NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5076
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:46 am

Just out on Bloomberg.

A350 would be a CFRP andAirbus will present the plans to EADS on Nv. 7th.

Additionally it'll cost USD 12 bn and would be out around 2013.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aQI2TjN25utM
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:00 am

"...If they are reconsidering the virtues of an all-composite tube (fuselage), that's a smart exercise," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group, an industry consulting firm near Washington, D.C.

"They have to decide whether they believe composites is a killer technology," Aboulafia said. "If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/291097_airbus04.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Aboulafia:
"If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."

The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:17 am

Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:22 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3):
Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice?

I'm not the only one suffering deja vu! I thought this was a long thread to which I had posted. Perhaps the mods can restore it? Unless they deleted it?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:26 am

Wasn't there an active thread on this, was it deleted?

After all Leahy said about composite tubes being: only minimally lighter, subject to serious ramp rash, can't be inspected, plastic plane, chinese copy of the 330, etc. - will he need to eat his words?

Actually, having 5 years between their respective EIS's will allow for Airbus to incorporate a lot of lessons learned from the 787.

In terms of risk sharing partners, I hope Boeing has Alenia and Vought under strong contracts as it would not be good for Boeing if they became involved with the tube on the 350. I suppose Boeing could dangle the 737RS project to them to keep them exclusive, at least on the tube.

Will the wings be built in the UK, or china? Will Airbus have a single CATIA program and digital model? Will they actually mock up the wiring to test the wiring? Lots of questions.

Is there any word on bleedless or bleed engines.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:26 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3):
Hey, where has the remainder of this thread gone? I recall having posted at least thrice

Me, too. I think this is "Part 2," due to the length. Although I can't find Part 1... A technical glitch?
I come in peace
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:42 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

So are you saying there is no demand curve for the A350XWB except for the A350-8 which equals the 787-9?

Then it would follow that there's no demand curve for the bigger A350-9 and A350-10 either.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:47 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 7):
There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

So its a bad idea on boeing's part to develop the 787-10 ?
 
NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5076
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:50 am

Actually the thread (1st one was deleted as I posted copyrighted material. Thus all the responses from the previous thread that were posted were also deleted. I reposted the thread using a link to the original article(didn't have alink the first time).

Perhaps the mods can at least repost the thread discussions here.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 9):
Perhaps the mods can at least repost the thread discussions here.

While the work of the moderators is generally appreciated, indiscriminate deletion of a large number of posts like this is quite annoying.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 7):
So are you saying there is no demand curve for the A350XWB except for the A350-8 which equals the 787-9?

Then it would follow that there's no demand curve for the bigger A350-9 and A350-10 either.

WTF!?!?! How on earth did you make that jump of reasoning? I didn't write anything of the sort. Do you know what a demand curve is?

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 8):
So its a bad idea on boeing's part to develop the 787-10 ?

We're on a roll here.  Yeah sure How do you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? It doesn't follow at all.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
WTF!?!?! How on earth did you make that jump of reasoning? I didn't write anything of the sort. Do you know what a demand curve is?

Wow! Sorry, it was a question, not intended as a slam.

I thought you were saying there's no need for composite 777 replacement.

Bringiton drew the same conclusion, so I wasn't the only one confused by your statement. There's no need to go off on people.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
Quoting Aboulafia:
"If they believe that it is, then a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement..."

The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:21 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
How do you draw that conclusion from what I wrote?

Didnt draw a conclusion but asked a question !
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:25 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
Sorry, it was a question, not intended as a slam.

I didn't take it as a slam. I took it as deep confusion. My answer wasn't meant as a slam either.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
I thought you were saying there's no need for composite 777 replacement.

Not at all. There is very much a need for the B787 and, especially if it's CFRP, the A350.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
Bringiton drew the same conclusion

I'm not sure what Bringiton concluded. You might be right there.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
While the work of the moderators is generally appreciated, indiscriminate deletion of a large number of posts like this is quite annoying.

I have to agree.. wouldn't simply editting out the copywritten material have been easier.. The thread was nearly 200 posts long with a fair amount of good debate/information...
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:12 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
I took it as deep confusion.

And I'm still confused. Aboulafia says, "a metal-tubed A350 would be ambushed eventually by a 777 composite replacement"

And you say:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
The composite B777 replacement is the B787. There is no realistic demand curve such that it is more profitable to operate a B777-200ER than a B787-9.

What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:17 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 16):
What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?

Might be the effect of the jetlag setting in right now, but somehow I thought that Boeing's future strategy was to be set around the B737RS, B787 and the Y3 (or whatever the large aircraft/possible VLA was named).

In that context, it would seem as if the B777 wouldn't have a direct replacement, with the B787-9 and B787-10 basically taking over from it.

... but, as I said... that might just be the jetlag clouding my brain right now...  Wink
Smile - it confuses people!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 13):
Didnt draw a conclusion but asked a question !

It appeared to be a rhetorical question. If it wasn't, then the answer is no.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 16):
What's that got to do with an eventual 777 composite replacement?

I'm asserting that the B787 is the B777 replacement. I apologize for not being more clear.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 17):
Boeing's future strategy was to be set around the B737RS, B787 and the Y3 (or whatever the large aircraft/possible VLA was named).

I think boeing will wait until technology both at the level of the Engine manuf. and at boeing internally becomes more mature and newer eff. are created . The Y3 will be something larger then the 777 IMO with a possible 11 abreast possibility . A 400-550 seat 2win engined aircraft . Clearly the technology required is far away so we wont see it happen anytime soon but when it does happen it would be a replacement for the 777(larger varients) and 748 aswell as re-energize the VLA market by significantly lowering CASM as compared to smaller 2win jets such as 787 and A350 while not hurting RASM to the level where it becomes a real niche plane .
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:26 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 17):
In that context, it would seem as if the B777 wouldn't have a direct replacement, with the B787-9 and B787-10 basically taking over from it.

I thought the 787-10 could take over for the 777-200.

But won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

That is how I interpreted Aboulafia's statement.

[Edited 2006-11-04 19:27:52]
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:36 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
But won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

That is just 1 varient of the 777 family that the A350-1000 competes against ( A350-1000 wont be available for delivery till perhaps 2015 or so) . The A350-1000 vs 777-300ER isnt enough of a reason for boeing to launch a new Composite aircraft to meet the challenge infact boeing isnt concentrating on airbus's lineup but are in the process of defining their own FAMILY of aircrafts starting from the 737NG all the way up to the 747-8 . The 777 is a very good aircraft and continues to sell very well . Boeing will strive to make it better , cheaper to produce and will sell them at economical prices so that it looks atractive speacially now that the 10 Abreast (17 width - 34 pitch ) has been demonstrated by EK to be quite good . The T7 will sell nicely for atleast the next 5-6 years . Boeing will now concentrate their attention on getting the 787 and 747-8 right , ramping up production of existing aircraft families and making the entire process more leaner , eff. as its competitor currently struggles with losses from the A380 program . Next step for boeing will be to get the 787-10 Roadmap sorted out and From then on it is really sitting on the Buzzer waiting to press it and give the 737RS a green light . The Y3 program wont be initiated by 2015 atleast IMO which would give Airbus perhaps only a 3-5 year run with the A350-1000 before a larger Y3 becomes available ( first smaller model ) .
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:43 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

Not if the CASM of the B787-10 is lower than or equal to that of the B777-300ER (easy) and the A350-1000 (more challenging).

[Edited 2006-11-04 19:55:42]
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:50 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Not if the CASM of the B787-10 is lower than or equal to that of the B787-300ER

Do you mean 777-300ER?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 23):
Do you mean 777-300ER?

Yes, thank you! Now corrected.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2092
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:04 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
Not if the CASM of the B787-10 is lower than or equal to that of the B777-300ER (easy) and the A350-1000 (more challenging).

No. A 300 seater can not replace a 360 seater. Period. (see below)

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
But won't Boeing need something bigger in a composite to take over for the 777-300 and compete with the larger A350XWB models?

Correct. By the time the A350-1000 is out in service, it would be about +2015? By then, Boeing would likely have something new to fill the gap between the 787-10 and 747-8.


P.S. Zvezda, you keep on getting pounded and pounded by so many people in so many posts. Look, if you have a plane (for example) which seats 200, and a super efficient plane that seats 300, people will still use the plane which seats 200. It is because certain routes are too big for 300 seaters and do have demand for 200 seaters. This also works the other way around. A super efficient 200 seater just can not replace a less efficient 300 seater.

[Edited 2006-11-05 07:04:54]
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:37 pm

The problem with that comparison is that the future 350 seater and beyond ( T7 replacement) would offer equal if not better eff./Cost and the greater ASM will surely make the version to have unmatched CASM even when compared to aircrafts which seat more then 100 more PAX ( such as A388) . The RASM-HIT due to increase in ASM wont be that much pronounced as many airlines have the need for 350-400 seaters as is seen with the T7 family .
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:13 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 25):
Zvezda, you keep on getting pounded and pounded by so many people in so many posts. Look, if you have a plane (for example) which seats 200, and a super efficient plane that seats 300, people will still use the plane which seats 200. It is because certain routes are too big for 300 seaters and do have demand for 200 seaters. This also works the other way around. A super efficient 200 seater just can not replace a less efficient 300 seater.

You can write this as many times as you like, but it isn't true. Using your example, if the super efficient 300-seater has lower trip costs than the 200-seater, then it is very obviously preferable to use the super efficient 300-seater -- regardless of the shape of the demand curve. Every demand curve slopes downward i.e. raising fares results in fewer passengers and lowering fares results in more passengers willing to buy tickets. So increasing the size of the plane means that RASM will fall. However, the total revenue for the flight will rise. So, using your example, the switch to the larger super efficient plane results in a drop in total cost and an increase in total revenue -- if the trip cost for the larger super efficient plane is lower than the trip cost for the smaller plane. A real world example is the B747-400 vs the WhaleJet. If these were the only two choices available (and nothing better were on the horizon) and the purchase price were the same, then every airline would choose the WhaleJet because it has lower trip costs, better range, and higher capacity.

In the other direction, let us consider a super efficient 200-seater. Let's say it has slightly lower CASM than available 300-seaters. An airline can operate the 200-seater with lower CASM and higher RASM or a 300-seater with higher CASM and lower RASM. The profit on a per passenger basis will be higher with the 200-seater -- regardless of the shape of the demand curve. The profit on a per flight basis could go either way depending on the shape of the demand curve. In most real world situations, there would be days that favor one and days that favor the other. However, profit on a per flight basis is not a useful metric. That's not exactly what airlines are trying to maximize. Airlines are trying to maximize RoI. Typically, the price of an airliner is very roughly proportional to the number of seats. Certainly, a 200-seater will cost less than a 300-seater (assuming both are new). So operating profit per ASM is a much better indicator of RoI than profit per flight. That's why airlines try to maximize RASM-CASM.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:46 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27):
Using your example, if the super efficient 300-seater has lower trip costs than the 200-seater, then it is very obviously preferable to use the super efficient 300-seater

May I interject: what I don't understand about your analysis is that the route may not have enough demand to fill the 300 seater. Even if the economics of the 300 seater are better when all the seats are filled, I don't think slightly better ticket pricing would necessarily produce an automatic 33% increase in demand.

I would suggest it's more desirable to fly a full, slightly less efficient 200 seater than a 2/3 or 3/4 full slightly more efficient 300 seater.

As another example in the other direction, my understanding is that the 747-8 will have slightly better CASM than the 380 (because of the 380s larger than optimum wings, wing box, empennage, landing gear? - in order to be able to stretch it later) yet many airlines want the 380 anyway because they need that extra 100 seats of capacity on certain heavy/slot restricted routes.

But please clarify if I am missing something.
I come in peace
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:06 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28):
what I don't understand about your analysis is that the route may not have enough demand to fill the 300 seater. Even if the economics of the 300 seater are better when all the seats are filled, I don't think slightly better ticket pricing would necessarily produce an automatic 33% increase in demand.

There is a concept (central to the argument at hand) that economists call price elasticity of demand. One can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

On any route, one can always double (or more) the number of tickets sold by offering additional tickets at a lower price until the price approximates free.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:28 pm

Guys, how about introducing the term "load factor" into the debate?

A 300-seater would be preferable over a 200-seater only if it's
a) more economical to operate at load factors at or below 67%
b) if there's more demand than 200 seats on the route to begin with or load factor is at least forecasted to grow substantially near- to mid-term

In the academic case that the 300-seater has lower *trip cost* than the 200 seater, Zvezda would be right. In practice, this would be very hard, if not impossible to achieve. So I'd tend to go with Kaitak744 and SSTsomeday.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2092
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:29 pm

Zvezda, SSTsomeday put it even more eloquently than I put it.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
There is a concept (central to the argument at hand) that economists call price elasticity of demand. One can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_e...emand

This stuff does not work for airlines. There is for example the variable of weight based landing fees, which would always favor a lighter, smaller aircraft. In addition, say if you have something like 2 787s instead of 1 A380 (hypothetically), you have to pay double the amount of crew, maintenance, and ground handling fees.

Accounting all these realistic details, Zvezda, I still don't see how your theory works.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:00 pm

Just a rhetorical question:
Why do people automatically assume any Y3 to be immediately far superior over any A350XWB?

If what this report says is true, the A350XWB pretty much is of identical technology levels as the Y2/Y3 concept but for its bleedless engines, something which according to all engine manufacturers will not contribute to spectacular savings.

In my view the composite A350XWB seems to be set right in between the Y2/Y3 line-up, so why not see it as a Y2.5?

Also, if the A350XWB will indeed be composite, this might proof to be somewhat of a problem to Boeing because it will top off the 787 product growth (the 787-10 might not look as sexy as it first did) and because it will cover part of what was planned as future Y3 market segment much sooner then Boeing can.

I see Boeing pushing back in time any Y3 program in order to make it possible to give it the benefit of newer technologies which will develop over that extra time as well as to let the VLA market grow so Y3 can be bigger than they now imagine as it will make it easier for them to beat the larger versions of the A350XWB: 2020 seems to be the earliest date for any Y3 from Boeing.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:26 pm

Zvezda,

Your analysis is valid only in an ideal world in which strangely enough the number of flights should be UNLIMITED (so airlines can set on FREQUENCY and repartition their route capacity over as many flights as they want and increase the RASM), yet the number of airlines should be LIMITED (to prevent passengers from diverting to competitors which have set on VOLUME to generate their profits, albeit through operating at lower CASM then their competitors) and on top of this already weird economic environment, the number of passenger should equal EXACTLY the offered capacity.

Fact is on most international long haul flights the number of flights is LIMITED (through bilateral agreements) and on those routes where there is an open sky agreement, not only the number of flights, but also the number of airlines are UNLIMITED....

[Edited 2006-11-05 11:41:24]
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:24 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
There is a concept (central to the argument at hand) that economists call price elasticity of demand. One can read about it here:

Price elasticity is a very nice thing to learn at the university but it is a theoretical concept and does not include all the factors that airlines have to face and as with many concepts (also the demand and supply curves) it is made on a ceteris paribus basis-so it does not consider all the factors but only one.

While I believe that a larger let say 350 seat aircrat can indeed hurt sales for a smaller 300 seater (it happened many times the A340/777 being one example) I don't believe that a smaller aircraft with lower CASM can be a good competition to a bigger one (with higher CASM). The 747-8 and the A380 are a good example. If the 747-8 really does have a lower CASM (remains to be seen) than the A380, we would probably see more orders for the 747. So either the A380 has a lower CASM (the airlines have more info on that one) or this part of your theory just doesn't work.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:11 pm

Trans-Atlantic travel fragmented in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s thanks to smaller aircraft with either better CASM or sufficiently better RASM that it offset the increase in CASM. The A300, A310, 767 and A330 family started the trend, and now the 757 family is in on the act. Bi-lateral treaties either offered the flexibility or were amended to offer the flexibility to increase the number of flights offered through new city pairings.

We're starting to see that in the late 1990s and early 2000s thanks to the A330 and 777 families. This will only increase with the launch of the 787 and A350 families. New city pairings will increase as traffic starts to fragment. NRT and HKG will remain "kings", but they're going to have a whole lot of "principalities"and "duchies" surrounding them as their position as "transfer hubs" begins to decline and direct-service is launched to those cities, instead.

This trend will favor smaller planes like the 787-8, 787-9 and A350-800. The 787-10, 787-11, A350-900 and A350-1000 will have a good replacement market run and will generate new lift, just as the 777-300ER is now instead of the 747-8 and A380-800. The King and Queen of the skies will still reign, but will be confined to fewer and fewer trunk routes and "connection specials" funneling connecting traffic between Alliance partner hub airports.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
We're starting to see that in the late 1990s and early 2000s thanks to the A330 and 777 families. This will only increase with the launch of the 787 and A350 families. New city pairings will increase as traffic starts to fragment. NRT and HKG will remain "kings", but they're going to have a whole lot of "principalities"and "duchies" surrounding them as their position as "transfer hubs" begins to decline and direct-service is launched to those cities, instead.

This trend will favor smaller planes like the 787-8, 787-9 and A350-800. The 787-10, 787-11, A350-900 and A350-1000 will have a good replacement market run and will generate new lift, just as the 777-300ER is now instead of the 747-8 and A380-800. The King and Queen of the skies will still reign, but will be confined to fewer and fewer trunk routes and "connection specials" funneling connecting traffic between Alliance partner hub airports.

Since Boeings point-to-point "thing" is very popular with a.net it does have a major flaw. I cannot imagine that 20-30 years from now airports like Frankfurt, London or Paris, New York,...will loose their hub status. That means that all those CEOs of big hubs are wrong when they invest money into larger terminals new runways and so on...no need to expand then if 20 years from now (I took 20 years because then the 787-Boeings "ultimate" point-to-point aircraft- will be flying all over the world) if everything is going to be point-to-point.

Why did Bangkok or Hong Kong built new bigger airports just to make them smaller 20 years later? Or is the figure 20 years to early? But if that is so, then Boeing is also to early with the 787.


But it is funny how some a.netters give the CASM advantage as the main reason why the 747 sold that good in the past. With the technology available to the A350/787 now, either Boeing or Airbus could built a new VLA (I'm talking long-term) with a lower CASM as the A350/787...so connecting point-to-point with lower CASM 250 seaters is useless If someone builds a VLA which will again offer an even better CASM.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:38 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 36):
...so connecting point-to-point with lower CASM 250 seaters is useless If someone builds a VLA which will again offer an even better CASM.

Remember the VLA has to be able to meet the RASM-CASM to be eventually popular with airlines . VLA market IMO isnt going to be all that big for 550-700 PAX aircrafts however if Airbus and/or boeing can come up with a 375-475 ( 3 class ) Aircraft which is 2win engined then it will sell quite well on account of having SIGNIFICANT CASM advantage . What we see with the A380 and 747-8 is Streches and increase in size to gain CASM advantage ( 747-8 just got streched and the A389 is also going to be huge) because the COST aspect of CASM suffers against more effecient twin engined A350-1000's and 777-3ER's ( to a point where the lower CASM cannot compensate for the Decrease in RASM for a lot of the routes) but the Aircraft makes up the CASM advantage through HIGHER ASM aspect of CASM which is mainly responsible for the decrease in RASM ( someone still has to sell 600 seats at a profitable price for a A389) .

The key would be to Lower CASM through lowering the COST aspect of it while the ASM basically stays the same ( in the 375-475 range) which will require 2 engines to be clipped off something that will take some time as engine manufacterers wont be able to provide anything in the short to mid term to solve the problem having allocated a lot of money and recources on 787-A350 and NBRS replacements.

This type of aircraft is basically what boeing will present as the Y3 which PAX capacity wise takes over from the upwards of 777-3 range to the 747-8 range or a bit higher !
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 36):
cannot imagine that 20-30 years from now airports like Frankfurt, London or Paris, New York...will loose their hub status.

You're arguing a point I already agreed with in the text you quote. Today, JFK and LHR and FRA are still hubs. But trans-Atlantic traffic flies out of EWR (and LGA?), as well as LGW and STN, and MUC and (and DUS?). Two decades ago, if you wanted to fly to MAN, you first had to go through LHR or LGW. Now you can fly direct from many cities. Smaller aircraft with lower CASM make new routes fiscally possible, but they do not invalidate existing routes. They complement them.

Quote:
That means that all those CEOs of big hubs are wrong when they invest money into larger terminals new runways and so on...

Not at all, but there comes a time when you cannot expand anymore. Under the old hub-and-spoke system that funneled all Eastern US traffic through JFK and all British and select Western European traffic through LHR, even if every plane was an A380 on that route, it couldn't keep up with current demand. Not to mention JFK and LHR could not begin to handle the smaller connecting planes needed to bring in and distribute out all that traffic from scores of Eastern US and Western European cities.

Quoting Adria (Reply 36):
Why did Bangkok or Hong Kong built new bigger airports just to make them smaller 20 years later?

They didn't. HKG will remain a major hub, but not all traffic to mainland China will want to fly through them when they can go direct to PEK, SVG, CAN, and other cities. Connecting via HKG will offer economies of scale that will appeal to many - if not the majority - of passengers, but again, HKG can't take every passenger forever going forward.

And BKK is one of the "principalities" I spoke of. An airport working to turn itself into a "regional" hub as well as attract new, direct flights. The 787(LR) and 772LR, for example, would allow UA to serve the airport directly from their North American hubs, instead of first funneling everyone through NRT or HKG, connecting to TG flights throughout the area. NH and JL can use 787-8s to start direct service from cities like NGO and FUK, instead of first collecting folks at KIX and HND to fill up a 777 or 747.

Trans-Pacific travel is long. It offers very poor aircraft utilization. It's UA's strength and provides excellent profits, yet profit growth as a percentage is in the low single digits. Swapping out a 744 for an A388 is only going to add a few tenths of a percentage point to the bottom line. New direct routes that can command higher premiums will deliver greater profit percentage increases and this will drive this trans-Pacific fragmentation, just as it did trans-Atlantic.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
You're arguing a point I already agreed with in the text you quote. Today, JFK and LHR and FRA are still hubs. But trans-Atlantic traffic flies out of EWR (and LGA?), as well as LGW and STN, and MUC and (and DUS?). Two decades ago, if you wanted to fly to MAN, you first had to go through LHR or LGW. Now you can fly direct from many cities. Smaller aircraft with lower CASM make new routes fiscally possible, but they do not invalidate existing routes. They complement them.

Ok so to complement does not mean to replace. You also have to consider that 20 years ago there were fewer passengers and that the steady rise of travelers made it possible to connect smaller airports. Growth also means more and more passengers to hubs and as you pointed out there is a growth limit for airports and that's why the VLA market is there.

Fragmentation is/will be happening but not in such scale like Boeing says (and with the 747-8 they basically contradict themselves). Having a smaller aircraft with a lower CASM cannot change the market, because you can always produce a bigger one with the same technology and an even better CASM and it is not the aircraft that change markets.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:12 am

EADS Board Won't Decide On A350XWB Model Tuesday - Source

PARIS (Dow Jones)--The board of directors of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. won't Tuesday decide the future of its Airbus unit's A350XWB aircraft, a person familiar with the issue told Dow Jones Newswires Sunday.

French newspaper Le Figaro had reported in its Saturday edition that the company's board of directors would make its decision Tuesday...


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061105-700137.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:23 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 19):
I think boeing will wait until technology both at the level of the Engine manuf. and at boeing internally becomes more mature and newer eff. are created . The Y3 will be something larger then the 777 IMO with a possible 11 abreast possibility . A 400-550 seat 2win engined aircraft . Clearly the technology required is far away so we wont see it happen anytime soon but when it does happen it would be a replacement for the 777(larger varients) and 748 aswell as re-energize the VLA market by significantly lowering CASM as compared to smaller 2win jets such as 787 and A350 while not hurting RASM to the level where it becomes a real niche plane .

With Boeing/NASA introducing the "BWB" concept again, things could get rather intereting on a potential Y3...

This would be one possible Boeing VLA direction..

Fair use excerpt:

"EDWARDS, Calif., Oct. 27, 2006 -- In cooperation with NASA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Boeing [NYSE: BA] Phantom Works soon will begin ground testing of its X-48B Blended Wing Body (BWB) concept in preparation for flight testing early next year."*

*-Boeing media..


"Up the Irons!"
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 40):
EADS Board Won't Decide On A350XWB Model Tuesday - Source

Ah, yes, once again we hear "Definately NO decision has been made!" Such a mantra!
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:30 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 41):
With Boeing/NASA introducing the "BWB" concept again, things could get rather intereting on a potential Y3...

I doubt it . BWB's will be time tested in the military side first before making any descision however having said that Some of BCA's and Boeing's top managment is very interested in the project's commercial utilization unlike the setup when Condit was there .
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 40):

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061105-700137.html

The company previously has said it would analyze whether the funding and the required engineering skills for construction of the long-range wide-body jets were at hand.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
There is a concept (central to the argument at hand) that economists call price elasticity of demand. One can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

On any route, one can always double (or more) the number of tickets sold by offering additional tickets at a lower price until the price approximates free.

This is very interesting and logical, to a point. However, I think there is a price "bottom" that cannot be reduced further due to practical logistics, overhead, etc. There is, as you say, a relationship between price and demand/supply, but it is not a constant.

Quoting Adria (Reply 39):
Ok so to complement does not mean to replace. You also have to consider that 20 years ago there were fewer passengers and that the steady rise of travelers made it possible to connect smaller airports. Growth also means more and more passengers to hubs and as you pointed out there is a growth limit for airports and that's why the VLA market is there.

But as the O and D traffic at hubs may grow, other traffic through the hubs is reduced due to fewer transfer passengers, and also fragmentation. So I would expect it evens out somewhat.

In central Japan O + D international traffic was originally always though Tokyo. Now passengers who originate in those areas have the option of Kansai and Osaka. I understand Tokyo has pushed to increase the length of it's second runway at Narita because it was LOSING potential traffic to those other airports. In fact congestion (slot restriction) at Haneda was what promoted (among other things) the construction or Narita in the first place. Slot restriction has continued to be solved there, over time, all without the existance of the 380.

My assertion is that there are many potential ways to deal with the issue of slot restriction. I have heard that if Heathrow were to build ONE more runway, that it would seriously change the outlook of the 380. That's one runway at one airport.

Another possibility I predict is that we could see some routes partially restricted in the future to minimum sized A/C. It isn't only large long haul planes that take up slots. I could see governments or airport authorities restricting A/C to a minimum size between certain centers, like LAX/SFI or LHR/Paris. Minimum size A/C: stretched 737s or 321s on those routes, for example. See what I mean? Why do we need 70 flights a day between two centers. Aren't 35 enough if the airports are congested?

Another thing I have heard is that airlines are trying to reduce the number of low yield seats they have to fill at the back of planes in order to increase their profitability. The 380 may not help them in that endeavor.

Also, has the issue of longer distances behind arriving 380s been resolved? Even with regularly scheduled daily service to a busy airport, I don't think they can rely on the A/C behind a 380 to always be another heavy, even if it's scheduled that way.

While I see the 380 having some limited application (partially because China and India are coming on line as major economic powers with increasing air travel), and I hope Airbus gets a return on its investment, I feel there are many other eventualities which make it's success less than assured.

(Don't get me wrong. I think it's a grand A/C. I'm an enthusiast. I want to fly it...)
I come in peace
 
dambuster
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:49 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:45 am

I think the A350 is way too late to have a serious impact on the 787... but then, analysts might have said the same thing. Airbus needs a good push (even a better one than subsidies) to get back in the long term battle.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:57 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 32):
Also, if the A350XWB will indeed be composite, this might proof to be somewhat of a problem to Boeing

You're always seeing problems for Boeing.

As I recall, you've seen every single version of the A350 as a problem for Boeing.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 43):
I doubt it . BWB's will be time tested in the military side first before making any descision however having said that Some of BCA's and Boeing's top managment is very interested in the project's commercial utilization unlike the setup when Condit was there .

Many technologies incorporated in CivilAv comes from military....considering that "BWB" is very viable in civilav...there is a chance of "less doubt" than "more doubt".. Smile

Cheers...
"Up the Irons!"
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite

Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 41):
With Boeing/NASA introducing the "BWB" concept again, things could get rather intereting on a potential Y3...

This would be one possible Boeing VLA direction..

Fair use excerpt:

"EDWARDS, Calif., Oct. 27, 2006 -- In cooperation with NASA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Boeing [NYSE: BA] Phantom Works soon will begin ground testing of its X-48B Blended Wing Body (BWB) concept in preparation for flight testing early next year."*

Once upon a time I was a fan of the BWB, but then I saw the basic flaw in its design --- you cannot stretch it by adding a new section into the fuselage. You have to design from scratch the entire airplane to make a large or smaller versions.

So, if you have a one size fits all size, then the BWB is great. But I am sure Tim Clark would want a larger or smaller one, with perhaps more or less range.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?