decide on building a clean sheet design if the A350 continues to make big inroads into blue chip Boeing's customers?

I expect not because while the original A350 had a successful start, it was a direct replacement for the A330-200, A330-300 and A340-300 and therefore only covered the medium-sized long range widebody (200-300 seats) market. It didn't really address the 777 family (there was talk of an A350-1000 that would have been sized around the 777-200) and the A340E project was not garnering any interest with customers. So Airbus in some ways had to go to the A350XWB to address both the 787 and 777.

Boeing, on the other hand, need only cover the 777 and really only the 777-300ER (the 787-9 can serve as a 777-200 replacement).



Quoting a380900 (Reply 115):
Is the 777X project more advanced than the first version of the A350 before it became the XWB?

Pretty much. The A350 was a LiAl fuselage (considering CFRP) with CFRP wings and new engines, which is what the 777X looks like it will end up being.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 118, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14796 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 116):
So you argue that new engines typically don't improve upon older engines by roughly 1% per year or that GE is incompetent?

And you argue that going by historical average incerements is not fuzzy math? BoeingVista is 100% correct with this:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 114):
GE makes a guarentee of beating this unknown TFSC figure by 5% and Boeing runs with this to project a magically efficient aircraft this has to be fuzzy math, or dishonest or speculative or pulling numbers out of the sky, you choose.

Of course the 5% might turn out to be true or the GE9X might even turn out better than that but there might also be constraints, that prevent the historically seen gains this time. So having that many "might´s" is exactly the definition of fuzzy math.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 119, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14747 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 117):
Boeing, on the other hand, need only cover the 777 and really only the 777-300ER (the 787-9 can serve as a 777-200 replacement).

Agree entirely, on the face of it, Stitch. But Boeing currently appear to be favouring a next-generation B772 first, and the new 773 only after that? Hence the delay of the latter until 2020 or so?

I've no idea why? Unless they feel obligated to fill the 400-odd orders they still have for the 777ER, before they 'float' the new (and inevitably more expensive) B777X? That would make some sense, they are currently producing them at about 60 per year? And the 772 is already out of production.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12040 posts, RR: 47
Reply 120, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 119):
I've no idea why? Unless they feel obligated to fill the 400-odd orders they still have for the 777ER

You know, it takes less than 30 seconds to fact-check. Since we're talking about passenger planes, the correct backlog for the 77L and 77W (at the end of September) is 282.

The delivery rate so far this year is 8 per month. At the current (this year to date) book vs build rate, Boeing is going to burn through that backlog comfortably before they start delivering 77Xs. Boeing will have to work hard to sell enough 77Ws (and probably start increasing discounts) to fill that production gap.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 121, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14655 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 120):
You know, it takes less than 30 seconds to fact-check. Since we're talking about passenger planes, the correct backlog for the 77L and 77W (at the end of September) is 282.

This says 339, scbriml? Freighters bring in money too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Orders_and_deliveries

[Edited 2013-10-11 00:01:51]


"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, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 122, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14531 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
This says 339, scbriml? Freighters bring in money too?

There is no A350 freighter yet thus Boeing should only concern about replacement for the passenger version of the 777.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 123, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14506 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 118):
And you argue that going by historical average incerements is not fuzzy math?

the historical averages is my way of determining if their claims appear realistic. You can call my math fuzzy all you want as I did not do any math, its just a rule of thumb. BV was referring to Boeing's math but I still haven't heard about what yet. I was only talking about GE. And very tired doing it I might add.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 119):
But Boeing currently appear to be favouring a next-generation B772 first, and the new 773 only after that?

Because the 772 needs replacing first as it came first and the 787 is in production and it has been up-gauged so it overlaps with the old 772.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 120):
Boeing will have to work hard to sell enough 77Ws (and probably start increasing discounts) to fill that production gap.

The 777 is averaging about 100 orders a year for the last three years. Last year they delivered 83 and had orders of 75. The current book would take them to 2017. They need to average less than 55 orders a year at their current record high production rate to run out of orders before 777x EIS. As you can't get another 350-400 seat aircraft before 2020/2021 I don't think there will be an issue. It would be interesting to see the 4%+ PiP that has been rumored though.

I am sure the sales team would prefer to have the A330 backlog of 2.25 years compared to the 777s 3.4 years but I don't think many are concerned about running out of orders yet.

tortugamon


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 395 posts, RR: 11
Reply 124, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14429 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
This says 339, scbriml? Freighters bring in money too?

In any case much less than the "400-odd" to ascribed to the 777 line.
By the way, Boeing lists (as of September 30th, 2013) the following backlog:
777-200: 0 (88/88)
777-200ER: 0 (422/422)
777-200LR: 3 (56/59)
777-300: 0 (60/60)
777-300ER: 279 (432/711)
777F: 46 (81/127)
777 total: 328 (1139/1467)
777 pax total: 282 (1058/1340)


I.e. scrmbl's number for pax only was correct.
I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions regarding current book/build rates, backlog, etc.



Sláinte!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 125, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 119):
But Boeing currently appear to be favouring a next-generation B772 first, and the new 773 only after that? Hence the delay of the latter until 2020 or so?

Well when they launched the 787, they didn't need to worry about competition for the 777 because Airbus was continuing to focus on improvements to the A340 and the market was responding lukewarmly to it. And with the original A350, the threat was to the 787, not the 777.

Once Airbus went A350XWB, the A350-900 and A350-1000 were clear and future dangers to the 777 family, but by then Boeing had to focus all of their engineering resources on pushing the 787 forward so they were not really in a position to respond as quickly as they could have. They could have gone 777neo, but with the airlines buying Boeing's own hype on the 787 to the point it would not accept an A330neo, Boeing realistically could not respond with a 777neo even if hindsight says it probably would have been a viable option to bridge to Y3.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12040 posts, RR: 47
Reply 126, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
This says 339, scbriml?

My numbers came straight from the horse's mouth.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
Freighters bring in money too?

They do, but we weren't talking about revenue, our discussion was clearly about passenger aircraft. Even if we include the freighters, the number is still a long way short of "400-odd".   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 123):
As you can't get another 350-400 seat aircraft before 2020/2021 I don't think there will be an issue.

Oh, I'm sure they'll sell more. But as the new-gen planes get closer, the 'old-gen' 77W will become a lot less attractive. Boeing may well have to lower prices to ensure enough late sales for a smooth transition to the 77X.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 127, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

Analysts and other people believe ANA will buy the 777X because of politics and operational costs.

Quote:
ANA could be tempted by Airbus, he said, because it faces the prospect of rival JAL flying new fuel-efficient A350 several years before ANA can get 777Xs.

But he believes ANA would face huge operational costs in adding Airbus planes, which have very different cockpits and require separate pilot and maintenance training.

In addition, he said, there is the reality of Japanese politics.

While JAL was in bankruptcy two years ago, the ruling Japanese Democratic Party gave the airline substantial financial support.

Then last year The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) that returned to power in Japan last year has shown “a tight political connection” with ANA, Yamanouchi said.

He said the government wants airlines to buy the Boeing 777X because Japanese industry will help build it.

“It is very difficult for a big business in Japan to do something that goes against the Japanese government’s desire,” Yamanouchi said. “If ANA buys the A350, the Japanese government will lose face.”

I'm a bit confused about the operational costs, doesn't this apply to JAL as well?

See http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ogy/2022013794_boeingjapanxml.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 128, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
I'm a bit confused about the operational costs, doesn't this apply to JAL as well?

They do, but with the A350-900 and A350-1000, JL has more frames to spread that cost around.

NH doesn't need the A350-900 (their domestic 777-200s are 9-abreast, not 10) and they have sufficient 787-9s on order to replace all their 777-200 family planes (JL did not). So an NH order for the A350 should be only for the A350-1000 and the fleet could be smaller than JL's.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14027 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
See http://seattletimes.com/html/busines....html

Another "787 basher" is quoted in the article, Adam Pilarski of aviation consulting firm Avitas:

Quote:

"Pilarski attributes JAL’s decision to order from Airbus largely to the airline’s frustration with the 787: the years of delays, the months-long grounding in the spring, and the in-service glitches that have shown up since.

“The Japanese take face and trust very seriously. If the Japanese promise something, that is gold,” Pilarski said. “But that works both ways. They expect you to deliver.” "

But we can still believe the 787 experience had nothing to do with Airbus getting a foot in the door to actually be able to win an order on merit.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 130, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14018 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
They do, but with the A350-900 and A350-1000, JL has more frames to spread that cost around.

NH doesn't need the A350-900

Sounds plausible   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
So an NH order for the A350 should be only for the A350-1000 and the fleet could be smaller than JL's.

ANA is looking for 35 aircraft which is 4 more than JAL.



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, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13968 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 116):
So you argue that new engines typically don't improve upon older engines by roughly 1%

I argued the opposite actually as you well know.. Your disagreement with this is what started this back and forth. But typically is not a linear and unbreakable connection.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 123):
BV was referring to Boeing's math but I still haven't heard about what yet. I was only talking about GE. And very tired doing it I might add.

Yeah, well I was going to let it go as you cannot ram maths or logic down peoples throat's... But as you insist...Your problem is you keep talking but are unable to comprehend the basic logic of the answers I give you, as you are unable to grasp my point lets break it down one last time...

Lets try this; here in my hand I have an envelope (A) containing a sum of cash, can you guarantee to fill another envelope (B) with 5% more cash than is in my envelope (A)? No you can't as you do not know how much cash was in the original envelope It could be $1 it could be $1000 it could be $1 million.. Now you may think you have a fair idea how much cash is in (A) but you are uncertain, lets say fuzzy about the amount it contains, your best guess is still a guess; you cannot make any guarentees on the basis of this guess because you do not know what the original amount is..

Maybe your best fuzzy guess is that I have $200 in (A) so you fill envelope (B) with $210 but I actually have $210 in (A) so you need at least $220.50 in envelope (B), no problem you say I'll go to the ATM and get you $10.50 but GE will not be able to go to an ATM as they have locked in the contents of their envelope during the design process of the GE9X and contracts with airlines and physics is going to stop you making up the difference.. having said that maybe this is the GE strategy, to just use the shareholders as an ATM to pay performance penalties for their fuzzy promises.

This is why engine makers will generally quote performance improvements against their own products (or at least products that are in the marketplace) as they know whats in envelope (A) in the first place so they can reasonably project what kind of improvement to promise (they know A, they are designing B so they know the % B should be better than A). Any guarenteed improvement made on the basis of an uncertain starting point, ie a guess is inherently fuzzy, how can it not be?

NOBODY knows what is in envelope (A) at the moment not even RR or Airbus, so its impossible for GE to guarentee to beat the contents of envelope (A) on their new engine website by 5%.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 123):
the historical averages is my way of determining if their claims appear realistic. You can call my math fuzzy all you want as I did not do any math, its just a rule of thumb. BV was referring to Boeing's math but I still haven't heard about what yet. I was only talking about GE. And very tired doing it I might add.

I was refering to Boeing building on GE's fuzzy math actually so both are fuzzzzy.



BV
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 132, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 125):
They could have gone 777neo, but with the airlines buying Boeing's own hype on the 787 to the point it would not accept an A330neo, Boeing realistically could not respond with a 777neo even if hindsight says it probably would have been a viable option to bridge to Y3.

And so we see the power of marketing and creating hypes. The first A350 was already doing well with 200 copies sold. And since the launch of the B787 there were about 800+ A330's sold. Which is basically the whole B787 order book.

No doubt that a B777-MAX (or neo   ) would also have sold well. With the current developments Y3 will not hit the market before 2035 or so. The whole Y-series are therefore history as only Y2 (the B787) has been realised. But now that is all water under the bridge, we have quite a while of neo's, MAX's en X's to look forward to instead the all new narrow-bodies and all new large wide-body from Boeing.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 131):
NOBODY knows what is in envelope (A) at the moment not even RR or Airbus, so its impossible for GE to guarentee to beat the contents of envelope (A) on their new engine website by 5%.

I guess this detailed explanation of you leaves no questions open.  .


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13846 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 132):
And since the launch of the B787 there were about 800+ A330's sold. Which is basically the whole B787 order book.

This really is an astonishing statistic!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 134, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 132):
And since the launch of the B787 there were about 800+ A330's sold. Which is basically the whole B787 order book.
Quoting sankaps (Reply 133):
This really is an astonishing statistic!

Never underestimate the power of availability.

Since the launch of the A350XWB in June 2006, Boeing has secured orders for almost 625 777s, of which almost 500 are 777-300ERs.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 135, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Never underestimate the power of availability.

Luckily we did not.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Since the launch of the A350XWB in June 2006, Boeing has secured orders for almost 625 777s, of which almost 500 are 777-300ERs.

It also works the other way around indeed. Which is a good thing in my opinion. And 625 777's is also a formidable number.  .


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 136, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13713 times:

Here is an interesting article. After all Boeing may move production out of Japan. Japan is small market compared to China. Apparently China or South Korea are in the play. Personally I think B should take que from A and move composite component production to USA. 22,000 additional jobs will be always welcome.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...rs-20131009,0,1953579.story?page=1


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 137, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13563 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 129):
“The Japanese take face and trust very seriously. If the Japanese promise something, that is gold,” Pilarski said. “But that works both ways. They expect you to deliver.” "

He has a point. This is the major point of Japanese business relations. Cooperation and continuous trust through promises and delivery. You must be able to deliver the product and make sure it is maintained. If something goes wrong, own up to it, investigate it, figure out how to fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again.

With the 787, something along that process didn't happen well enough, and Boeing did not adequately address it.

Not a fan of the guy's 787 bashing but he does understand the Japanese system pretty well. He probably read a book titled "Doing Business in the Modern Japan." Very informative.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 136):

I just don't see that happening. The parts Japan has made for Boeing airframes, besides Yuasa's battery (and that's a li-ion batttery...I bet you any company making those would have had the same issues) are absolutely top notch. These companies who supply Boeing the parts are the best at what they do.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13492 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 137):
I just don't see that happening. The parts Japan has made for Boeing airframes, besides Yuasa's battery (and that's a li-ion batttery...I bet you any company making those would have had the same issues) are absolutely top notch. These companies who supply Boeing the parts are the best at what they do.

If you see A350 composite component supplier list, at least four are from USA. What makes you think a supplier who can build for A350 cannot build for B787. One the reasons B787 program was delayed is because of MHI built and shipped composite components based on bad designs.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 139, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13416 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
I'm a bit confused about the operational costs, doesn't this apply to JAL as well?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
Analysts and other people believe ANA will buy the 777X because of politics and operational costs.

I think Op costs as well include having to train 2 different types of cockpits, etc.

I agree with that analysis as well, because unlike JL, NH has been the stable airline for the last 10 or so years. JL has been going through a lot of changes and this Airbus order was the least bit surprising to me.

Seeing these changes, and commitment to a new type of airplane, is plenty of PR that JL can drop as advertisements and try to get the fliers back that they lost during the late 2000s.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 138):
based on bad designs.

That's Boeing's fault then for not having the design tested and/or finalized. When you send a design to a supplier, they have no choice but to make it as Boeing wanted it. If the supplier had a faulty part or not up to standard that would've been immediately detected



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 140, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13410 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 139):
That's Boeing's fault then for not having the design tested and/or finalized. When you send a design to a supplier, they have no choice but to make it as Boeing wanted it. If the supplier had a faulty part or not up to standard that would've been immediately detected

MHI is not a supplier it is supposed to be "risk partner".


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13349 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 140):
MHI is not a supplier it is supposed to be "risk partner".

Which is not necessarily the same thing as "designer". Many of the risk partners execute designs that are sent by Boeing.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4494 posts, RR: 14
Reply 142, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 138):
One the reasons B787 program was delayed is because of MHI built and shipped composite components based on bad designs.

If you are talking about the wingbox strengthening that was required IIRC that was because the design parameters B gave MHI and FHI subsequently proved to be too optimistic for the actual loads on testing. The issue was the joint between the stringers in fuselage center wing box and the wing box itself. The join design was Bs responsibility, not that of MHI or FHI. Hardly a big stick in the eye for MHIs capability. You tell us to design to X specification, we build it, you find its not good enough now so we need to change it. Happens not infrequently - ask A about cracks in wings in VLAs!!.

Besides what idiot in what company would give the contract to another company which has spent the last decade or two trying to fix issues with its own composite wingbox in the F2 fighter. Which is still limited in its envelope because of said problems! Ok so no one else had more experience either to build a large composite wingbox as a single integral structure except MHI!


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 143, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13153 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 126):
But as the new-gen planes get closer, the 'old-gen' 77W will become a lot less attractive. Boeing may well have to lower prices to ensure enough late sales for a smooth transition to the 77X.

Agreed.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 131):
as you are unable to grasp my point lets break it down one last time...

I stopped reading at this point.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Since the launch of the A350XWB in June 2006, Boeing has secured orders for almost 625 777s, of which almost 500 are 777-300ERs.

Good point.

tortugamon


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2326 posts, RR: 12
Reply 144, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12981 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Never underestimate the power of availability.

Many folks seem (conveniently) to overlook that when the topic concerns the A380 - I know you are not included there, so please forgive the misuse of your quote!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
Since the launch of the A350XWB in June 2006, Boeing has secured orders for almost 625 777s, of which almost 500 are 777-300ERs

And I’m sure it will sell many hundreds more until the A350 is at 13 per month and the 77X is staring to ramp up also!

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinetlecam From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12456 times:

Another article from The Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...-boeings-airspace-turning-japanese


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 146, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12374 times:

Quoting tlecam (Reply 145):
Another article from The Economist

That article was the best piece of reporting on this issue thus far. They understand it.

Boeing should NOT have blamed the Yuasa battery outright. That's what caused the paradigm shift in JL.


This morning's Japan Times (while I'm growing to dislike their style of reporting on American related news) said that Airbus ordering the 350 threatens the myriad of suppliers in Japan who help build the Boeing planes.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBlueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2789 posts, RR: 25
Reply 147, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12303 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
That's what caused the paradigm shift in JL.

Of course,nothing at all to do with the fact the A350 was the most suitable airframe for their requirements.

Oh no, couldn't possibly be; Airbus "won" because of Boeing's failings.  

  

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
This morning's Japan Times (while I'm growing to dislike their style of reporting on American related news) said that Airbus ordering the 350 threatens the myriad of suppliers in Japan who help build the Boeing planes.

Do you have a link for that please? I can't find anything on JT online. Thanks !

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 148, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12281 times:

Quoting Blueshamu330s (Reply 147):
Do you have a link for that please? I can't find anything on JT online. Thanks !

Sorry! Couldn't post it from my iPad.

I found the same thing from Reuters (the Japanese sites often quote from them)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...an-suppliers-idUSBRE9980GS20131009



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 149, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12043 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
That article was the best piece of reporting on this issue thus far.

Disregarding the rather dumb mistake here:

Before this latest setback Boeing was already running behind the European firm. Airbus has 1,112 orders in its backlog, nearly 90 more than Boeing.


User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11985 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
This morning's Japan Times (while I'm growing to dislike their style of reporting on American related news) said that Airbus ordering the 350 threatens the myriad of suppliers in Japan who help build the Boeing planes.

This seems to be a very dangerous game to play for Boeing.

First, I always though the Japanese heavies got into the 787 because of their willingness to invest in the program, take on risk and reduce Boeings financial exposure. The Japanese government incentive probably did not any harm either.

Because so much came out of Japan, it made the sale even more straight forward, especially JAL and ANA were loyal Boeing customers and Airbus had no competitive offer. But I strongly believe there is no direct relationship between the heavies getting the work and JAL and ANA buying the 787 (indirectly there were probably a lot of relationships but I don't believe they are at the root of the deal).

So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350? In my experience with working with Japan, that can only backfire. You are threatening suppliers who have taken on lots of financial risks and probably financial hardships over the last 6 years, while you still need them for the next 20 years delivering parts for the 787? I don't understand that, especially for an order which is good but irrelevant in the light of the rise of the ME carriers. There is a lot more business to be done in Japan in the future, also military.

And if they think they can move the business to Korea or China to get a better deal, I think they are also dreaming. Korea and China drive much harder bargains than Japan.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 151, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11865 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 149):
Disregarding the rather dumb mistake here:

Before this latest setback Boeing was already running behind the European firm. Airbus has 1,112 orders in its backlog, nearly 90 more than Boeing.

Yeah I pretty much overread that.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350? In my experience with working with Japan, that can only backfire

Remember the audit thread?

Exactly.

Japan is sensitive to a lot of things. These suppliers run off of cooperation.....and yelling at Japanese people pretty much makes them want to run away from you completely.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
There is a lot more business to be done in Japan in the future, also military.

I guess my future dream job is safe thus far   



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 152, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11899 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 146):
oeing should NOT have blamed the Yuasa battery outright.

Yes, that was rather daft. I'm guessing the Japanese, ever the perfectionists, didn't take that sort of unfounded criticism too well. And I mean the entire Japanese aerospace industry here, not just Yuasa.

Quoting Blueshamu330s (Reply 147):
Oh no, couldn't possibly be; Airbus "won" because of Boeing's failings.

Well, I understand your sarcasm, but to be honest, the Japanese flag carriers seem to go to great lengths to remain loyal to Boeing.
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 153, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11543 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 152):
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

   Agreed entirely! I think the consensus here, among the neutral posters, is that Airbus won the JL order on its own merits - but only after the airline's confidence in Boeing took such a knock that they had to look objectively at all options.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 154, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting angmoh (Reply 150):
So now Boeing effectively threatens the Japanese component suppliers for the fact that JAL bought the A350?

I believe it is third-party analysts suggesting Boeing do this, not that Boeing themselves are doing so.

Of course, should Boeing decide to build the wing in the US - like they do on every other commercial airplane family except the 787 - the analysts will all be writing that JL ordering the A350 played a major role in that decision and is in part a rebuke to the Japanese. Just as they all are writing that the 787's c**k-ups played a major role in JL ordering the A350 and is in part a rebuke to Boeing.




Quoting francoflier (Reply 152):
The A350 had enough qualities to win the order on its own, had the playing field been level. But since it was heavily slanted towards Boeing, they really had to screw the pooch to lose that one.

I sill believe that Japan Airlines ordered the A350 because it was the better plane and, more importantly, because Airbus spent years in a carefully-orchestrated mission to convince Japan Airlines management that it was the better plane. Even if the 787 had executed far better than it did in both development and deployment, I believe Airbus' concerted effort would have won them the deal, but then I'm a Boeing Apologist so...  


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8772 posts, RR: 29
Reply 155, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11380 times: