redrooster3
Topic Author
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:29 pm

YouTube - Source

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

He rants about how Airbus didn't talk to the customers before designing the plane, and how they developed the A35J without customer discussion. But he does give gratitude toward the A350 & the 787, though being delayed years, they are still great airplanes for the future.
The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:40 pm

Tim Clark, love him, or not, he is right about one thing, the OEMs should have talked to the customer airlines during the design phase. Boeing has done this, and is doing it today on the B-777-X8/-X9. But Airbus did not do it, at least as far as the redesign went when they released it last year. That is according to Mr. Clark, and Mr. Baker at least.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1555
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Why wouldn't Airbus talk to the airlines before embarking on a re-design? That sounds crazy.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:49 pm

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

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

Rgds
 
william
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:51 pm

I don't know Airbus just didn't build a 777 clone dimensions wise and make it better.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:56 pm

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

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

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

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

Rgds
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:00 pm

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

Eeeeeehhhm, I thought that's what they are actually doing?  
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:02 pm

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

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

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


[Edited 2012-07-09 13:06:27]
42
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:08 pm

The A350-900 gives EK high payloads over long distances - better than their A340-300s, A340-500s, 777-200s and 777-200ERs. On the other hand, the A350-1000 looks to give EK less payload over a long distance than the 777-300ER, even though it will save them a significant amount in fuel.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:13 pm

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

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

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

You can bet operators like LH have a very different wish-list for the A350-1000, which would make the airplane less capable, but more efficient. Sometimes it makes sense for an OEM to meet an extreme requirement, at other times it does not. If the A350 has a deficiency in EK's mind, it is only because Airbus has worked to meet their requirements... not because Airbus is ignoring EK.
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:34 pm

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


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

[Edited 2012-07-09 13:45:41]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:34 pm

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

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

Rgds
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:43 pm

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

   It is very true they will optimize the design for the maximum number of customers. But to have Tim Clark say that they weren't included in the redesign discussions is interesting, especially when one considers the size of the customer we are talking about here,
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:48 pm

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

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

While neither Airbus nor Boeing can ill afford to totally neglect what these two carriers are wanting for, building aircraft to their exact specifications runs the risk of making those machines much less attractive to most everyone else looking to buy one. Airliners are objects of compromise, and one cannot blame EK or QR for using every tool at their disposal to push the airframers in the direction they won't. They are probably full aware they're not going to get all they're asking for, but every little help as they say. But it should never be forgotten that there are other very large airlines out there, with the potential to order significant numbers of the next big twin. Unlike EK and QR they do not feel the need to Fligh Global every week to have a whinge, but you may rest assured they are making their voices heard where it really counts: Behind close doors of meeting rooms In Toulouse, Hamburg, Chicago and Seattle
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:13 pm

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

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

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

Me neither. The final data on the A35J is still to be fixed in stone, and then of course has to be proven by flight testing and in the end operational service.  .
 
LU9092
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:09 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:27 am

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

  

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

[Edited 2012-07-09 17:28:20]
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:10 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2012-07-09 18:31:41]
Non French in France
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:21 am

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

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

Overall, he's still happy with all his purchases and will probably find a nice place for the -1000 in his fleet.
What the...?
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:23 am

Should they call it the A35TC?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:44 am

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

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

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13851
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 am

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

It's kind of funny that EK bills itself as being in the center of the world which really means they are darn far away from many places of interest so they need planes with extremes of payload and range.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:24 am

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

Might as well get that engine back up to 100k lbs. thrust, or even 105k. Or at least offer the option for airlines to decide on which thrust level they desire.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:20 am

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

With RR exclusive on the A350-1000 and them pitching an engine in the 100-105K thrust class for the 777X, I wonder if Rolls might not use the same engine on both frames?
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):

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

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

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

The A350-1000 should be powered by the next generation of engines, just as the 777-200LR/-300ER were compared to the 772ER/773. The next generation from now is the RB3025 concept.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
speedbird128
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:30 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:32 am

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

Wholly unsurprising response.

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

They seem to think they are centre of the universe let alone centre of the world.
A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
 
redrooster3
Topic Author
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:15 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
It's kind of funny that EK bills itself as being in the center of the world which really means they are darn far away from many places of interest so they need planes with extremes of payload and range.

You can agree that he does play quite a big role in what airliners do. Look at how much he has on order from Airbus and Boeing. He should have a right. But Udvar-Hazy is king of opinion making. 
Quoting ricknroll (Reply 18):
Should they call it the A35TC?

   Or the B77XTC

Quoting CM (Reply 9):
Airbus did listen to EK, but EK didn't like what THEIR OWN payload/range

Didn't they do that with the 747-8? I remember TC was very interested in a improved 747-8, and that's one of the reason Boeing built the 747-8, was for EK. On the DXB-LAX sector, with no restrictions.
The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:35 am

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 25):
Didn't they do that with the 747-8? I remember TC was very interested in a improved 747-8, and that's one of the reason Boeing built the 747-8, was for EK. On the DXB-LAX sector, with no restrictions

There came an "either - or" moment, when LH and others wanted a bigger 748i, and EK wanted a 748i with about 300Nm more range.

Boeing went with increasing the 748i stretch to match the stretch of the 748F, and very quickly secured a launch order from LH.
EK? I guess history shows us just how much EK think Boeing "listened" to them...  

Rgds
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:37 am

I think we have to throw the psychologies of these egomans into the equation for translation. We can be very sure that Airbus had lots of talks with lots of airlines in the definition phase. So when TC or AB claim Airbus did not talk to the customers, we have to read this as Airbus also talked to other, competing airlines, and insisted on the rules of physics still to apply.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:07 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 7):
Well - he wasn't really ranting. He seemed quite balanced and concludes "in the end, they will be fine", although he obviously still sees some work to be done on it.

I agree, I did not really see a rant, it was fairly balanced in my view.

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

I think one of the areas which has disappointed airlines is the delay in EIS for this improvement, I think if the improvement is plugged into their model, the NPV of having a less efficient aircraft earlier, or a more efficient aircraft later more or less comes out in the wash. To fill the slip in EIS, you basically have two choices, one of them being the current 77W, and that would not be as favorable to the airlines over the life of the airframe. It might however provide some good opportunities for lease capacity for a 5 year window.

This is the same problem the 777X will face, why wait for that aircraft when you can get a 77W in a couple of years that would be half way paid off by the time the 777X is available, and in the mean time the 77W will get in service improvements. I think to an extent we have also seen this with the A330 orders increase as the 787 orders are entering the market later than planned. On paper the A350-1000 is a significant improvement over the 77W, typically looking at a 40t lower TOW in an airline configuration with a fuel burn reduction of over 1t per hour. It is a greater difference than what the A340-600HGW had with the 77W.

I think the majority of routes that are served by airlines are around 6000 nm less, this is where the majority of A340 and 777 routes would be, this covers a lot of routes and a lot of operators. A number of operators including EK have routes going up to 16 hours of duration, to get the improvement at this end of the spectrum, you need to move the aircraft sweet spot further out, adding weight for the longer range flights.

Airbus would also know in EKs case, that eventually they will replace a lot of their existing 77W routes with A380s as demand increases. So by the time the A350-1000 comes into play, EKs fleet requirements would be different to what they are today. It is not an easy know where the target will be in 5-25 years time. It is not like the 737/A320 market. They do however have their global market forecast, which is derived a lot from market research, this would form the basis for a lot of their decision making.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:34 am

Quoting redrooster3 (Thread starter):
He rants about how Airbus didn't talk to the customers before designing the plane,

Pot...kettle..black!

Wonder if that included the 747-8I  
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Shany
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:30 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:26 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 16):

What would be the cargoload for the 35J, 25JN, 77W on this leg with a typical three class layout and cabin furbishment?

Shany
ETOPS - Engines Turn Or People Swim
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:28 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):When Clark says that Airbus didn't consult with airlines, he means that they didn't give him exactly what he wanted...regardless of how popular it may be to other airlines...which is fair since he doesn't run the other airlines.
It isn't what EK exactly wanted, but it is what Airbus determined would sell best. EK was one of the few 773 customers... In other words, what is optimal for them might not be optimal for very many other airlines. Cest la vie. Good luck to Airbus. I think they'll sell a bunch.

I'm curious that Airbus and Boeing seem to have a different take on whether to exactly match EK's requirements in terms of long haul aircraft with their respective 35J and 777-9X. Boeing "appear" to be far more accommodating in terms of providing EK with a DXB - LAX platform than Airbus. Is this solely because less compromises (efficientcy losses) are invloved with the 777 as opposed to the 35J.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:26 am

Well, an aircraft that can do DXB-LAX is an ULR plane by all definitions - and this means a niche product, not suitable for the majority of airlines.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:28 am

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 31):

The thing is, EK has a lot of requirements and flies enough routes that there is probably room for the -1000 and the 777x in his fleet. Even Clark knows that one plane can't do everything, regardless how versatile.

By the time either plane is available...attitudes will probably have changed a few more times.
What the...?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:56 am

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 31):
Boeing "appear" to be far more accommodating in terms of providing EK with a DXB - LAX platform than Airbus. Is this solely because less compromises (efficiency losses) are involved with the 777 as opposed to the 35J.

In my opinion Boeing has no other choice. They will not beat the A35J (an all-new airframe) on costs and basic revenues with a B777-X (a further revised airframe) which can fly the same routes and payloads. Instead they will make the maximum use of the wider fuselage and make the B777-X a more capable frame in passengers numbers and cargo it can carry, at the cost of a higher fuel burn of course. Which might be offset by the possible higher revenues a B777-X can bring in. That is, if you can fill the plane to that number of passengers and/or cargo where the A35J would be at the limits of its capacity.

The A35J as it stands today is capable of flying a bit further then the current B77W, with only a very slight payload deficit only at the end of the envelope. But does so while burning about 25% less fuel on these routes.  . And EK and QR) are two of the very few airlines which really might need that maximum range/payload combination since they are mainly operating from and to the Gulf area.
 
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:04 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 2):

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

Maybe because they expect to deliver an aircraft that meets the specifications in the contracts for those already sold? (Apart from delivery date - which could be the main reason for the EK / QR reactions)
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:20 am

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 35):
Maybe because they expect to deliver an aircraft that meets the specifications in the contracts for those already sold?

No manufacturer would sign a contract so early on in a development phase that would restrict them in the changes they can make to the design. Thats the risk you take as an early customer - the product may change before it comes to market.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:48 am

Quoting moo (Reply 36):
No manufacturer would sign a contract so early on in a development phase that would restrict them in the changes they can make to the design. Thats the risk you take as an early customer - the product may change before it comes to market.

Still there will be some warrenties and some thousand words what happens if they are not met...

Looks like Airbus spoke with Cathay about the A3510 at least...
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 34):

As things progress, it seems that the only major structural difference between the 777X and the A350 will be the metal fuselage vs a composite fuselage. (The 777 floor beams and empenage are already composite as will be the new wing). Figuring a composite fuselage will be about 20% lighter than a metal fuselage, you can estimate the advantage the A350 over the 777X in terms of efficiency.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:11 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 21):
IMHO beyond improvements in efficiency, the A350-1000 would benefit from an increase in MTOW, MZFW, and Fuel Capacity. This would give an airline such as EK greater flexibility in trading range/trip fuel/payload.

Would upping these parameters add empty weight (and erase efficiency) to the point where the aircraft would no longer be attractive for all the other operators who plan to use it for shorter missions? And/or decrease its attractiveness compared to the current or improved 77W?

Just asking the question because those would seem the only good reasons NOT to make the plane more capable.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:38 pm

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 39):

Would upping these parameters add empty weight (and erase efficiency) to the point where the aircraft would no longer be attractive for all the other operators who plan to use it for shorter missions? And/or decrease its attractiveness compared to the current or improved 77W?

Just asking the question because those would seem the only good reasons NOT to make the plane more capable.

Sure it could. If it added unnecessary weight to MEW in strengthening and increased tankerage that most operators wouldn't want to carry around.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:03 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
He certainly doesn't seem to be in any hurry to cancel them, any more than Mr Baker does....

He has plenty of time to see what other Airbus product he may want, thus saving his deposits.

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

Dimension wise the A-3510 is a B-77W clone. They have almost an identical wingspan and overall lenght. But the B-777, having a much wider body, has more floor space inside and can carry more pax in any configueration that is identical between the two airplanes. It als carries more cargo by weight and volumn, but both carry about 44 LD3s.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
They said that the bulk of the airlines they DID talk to supported the A350-1000 re-design.
Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):But Airbus did not do it
Wholly unsurprising response.

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

Before today's CX order for 10 A-3510s and conversion of 16 A-359s to the -1000, there were just 5 customers who had ordered the A-3510. So all airbus had to do last year before they 'updated' the A-3510 was talk to 5 airlines about it, and at least 40% of those airlines (EK & QR) claim they were not consulted. Another airline (EY) has canceled a total of 13 A-3510s in two steps in the past year since the 'update' has been announced at last year's PAS. So, that means, of the 5 original airlines that ordered the original A-3510, at least 60% of those airlines claim they were not consulted on the update.
 
william
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

I meant fuselage wise, why didn't Airbus just copied the 777. If the A350-1000 had the same width of the 777 and still able to offer the efficiencies the 350 has over the 777, then the order book would look totally different now.

Airbus went through the effort to start from scratch with the present A350, why not start by matching their biggest compeititor.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:20 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
and can carry more pax in any configuration that is identical between the two airplanes

Not really. It only does so in a 10-abreast seating configuration in economy. Giving the passengers much less seating width and therefore a less comfortable flight. In 9-abreast seating configuration they hold the same number of passengers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
B-777, having a much wider body

You consider 26 cm (10.2 inches) suddenly "a much wider body"?   
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:27 pm

The 777 is int its midlife and getting a refresh, its past its prime really. But it gives income to Boeing unlike the 787 that costs a lot right now. The Y3 will come when all other programs are mature and give a healthy income.

IMO it will be darn hard to make the Y3 better than what is in the market now, it cant be much bigger or wider. It will have to replace the 747 and the 777. Its a big question mark for me. Boeing will try to suck every penny out of the 777 as long as they can.

I vote for the crazy BWB fuselage, go bold! That would be wide like nothing else   20 across seating? Could serve as a good freighter as well.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:28 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 13):

I think you're going around the Bend here. When Boeing was designing the B777, they went to the airlines they targeted and sought their Design advice, Range Advice, passenger amenity advice and their technical advice as well. . Boeing brought in a team of mechanics from all over the world and asked Them about repair proceedures and tooling to accomplish major jobs.
They also asked about servicing equipment and how the servicing should be done as to how they envisioned it being done.
This put he B777 months ahead as it was already widely known that the airplane would be good before it even left the factory.
The A350-1000 should have had input from the airlines Airbus was Targeting for sale to.
I dare say that the A350-900 that UAL ordered will be the Bellweather airplane for the rest of the USA majors to see if it's any good. If UAL has a pile of problems?? Nobody who Hasn't ordered it WILL. If Fernandez and co Don't Like the A350-1000?
That Mght NOT be a good sign for that airplane either. You Have to build What your customers WANT or you might as well be building models or racing airplanes.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:02 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 45):
The A350-1000 should have had input from the airlines Airbus was Targeting for sale to.

Airbus is working in very close cooperation with possible customers just as Boeing is. There is no difference in the way Airbus or Boeing operate in that department. You can not design an attractive product without the selective input of so many respected and experienced customers.

Do not let the words of TC mislead you. They were in the loop from the beginning and therefore ordered the A350-1000. And they did so for good reasons. Then they (EK and QR) made some noise that they wanted to see improvements. So Airbus listened to them (and other potential customers) and came up with improvement making it the airplane that will equal or improve in the mission performance of the B77W, and should use 25% less fuel in the process.   But EK wanted (a lot) more improvements, hence their criticism about the design changes which cost a couple of %-point on efficiency. But that would stretch the performance even further at a much higher econimical cost (more weight, more power, more fuel burn)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
at least 60% of those airlines claim they were not consulted on the update.

You'll have to show me a) where EY said they weren't consulted, and b) that their cancelleations are related to that.
It's not what they said   

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 45):
The A350-1000 should have had input from the airlines Airbus was Targeting for sale to

Who's to say it didn't?

Rgds
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:09 pm

Quoting Shany (Reply 30):
What would be the cargoload for the 35J, 25JN, 77W on this leg with a typical three class layout and cabin furbishment?

The example was the easy one for me to model (my base model is the frames at their spec seating, weight and range, thus I can calibrate against the OEMs standard values) as the 77W has a spec range of 7930nm still air range with the spec seating of 365 pax, ie it carries no cargo and have a spec cabin which would lighter then most practical airliners would specify. The 35J is in the same position with only a 70nm longer spec range, in this case a wash. The 35JN has a spec range of 8400nm so it could carry some cargo (about 5t) but then it would start at MTOW and have trip burn and per pax burn which would be sligthly higher. It would generate more revenue as well.

More interesting would be that it could carry those 18 pax diff to the 77W and some 3t cargo as pax normally give you more revenue then cargo.
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Tim Clark's Opinion On The A350-1000

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:29 pm

I have rerun the model in a much less quick and dirty way when all carry the same payload ie I normalized all to 330 pax and also 330 seats (thus lowering the 77W OEW), here the values (35J, 35JN and 77W):

......................35J..........35JN.........77W
TOW..ton........295..........298...........348
OEW..ton........148.........150.5.........166
Trip fuel..ton....103.0.......104.0........131,6
diff.....................0............+1%.......+28%
Fuel per pax....0.0396.....0.0397......0.0513
diff.....................0............+1%........+28%

Please use these numbers as they are much closer to what the values should be. Here we also the diff between the original 35J and 35JN that Airbus has been stating, about 1% (actually I got 0.9% but then my model is only good enough for some +-2% when I don't cheat which I did in the earlier post     )

[Edited 2012-07-10 11:38:22]
Non French in France

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anansaudiajet, Baidu [Spider], barney captain, Bing [Bot], bordonne, Borut, BreninTW, eidvm, euroflyer, Google Adsense [Bot], ikolkyo, intotheair, KarelXWB, LandSweetLand, oldannyboy, Qatara340, qf789, quiet1, rheinwaldner, tepidhalibut, Theseus, VirginFlyer, Yahoo [Bot] and 222 guests