• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14
 
jagraham
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:34 am

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:
the R&D aren't included in the deffered program costs.


Reason why the prototype frames were targeted for sale and the terrible teens reworked at high ( above revenue?) cost.

If a tradeable item the ( extremely to very high ) cost of the early frames goes into deferred cost and not into immediately effective R&D cost.
Another cost hit well hidden.


And when they couldn't sell them, Boeing took billions in write-downs by moving them into R&D because that was effectively what they became - prototype R&D frames.

Of course, if Boeing had been able to sell them, that would not have been a panacea as they would have still incurred billions in deferred production costs while only bringing in hundreds of millions of revenue. So the difference either would have had to have been made up through the profits generated from later deliveries or Boeing would have had to write down the difference.


All the terrible teens are sold but one (Crystal Air fell through). But reading between the lines, the cost of just refurbishing each terrible teen appears to be as much or more than the list price of a new 788. Financially, they should have scrapped them, or donated them.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:49 am

travelhound wrote:
Yes, but the 787 Boeing marketed 10 years ago was a substantially lighter, more efficient aircraft.

I am looking forward to the next 787 NG / MAX / Evolution model. It will probably be than that we will see the real potential of composites for air frame manufacture.


My reason for arguing that the 787 sales success via "full spectrum overpromise" carried its own demise.
The mindset behind going that way forced that.
A reasonable offer would have sold much less while having a chance to go through a less stressed develelopement
and industrialization ( in a more realistic timeframe of ~7 years. ) they bet the farm and lost.
But initially the 787 didn't even reach the rescoped targets. ( initially short of 10t over already beefed up numbers.)
Remember, initially the 787 was a wider but thinner shell seating 8 across in endless comfort.
Murphy is an optimist
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:56 am

Is the 789 bigger than the 764?
 
travelhound
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:23 am

I believe they bet the company on the global production system rather than the plane itself.

There are not too many companies that can afford to design a plane twice. In essence this is what Boeing had to do.

I suspect the 787 is still a compromised air frame. The good news is once Boeing has a greater understanding of the aircraft in service they will be able to boost its performance.
.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:30 am

WIederling wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Yes, but the 787 Boeing marketed 10 years ago was a substantially lighter, more efficient aircraft.

I am looking forward to the next 787 NG / MAX / Evolution model. It will probably be than that we will see the real potential of composites for air frame manufacture.


My reason for arguing that the 787 sales success via "full spectrum overpromise" carried its own demise.
The mindset behind going that way forced that.
A reasonable offer would have sold much less while having a chance to go through a less stressed develelopement
and industrialization ( in a more realistic timeframe of ~7 years. ) they bet the farm and lost.
But initially the 787 didn't even reach the rescoped targets. ( initially short of 10t over already beefed up numbers.)
Remember, initially the 787 was a wider but thinner shell seating 8 across in endless comfort.

If the initial targets were actually achieved most airlines would have still moved to 9-abreast. Simply because it made a super efficient plane even more efficient.

If that was the case Airbus would have probably reacted with a A350 that is better then the current A350, covering a market from the A330-200 to the A350-1000. Probably with a dual solution, a bit like the A330/A340, just both with 2 engines. Now they have it relatively easy with the A330neo solution to serve the large demand for planes in this size segment.

If the 787 will be in demise it will because the market won't be interested in this type of plane, which would also mean the demise of the A330. The 787 is here to stay, with or without differed costs or program accounting.

blacksoviet wrote:
Is the 789 bigger than the 764?

The 789 is a bit bigger.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:46 am

blacksoviet wrote:
Is the 789 bigger than the 764?


the 764 is marginally smaller than an A330-200 ( for published 3 class arrangements ) but shorter ranged.
The 789 is a good match to the A330-300

767-400 ~= 788 ( beyond the range differences ) ??
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:16 am

jagraham wrote:
Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Reason why the prototype frames were targeted for sale and the terrible teens reworked at high ( above revenue?) cost.

If a tradeable item the ( extremely to very high ) cost of the early frames goes into deferred cost and not into immediately effective R&D cost.
Another cost hit well hidden.


And when they couldn't sell them, Boeing took billions in write-downs by moving them into R&D because that was effectively what they became - prototype R&D frames.

Of course, if Boeing had been able to sell them, that would not have been a panacea as they would have still incurred billions in deferred production costs while only bringing in hundreds of millions of revenue. So the difference either would have had to have been made up through the profits generated from later deliveries or Boeing would have had to write down the difference.


All the terrible teens are sold but one (Crystal Air fell through). But reading between the lines, the cost of just refurbishing each terrible teen appears to be as much or more than the list price of a new 788. Financially, they should have scrapped them, or donated them.


But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:59 am

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Financially, they should have scrapped them, or donated them.


But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.


Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:46 am

WIederling wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Financially, they should have scrapped them, or donated them.


But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.


Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.


Along with the privilege of collecting the significant revenue they will generate from ancillary sales over their lifetimes. :dollarsign:
 
alyusuph
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:49 am

If I was an airline exec. presented with these performance figures, I will go for the B787-9 without a wink, it seems better in all parameters brought for discussions here, (apparently in EOW as well -based on comments brought forward).
The B789 will also operate longer than the 330 Neo (assuming the benefits of CFRP will keep to their promise)
The B789 has potential to mint more revenue if utilised well due to its higher speeds (can we have figures for airport turnarounds?
The B 789 will save money through lower maintenance costs
The B also,carries an advantage of "new airliner hype with passengers" which was also well promoted during its turbulent launch -yes, bad news sometimes promotes and sells, or raises awareness!!
All these,just based on the figures submitted here, and my "crude arm chair exec. analysis.
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:07 am

alyusuph wrote:
If I was an airline exec. presented with these performance figures, I,will,go,for,the B787-9 without a wink, it seems better in all,aspects (apparently in EOW as well -based on dicussions here).
The B789 will also operate longer than the 330 Neo (assuming the benefits of CFRP will keep to their promise
The B789 has potential to mint more revenue if utilised well due to its higher speeds (can we have figures for airport turnarounds?
The B 789 will save money through lower maintenance costs
The B also,carries an advantage of "new airliner hype with passengers" which was also well promoted during its turbulent launch -yes, bad news sometimes promotes and sells, or raises awareness!!
All these,just based on the figures submitted here, and my "crude arm chair exec. analysis.


I get where you're coming from, but I think the A330neo will be a very compelling airframe and that it will win a number of RFP's against the 787 despite the items that you listed. I'm a B fan of sorts and think the 787 lineup is great, but there's no denying that the A330neo will meet many airline's needs at a lower up-front cost and with competitive operating costs.

Plenty of room for both out there. :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:44 am

alyusuph wrote:
If I was an airline exec. presented with these performance figures, I will go for the B787-9 without a wink, it seems better in all parameters brought for discussions here, (apparently in EOW as well -based on comments brought forward).
The B789 will also operate longer than the 330 Neo (assuming the benefits of CFRP will keep to their promise)
The B789 has potential to mint more revenue if utilised well due to its higher speeds (can we have figures for airport turnarounds?
The B 789 will save money through lower maintenance costs
The B also,carries an advantage of "new airliner hype with passengers" which was also well promoted during its turbulent launch -yes, bad news sometimes promotes and sells, or raises awareness!!
All these,just based on the figures submitted here, and my "crude arm chair exec. analysis.

No offense, but it's a good thing you're not an airline exec. ;)
You can buy a lot of fuel with 300-400kUSD a month, much more than a 787 will save you on fuel. To make a sound business decision, it takes a lot more than the information that was provided in this thread.

The speed advantage is minimal, you need a very large fleet and and much O&D traffic to take advantage of higher aircraft utilisation. If you operate it in a hub system, you loose this advantage. In reality, it will most likely lead to increased ground times. As to this increased speed, I see more potential in crew cost savings than higher aircraft utilisation.

I think there are a lot of people in this board who prefer an 8-abreast A330 over a 9-abreast 787 (or 10-abreast 777), but that might only be an uneducated impression of course.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13503
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:55 am

In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:01 am

Stitch wrote:
Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.


Along with the privilege of collecting the significant revenue they will generate from ancillary sales over their lifetimes. :dollarsign:[/quote]

Milchmädchenrechnung, your :dollarsign: specs appear to be opaque and are fitted with blinders too.

For the effort spent on turning those frames into tradable items and the distracting logistics involved, inclusive of
binding manpower in a massive way, they
would have been better served to turn that energy on improving on the regular manufacturing process
and accelerating that and having longtime benefit.
Potentially 2+ new frames fitting well into the regular run of space parts and after market care
versus 1 "Flickschuster"ed frame that demands bespoke spares and maintainance efforts over its commercial life.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:12 am

keesje wrote:
In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course


Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:35 am

Airliners are not interested in neos...... By the way , the A339 hasn't flown yet, will it be able to be dilivered in a year?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.


Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.


Along with the privilege of collecting the significant revenue they will generate from ancillary sales over their lifetimes. :dollarsign:


But Boeing would have got the same revenue from ancillary sales if they would have sold them production frames and scrapped the test frames.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:03 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course


Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?


Can you elaborate how you get to lower fuel burn for the 787 without quoting Boeing sales propaganda?

The A330-300 is at least not heavier than the 787-9, has the same generation of engines and greater wing span. Airbus is as far in the technology in the use of the FBW. The advantage of CFRP is not a given, but should have worked through providing a lighter frame.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:54 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
Airliners are not interested in neos...... By the way , the A339 hasn't flown yet, will it be able to be dilivered in a year?

Thanks for clarifying that one. I guess that is the reason why A320neo's aren't selling at all?
 
StTim
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:27 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
Airliners are not interested in neos...... By the way , the A339 hasn't flown yet, will it be able to be dilivered in a year?


And with that post you have been added to my list of rabid Boeing fan boys. :(
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:52 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
Airliners are not interested in neos...... By the way , the A339 hasn't flown yet, will it be able to be dilivered in a year?

Hugely funny post! Thanks for that, I'm still laughing at its Homerisms

How can an "airliner" being interested in another airliner be of any remote interest to a human being? Or even to an airline?

Others have got to the other and more dumb points before me

Just keep on "dilivering" posts like this, good for a laugh everyday!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:54 pm

AirCal737 wrote:
Airliners are not interested in neos...... By the way , the A339 hasn't flown yet, will it be able to be dilivered in a year?


Which explains the failure of every 737 apart from the -100 and -200, the A320neo, the 77W and 777X...

But since the A330 is well established, it shouldn't be too hard to get it delivered within a year, only the engines are new. The rest is incremental, so certification won't be too difficult unless engine issues prop up: but the engine is a derivative of an in-service engine.
 
olle
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:47 pm

In the end of life will the 330 has sold 2000 copies and 330/340 2500? what an achievement.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13503
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course


Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?


I called him on his cell, but he didn't go into details. ;) Just like selecting preferable seatcount/ doing per seat comparisons, range can be toggled to create perceptions. For this comparison I could have taken range at MTOW iso 31T payload for both. I would have done the 787-9 short, because it's higher MTOW contains mostly payload.

Airbus has invested in aerodynamic improvements, slats, engine pylons and wing fairing, it's frontal area smaller, wings enhanced (twisted) and leaner. If we consider engine sfc the same, would lower fuelburn for the NEO be possible? Yes, why not?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:11 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.


Along with the privilege of collecting the significant revenue they will generate from ancillary sales over their lifetimes. :dollarsign:


But Boeing would have got the same revenue from ancillary sales if they would have sold them production frames and scrapped the test frames.


Assuming they were willing to wait even more years for said frames (and pay tens or scores of more millions for them).


mjoelnir wrote:
The A330-900 is at least not heavier than the 787-9, has the same generation of engines and greater wing span.


Fixed that for you.
 
LewisNEO
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:08 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:31 pm

WIederling wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Is the 789 bigger than the 764?


the 764 is marginally smaller than an A330-200 ( for published 3 class arrangements ) but shorter ranged.
The 789 is a good match to the A330-300

767-400 ~= 788 ( beyond the range differences ) ??


Yeah you can compare the 764 with the A332 and 788. I must admit, I flew a couple of times on the 764, and somehow I prefer it above the 763. They are initially the same plane. but it felt more steady.
You are the wind beneath my wings.

Fokker 27, Bombardier Dash 8, Embraer 175 & 195, 727-200, 737-200 & -300 & -400 & -800, 747-400, 767-300, 767-400, DC 10-30, A320-200, A330-200, A330-300, A380.
 
jagraham
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:49 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Stitch wrote:

And when they couldn't sell them, Boeing took billions in write-downs by moving them into R&D because that was effectively what they became - prototype R&D frames.

Of course, if Boeing had been able to sell them, that would not have been a panacea as they would have still incurred billions in deferred production costs while only bringing in hundreds of millions of revenue. So the difference either would have had to have been made up through the profits generated from later deliveries or Boeing would have had to write down the difference.


All the terrible teens are sold but one (Crystal Air fell through). But reading between the lines, the cost of just refurbishing each terrible teen appears to be as much or more than the list price of a new 788. Financially, they should have scrapped them, or donated them.


But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.



So Boeing spent (probably much; perhaps over $300 million per plane) more than the cost of producing a new plane to defer the production cost of that individual plane? Or even the prorated development cost? Somebody is going to have to explain that accounting to me.
 
jagraham
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course


Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?


I called him on his cell, but he didn't go into details. ;) Just like selecting preferable seatcount/ doing per seat comparisons, range can be toggled to create perceptions. For this comparison I could have taken range at MTOW iso 31T payload for both. I would have done the 787-9 short, because it's higher MTOW contains mostly payload.

Airbus has invested in aerodynamic improvements, slats, engine pylons and wing fairing, it's frontal area smaller, wings enhanced (twisted) and leaner. If we consider engine sfc the same, would lower fuelburn for the NEO be possible? Yes, why not?

Image


The A333 is a bit lighter (about 2t, but more research is needed to know if that applies to the 242t version), carries more fuel, but the Trent 700 engines are a generation behind. Airbus claims (slides in other threads) that the Trent 7000 will be 11% better in SFC with the rest coming from more seats and aerodynamics offsetting a 2% reduction due to weight gain. Most of which is about 2000 lb per engine as installed.

The 789, carrying about 2000 gal less fuel, flies over 1000 nm farther. Since the Trent 7000 is a Trent 1000-TEN with bleed air, the wings have to be the difference. OEW difference cannot explain this, and MTOW is greater for the 789 (the higher MTOW does allow the 789 to carry more fuel with an equivalent payload (pax bags freight catering)).
 
jagraham
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:07 pm

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

But than Boeing would have had to write of the cost of producing them, this way they could defer the production cost.


Proves that Boeing will accept steep cost increase just for the privilege of moving cost into the deferred basket.


Along with the privilege of collecting the significant revenue they will generate from ancillary sales over their lifetimes. :dollarsign:


True, but they could have built new airplanes for much less money and collected the same ancillary revenues . . .
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:05 pm

jagraham wrote:
So Boeing spent (probably much; perhaps over $300 million per plane) more than the cost of producing a new plane to defer the production cost of that individual plane? Or even the prorated development cost? Somebody is going to have to explain that accounting to me.


Program accounting for cost is it called. Everything done to keep current profits up. How do you think Boeing amassed 30 billion deferred cost/loss producing about 470 787?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:16 am

jagraham wrote:
True, but they could have built new airplanes for much less money and collected the same ancillary revenues . . .


As I noted in my reply to mjoelnir on the same, only if the airlines were willing to wait for the new frames and were willing to pay the higher price for them. And those new frames would have added their own deferred production cost to the backlog (though one expects they would have been sold at a profit so they would have recovered all of said cost).


jagraham wrote:
So Boeing spent (probably much; perhaps over $300 million per plane) more than the cost of producing a new plane to defer the production cost of that individual plane? Or even the prorated development cost? Somebody is going to have to explain that accounting to me.


Production Accounting allows Boeing to defer the production and inventory costs of the plane for a period of time. The goal is that the revenue from deliveries will pay off that cost before it comes due. It is a way to allow Boeing to not have to book large losses at the start of a program due to new aircraft programs losing significant money early on.

Development costs are accounted for separately - they are directly charged in the quarter they are accrued.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:30 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
In last weeks press conference Leahy compares the A330NEO to the 787.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/annual-press-briefing-2017/

He claims around (38:00 min):
- Wide 18 seats
- 3 DB quieter cabin
- 20-30 million capital cost advantage
- better fuel consumption, economics

From the A330 sales guy of course


Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?


Can you elaborate how you get to lower fuel burn for the 787 without quoting Boeing sales propaganda?

The A330-300 is at least not heavier than the 787-9, has the same generation of engines and greater wing span. Airbus is as far in the technology in the use of the FBW. The advantage of CFRP is not a given, but should have worked through providing a lighter frame.


Point of clarification, do you consider a variable camber wing part of the FBW system? If not, then I guess I see where you are coming, but I don't agree. Here is what I said in post 130 in this thread



There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:36 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


Navigational fees (ATC handling etc.) are calculated based on MTOW and distance traveled (number of control zones). (There are only navigational fees for overflights within the US.) Landing fees are most commonly based on the aircraft's MTOW.

The A330 has up to 242t MTOW, while the 787-9 has a MTOW of 254t.

Further reducing operational costs, including navigational fees and landing fees is the purpose of the A330 Regional, a paper de-rated plane @ 199t MTOW. This lower MTOW variant of the A330 have paper đe-rated engines as well. With reduced engine thrust, maintenance costs are much lower.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:38 am

Stitch wrote:
jagraham wrote:
True, but they could have built new airplanes for much less money and collected the same ancillary revenues . . .


As I noted in my reply to mjoelnir on the same, only if the airlines were willing to wait for the new frames and were willing to pay the higher price for them. And those new frames would have added their own deferred production cost to the backlog (though one expects they would have been sold at a profit so they would have recovered all of said cost).


the question is, are this frames refurbished and sold to make money or to keep their cost in the deferred block. If you produce a test frame for 700 million, refurbish it for 150 million and sell it for 150 million, you keep 700 million from being written off and spoil your current profit.

Stitch wrote:
Production Accounting allows Boeing to defer the production and inventory costs of the plane for a period of time. The goal is that the revenue from deliveries will pay off that cost before it comes due. It is a way to allow Boeing to not have to book large losses at the start of a program due to new aircraft programs losing significant money early on.

Development costs are accounted for separately - they are directly charged in the quarter they are accrued.


I would say the accounting the cost for test frames under production cost is getting in the gray area. Some would expect them to be accounted for in development cost.
 
Mrak79
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:57 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:48 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

Can you elaborate on what conditions John Leahy uses to come up with his better fuel consumption claim? A vague comment like that out of context does not really mean anything. What range, payload and capacity is being used to back up that claim?


Can you elaborate how you get to lower fuel burn for the 787 without quoting Boeing sales propaganda?

The A330-300 is at least not heavier than the 787-9, has the same generation of engines and greater wing span. Airbus is as far in the technology in the use of the FBW. The advantage of CFRP is not a given, but should have worked through providing a lighter frame.


Point of clarification, do you consider a variable camber wing part of the FBW system? If not, then I guess I see where you are coming, but I don't agree. Here is what I said in post 130 in this thread



There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


Per RR bleed air to Trent 7000 add around 0.01% of fuel burn! Anyway heavy electric generators make load to engine as well. Most of savings coming from saving weight of bleed duct and you can also save mintenance cost by that. 787 will be more fuel efficient further you fly thats for sure. Thanks to better aerodynamics. Airbus using typical 4000nm trip to comparison because its most of the routes flying by WB and still not loosing much on fuel burn compare to 787.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:05 am

jagraham wrote:
The 789, carrying about 2000 gal less fuel, flies over 1000 nm farther. Since the Trent 7000 is a Trent 1000-TEN with bleed air, the wings have to be the difference. OEW difference cannot explain this, and MTOW is greater for the 789 (the higher MTOW does allow the 789 to carry more fuel with an equivalent payload (pax bags freight catering)).


your "less fuel for more range" is a mirage.
for the same payload the 789 has 11t more MTOW for more fuel avalable ( 1.8h more endurance, significantly constrained by tankage available )
The A333, 339 have the center wing box enabled as tankage just like the A340 and A332 already had.

You can fly them down to (near) zero Payload. No second "fuel limit" corner in the Payload/Range diagram.
( this changes with the increased MTOW options.
242t MTOW - 110t fuel - 128t OEW ~= 4t payload remaining.
254t MTOW - 101t fuel - 128t OEW ~= 25t payload remaining.

I would not be surprised if anything inside the A339 payload/range capability shows equal or slightly less fuel cost.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

Newbiepilot wrote:

There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short ...........
...eans more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


laminar flow beyond engine nacelles has been discontinued. too much hassle ( making, using ) for microscopic gains.
laminar flow engine nacelles are more or less a PR tag assignment.
The difference is how far along the nacelle keeps its laminar flow. 30% "nonlaminar" or 35% "laminar flow, horray" :-)
No nacelle in production today has full length laminar flow.

"Electrics more efficient" might come into effect in a generation or two of power electronics progress.
But currently it is a wash or still a downside.

Wingloading for the 789 and 10 is rather high. The wing flex looks rather beautiful but it incurs quite a heavy mass penalty for wing structure. With all the CFRP used and a smaller wing to begin with ( and all those other super advanced whirligigs ) the 787 is not lighter than an A330. Why?

Better aerodynamics? Not much hard fact around that would support that. There is no automatic advance from years gone by or a new bunch of bullshit bingo tags.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9220
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:38 am

jagraham wrote:

The 789, carrying about 2000 gal less fuel, flies over 1000 nm farther. Since the Trent 7000 is a Trent 1000-TEN with bleed air, the wings have to be the difference. OEW difference cannot explain this, and MTOW is greater for the 789 (the higher MTOW does allow the 789 to carry more fuel with an equivalent payload (pax bags freight catering)).


The difference in range between a A330-900 and the 787-9 is a consequence of the difference in MTOW, nothing to do with fuel burn. At MZFW the A330-900 is MTOW limited regarding fuel not tankage volume limited. Increasing the MTOW of the A330-900 would increase range.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:33 am

Mrak79 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Can you elaborate how you get to lower fuel burn for the 787 without quoting Boeing sales propaganda?

The A330-300 is at least not heavier than the 787-9, has the same generation of engines and greater wing span. Airbus is as far in the technology in the use of the FBW. The advantage of CFRP is not a given, but should have worked through providing a lighter frame.


Point of clarification, do you consider a variable camber wing part of the FBW system? If not, then I guess I see where you are coming, but I don't agree. Here is what I said in post 130 in this thread



There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


Per RR bleed air to Trent 7000 add around 0.01% of fuel burn! Anyway heavy electric generators make load to engine as well. Most of savings coming from saving weight of bleed duct and you can also save mintenance cost by that. 787 will be more fuel efficient further you fly thats for sure. Thanks to better aerodynamics. Airbus using typical 4000nm trip to comparison because its most of the routes flying by WB and still not loosing much on fuel burn compare to 787.


What do you mean bleed air is only 0.01% of fuel burn? I have seen sources indicating bleed air reduces thrust by 2%. Boeing claimed a 3% fuel burn reduction from using electric systems instead of bleed air:

One of the advantages of the no-bleed electrical systems architecture is the greater efficiency gained in terms of reduced fuel burn — the 787 systems architecture accounts for predicted fuel savings of about 3 percent. The 787 also offers operators operational efficiencies due to the advantages of electrical systems compared to pneumatic systems in terms of weight and reduced lifecycle costs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_1.html
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:52 am

Okcflyer wrote:
Also, utilization is slightly higher with the Mach .85 vs .80 cruise.


The A330 is not a M0.8 machine, and if an aircraft does a route faster e.g. Hkg-Mel-hkg the utilisation goes down at it is measured in hrs per day. (Eg 18 hrs vs 17 hrs 40)
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:02 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
One of the advantages of the no-bleed electrical systems architecture is the greater efficiency gained in terms of reduced fuel burn — the 787 systems architecture accounts for predicted fuel savings of about 3 percent.


We don't know what Boeing was comparing that two, it could be the system installed in the 767.

3% is a significant gain, and if it were that great I would have expected Boeing to have included it on the 747-8, 737 max, and 777X.

Need to keep in mind the pack technology on the A350/777X would be 20 plus years of engineering development than the 767 as well, just like the engines have evolved.

The realised gain I am not sure is that significant.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
StTim
Posts: 3515
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:02 pm

The lack of bleed air for theframe makes little difference, from what I have read, to the overall bleed requirements for the engine as the vast bulk of bleed is use to cool and protect downstream components.

Also the effect of just removing the bleed air has to be countered by the additional weight and complexity of the generators that need to be powered by the engine. Just because you don't have bleed - doesn't mean that the work element that bleed was used for has gone away.

So I think the Boeing figures were marketing spin. The lower number is a number from Airbus so also has many caveats.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7030
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:36 pm

Mrak79 wrote:

Per RR bleed air to Trent 7000 add around 0.01% of fuel burn! Anyway heavy electric generators make load to engine as well. Most of savings coming from saving weight of bleed duct and you can also save mintenance cost by that. 787 will be more fuel efficient further you fly thats for sure. Thanks to better aerodynamics. Airbus using typical 4000nm trip to comparison because its most of the routes flying by WB and still not loosing much on fuel burn compare to 787.


In fact RR will tell you this ..

Using bleed air instead of generating electrical power as in the 787's Trent 1000, the less loaded IP accessory drive enables the high-pressure compressor to maintain stability at low power settings, improving low speed fuel consumption for short-haul operations


This does seem to reinforce the view that "bleedless" will be better for long haul, but it also seems to state that for short haul operations, the Trent 7000 will actually be more efficient than the Trent 1000-TEN

Newbiepilot wrote:
One of the advantages of the no-bleed electrical systems architecture is the greater efficiency gained in terms of reduced fuel burn — the 787 systems architecture accounts for predicted fuel savings of about 3 percent. The 787 also offers operators operational efficiencies due to the advantages of electrical systems compared to pneumatic systems in terms of weight and reduced lifecycle costs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_1.html


Just to get this straight, you are prepared to question anything and everything that might not show an advantage to the Boeing product, even when it is the OEM's own data, but are prepared to fall back on a piece of Boeing marketing spin as gospel, even when it contains the word predicted?

I've no issue with personal preferences by the way - we all have them

however, if there really was a 3% fuel burn advantage to this architecture, then I'm pretty sure that every plane that you can buy new today would sport it .

Rgds
 
Mrak79
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:57 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:58 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Mrak79 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

Point of clarification, do you consider a variable camber wing part of the FBW system? If not, then I guess I see where you are coming, but I don't agree. Here is what I said in post 130 in this thread



There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


Per RR bleed air to Trent 7000 add around 0.01% of fuel burn! Anyway heavy electric generators make load to engine as well. Most of savings coming from saving weight of bleed duct and you can also save mintenance cost by that. 787 will be more fuel efficient further you fly thats for sure. Thanks to better aerodynamics. Airbus using typical 4000nm trip to comparison because its most of the routes flying by WB and still not loosing much on fuel burn compare to 787.


What do you mean bleed air is only 0.01% of fuel burn? I have seen sources indicating bleed air reduces thrust by 2%. Boeing claimed a 3% fuel burn reduction from using electric systems instead of bleed air:

One of the advantages of the no-bleed electrical systems architecture is the greater efficiency gained in terms of reduced fuel burn — the 787 systems architecture accounts for predicted fuel savings of about 3 percent. The 787 also offers operators operational efficiencies due to the advantages of electrical systems compared to pneumatic systems in terms of weight and reduced lifecycle costs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_1.html


“I can confirm that adding cabin and deice bleed to the Trent T1000 will be one of the simpler tasks when creating the T7000,” Goodhead says. “In fact it will require minimal hardware changes and the additional bleed will affect the engines performance with less then 1/10 of a percent. There are other areas requiring more of our attention, such as the significant reduction in electrical power served to the A330neo airframe compared to the requirements of the 787. The reduction in the drive power to the gearbox where the aircraft’s electrical generators are attached will cause hardware changes on the engines internals. This and the changed mounting of the engine (compared to the mounting of the T700) are more significant challenges for us and Airbus .”

https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/15/airbu ... nce-costs/


3% fuel burn reduction is Boeing marketing number. It contains all advantage of bleedless system. But again 2 electric generetors make significant load to engine also.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:36 pm

astuteman wrote:
Mrak79 wrote:

Per RR bleed air to Trent 7000 add around 0.01% of fuel burn! Anyway heavy electric generators make load to engine as well. Most of savings coming from saving weight of bleed duct and you can also save mintenance cost by that. 787 will be more fuel efficient further you fly thats for sure. Thanks to better aerodynamics. Airbus using typical 4000nm trip to comparison because its most of the routes flying by WB and still not loosing much on fuel burn compare to 787.


In fact RR will tell you this ..

Using bleed air instead of generating electrical power as in the 787's Trent 1000, the less loaded IP accessory drive enables the high-pressure compressor to maintain stability at low power settings, improving low speed fuel consumption for short-haul operations


This does seem to reinforce the view that "bleedless" will be better for long haul, but it also seems to state that for short haul operations, the Trent 7000 will actually be more efficient than the Trent 1000-TEN

Newbiepilot wrote:
One of the advantages of the no-bleed electrical systems architecture is the greater efficiency gained in terms of reduced fuel burn — the 787 systems architecture accounts for predicted fuel savings of about 3 percent. The 787 also offers operators operational efficiencies due to the advantages of electrical systems compared to pneumatic systems in terms of weight and reduced lifecycle costs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_1.html


Just to get this straight, you are prepared to question anything and everything that might not show an advantage to the Boeing product, even when it is the OEM's own data, but are prepared to fall back on a piece of Boeing marketing spin as gospel, even when it contains the word predicted?

I've no issue with personal preferences by the way - we all have them

however, if there really was a 3% fuel burn advantage to this architecture, then I'm pretty sure that every plane that you can buy new today would sport it .

Rgds


I am sorry if asking questions bothers you. This is a discussion forum and the information regarding efficiency provided during the A330neo launch by Rolls Royce marketing is very different from what Boeing marketing has stated. I never said Boeing marketing information is gospel. I just asked a question. This forum has plenty of avid A330neo supporters to answer it whose responses provide references from RR that Mrak79's initial 0.01% fuel burn comment that you quoted was off by a factor of 10.
 
spacecookie
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:51 pm

seahawk wrote:
The really interesting fact imho is that it shows how little influence the actual aircraft makes to the performance. All new fancy fuselage and all new wings and still the warmed over design from the 1980ies is competitive. Imho this must be a warning for the industry. The current plane design has reached the limits, where the actual airframe can only add small amounts of efficiency gain. Even CFRP is no longer the saviour, due to new alloys, metal composites and 3D printing.


I think in future we will go back to the traditional fuselage.
787 and A350 have to be reinforced anyway....
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9081
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:05 pm

spacecookie wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The really interesting fact imho is that it shows how little influence the actual aircraft makes to the performance. All new fancy fuselage and all new wings and still the warmed over design from the 1980ies is competitive. Imho this must be a warning for the industry. The current plane design has reached the limits, where the actual airframe can only add small amounts of efficiency gain. Even CFRP is no longer the saviour, due to new alloys, metal composites and 3D printing.


I think in future we will go back to the traditional fuselage.
787 and A350 have to be reinforced anyway....


We will go to a clever mix. We might even see the return of the T-Tails or Three-surface designs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22400
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:09 pm

astuteman wrote:
however, if there really was a 3% fuel burn advantage to this architecture, then I'm pretty sure that every plane that you can buy new today would sport it .


Yes, my friend, I agree, but then again, if the only impact of using bleed air is 0.01% of fuel burn, Boeing would have never implemented bleedless technology to begin with.

Ask yourself: can we do everything that is done with bleed air in a traditional system (i.e. pressurize the cabin, anti ice, air driven pneumatic pumps, etc) at a cost of 0.01% of fuel burn?

Personally, I doubt it, so I suspect we're mis-interpreting the number being provided by Rolls Royce. My guess is it's probably just the overhead of the bleed air intakes, but bleed air inoperative, i.e. with the valves closed. The Boeing number presumably is an estimate of the overall net impact of the bleedless architecture in an operational mode i.e. what you get after you remove bleed air valves and ducting, heat exchangers, and add additional generation capacity, wiring, distribution, etc. I do agree if the benefit is 3% we would have seen it on new clean sheets such as A350. Therefore the system probably was over-hyped, like much of the 787 was.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
WIederling
Posts: 9052
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:46 pm

Mrak79 wrote:
3% fuel burn reduction is Boeing marketing number. It contains all advantage of bleedless system. But again 2 electric generetors make significant load to engine also.


With all the super duper different than before super efficient items Boeing succeed in hiding
that the major part of 787 advantage over its its direct competitor A330 was .... tada... engine derived.
Murphy is an optimist
 
gloom
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
Ask yourself: can we do everything that is done with bleed air in a traditional system (i.e. pressurize the cabin, anti ice, air driven pneumatic pumps, etc) at a cost of 0.01% of fuel burn?


I'd say thre things:
1. It's 0.01% MORE. Probably, if you look at it, stronger generators, gears etc cost extra as well. Whatever number it is, bleeds probably take that, and some extra. Is it 0.01? I'd say it's between 0.01 and 3, but how close to any of these numbers - none of us can tell
2. Since Boeing took the time and risk to do a bleedless 787, they probably expected it to bring sincificant turnover, with more complicated and more expensive system. I'd say they probably managed it as a technical standout. It does what it's supposed to do, probably in both better air quality and lower fuel (energy) loss.
3. Is it a success? Probably not as much as expected. I don't think it saved as much as expected. It's also overly complicated and much of a cost-raiser. The best product description is that 777X will be using standard air ducts. Even Boeing has decided that extra values are not worth all the complications and costs.

So, I'd say it's one off that proved itself as a technical success, but a commercial failure. Failed to deliver what it promised. Probably they promised too much and delivered too little.

Cheers,
Adam
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos