Bregier believes the A350 stretch can be done with new technologies,

He also thinks there is more potential from 787 - not sure whether is a stretch too or ER of the 7810

Your thoughts

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... br-444920/

I suppose just about anything is possible if the potential gains out way the risks (costs) of development.
However, the thing that keeps crossing my mind is why do we keep hearing about new variants of the 350 in the public arena?
At one time there were more weight and derivate variants of the 350 than aircraft flying.
I think one could be excused for asking is this because the future market for the 350 is not that good.
I think it is quite clear that Airbus are trying to shift the 350 further away from the 787, and find a sweet spot for it, because it just can't match the economics of the 254T 787.
As for the 787, I think we will see a cargo version and a 10ER in the future. Unlike the 350 Boeing are going for performance improvements by reducing weight, not increasing MTOW. Having said that I think we will see a coup[le of Tonne MTOW in the 787 in the future.
Pure speculation on my part.

Ruscoe

chiki wrote:

Bregier believes the A350 stretch can be done with new technologies,

He also thinks there is more potential from 787 - not sure whether is a stretch too or ER of the 7810

Your thoughts

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... br-444920/

You are misreading what Bregier said. He reckons Boeing has extracted the development potential on the 787 and this is something Airbus can do on the a350 over the next few years.

Bregier also said that Airbus will focus on developing the A350-900 and A350-1000 in the coming years as they are brand new aircraft with a lot of development potential. So the A350 family will have the same constant development as other Airbuses.

Right now, A350 sales might be slow because near term delivery slots are very limited. Just look at how many additional orders Boeing took for the 787 when they announced their production rate increase. Airbus can do a similar thing if customers insist on earlier deliveries and order aircraft in good quantities.

I think the next order surge would come as B77Ws and A330s retire from airline fleets. With oil prices creeping up, demand for more fuel efficient aircraft might also increase.

Aviation journalists and enthusiasts are always looking for new aircraft developments. But manufacturers cannot afford to do this constantly and they must keep product lines stable for a period of time. That is why Boeing has such a hard time deciding on a B737 replacement and/or NSA. These are all megabuck projects and need careful evaluation.

I think that if Airbus sees a need for a A350-2000, it will need the Ultrafan to be available before it can even consider doing anything on the airframe.

He's right in that Boeing has a potential vulnerability for payload-range demands beyond what the 787-10 can handle. The 787 would require a new landing gear and center wing box to accommodate higher MTOW, which would be much heavier than today's components and compromise the weight advantage that allows the 787 to make up for its smaller and shorter wing. Meanwhile, the 777-9 competes with the A350-1000 by carrying more passengers over the same range, but it pays for its capabilities in weight. An A350 stretch could turn the 777-9 into a somewhat niche aircraft just like the A350-1000 itself turns the 777-8 into an ultra-niche aircraft. Boeing's capability to respond would be limited; the 777-9 can only be stretched by a row or two, and it would be very expensive indeed to make it lighter.

But at the same time he's not acknowledging the reason Airbus hasn't already launched an A350 stretch: engines. The Trent XWB-97 is pushed absolutely as far as it can go without major changes. Much of the chatter around the A350-1000's somewhat-slower-than-expected sales concerns engine reliability. Yet without a thrust increase, an A350 stretch would be range-compromised enough not to threaten the 777-9 in transoceanic markets. It would be like a larger 787-10, and would sell like the 773A at best. The next bigger engine is the GE9X, which would be perfect for an A350 stretch except that it is contractually exclusive to Boeing. RR would face a difficult business case in developing an engine only for the stretch, that would be too heavy to compete with the existing Trent XWB on all smaller A350 variants.

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

seabosdca wrote:

He's right in that Boeing has a potential vulnerability for payload-range demands beyond what the 787-10 can handle. The 787 would require a new landing gear and center wing box to accommodate higher MTOW, which would be much heavier than today's components and compromise the weight advantage that allows the 787 to make up for its smaller and shorter wing. Meanwhile, the 777-9 competes with the A350-1000 by carrying more passengers over the same range, but it pays for its capabilities in weight. An A350 stretch could turn the 777-9 into a somewhat niche aircraft just like the A350-1000 itself turns the 777-8 into an ultra-niche aircraft. Boeing's capability to respond would be limited; the 777-9 can only be stretched by a row or two, and it would be very expensive indeed to make it lighter.

But at the same time he's not acknowledging the reason Airbus hasn't already launched an A350 stretch: engines. The Trent XWB-97 is pushed absolutely as far as it can go without major changes. Much of the chatter around the A350-1000's somewhat-slower-than-expected sales concerns engine reliability. Yet without a thrust increase, an A350 stretch would be range-compromised enough not to threaten the 777-9 in transoceanic markets. It would be like a larger 787-10, and would sell like the 773A at best. The next bigger engine is the GE9X, which would be perfect for an A350 stretch except that it is contractually exclusive to Boeing. RR would face a difficult business case in developing an engine only for the stretch, that would be too heavy to compete with the existing Trent XWB on all smaller A350 variants.

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

I agree the next Boeing WB development might be a 350 seats-8000NM 787-10ER/11 variant, most probably requiring a bigger wing. To face the XWB capabilities more effectively than the 787-10 and 777-8 can do now. RR has engines to build on. GE might consider a GE9 Light..


Apparently Bregier feels with 800 A350s in the backlog and the 77W replacement market coming up the need for additional investment is not there at this moment. A next generation of RR/GE engines is worth waiting for.

ap305 wrote:

chiki wrote:

Bregier believes the A350 stretch can be done with new technologies,

He also thinks there is more potential from 787 - not sure whether is a stretch too or ER of the 7810

Your thoughts

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... br-444920/

You are misreading what Bregier said. He reckons Boeing has extracted the development potential on the 787 and this is something Airbus can do on the a350 over the next few years.

Yes, I interpreted his words the same way.

seabosdca wrote:

He's right in that Boeing has a potential vulnerability for payload-range demands beyond what the 787-10 can handle. The 787 would require a new landing gear and center wing box to accommodate higher MTOW, which would be much heavier than today's components and compromise the weight advantage that allows the 787 to make up for its smaller and shorter wing. Meanwhile, the 777-9 competes with the A350-1000 by carrying more passengers over the same range, but it pays for its capabilities in weight. An A350 stretch could turn the 777-9 into a somewhat niche aircraft just like the A350-1000 itself turns the 777-8 into an ultra-niche aircraft. Boeing's capability to respond would be limited; the 777-9 can only be stretched by a row or two, and it would be very expensive indeed to make it lighter.

But at the same time he's not acknowledging the reason Airbus hasn't already launched an A350 stretch: engines. The Trent XWB-97 is pushed absolutely as far as it can go without major changes. Much of the chatter around the A350-1000's somewhat-slower-than-expected sales concerns engine reliability. Yet without a thrust increase, an A350 stretch would be range-compromised enough not to threaten the 777-9 in transoceanic markets. It would be like a larger 787-10, and would sell like the 773A at best. The next bigger engine is the GE9X, which would be perfect for an A350 stretch except that it is contractually exclusive to Boeing. RR would face a difficult business case in developing an engine only for the stretch, that would be too heavy to compete with the existing Trent XWB on all smaller A350 variants.

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

Well, the article also mentions further engine evolution is required for Airbus to launch a A350 stretch. But would it be smart to have this new engine technology available for just an A350-2000? The T-XWB engines for the -900 and -1000 already don't have the rate of commonality originally designed, a third different engine in the A350 family won't be too popular with the airlines I believe. IMO this new engine tech should be available for all models within the A350 family.

Will be interesting to see when Airbus makes their move. Certainly Boeing will respond with new engines on the 787.While an A350-2000 with new engines may render the 777-9 obsolete, a 787-10 with new engines (and increased range as a result) may result in the A350-900 facing the same situation as the 787-8 is now.

I haven't heard about the T-XWB-97 reliability concerns before. The T-XWB engines on the -900 are doing quite well in service now I believe, and don't have the issues that plague the T-1000 engines.

keesje wrote:

A next generation of RR/GE engines is worth waiting for.

Especially as they'll be able to lengthen the fuselage without increasing MTOW because they should need less fuel.

frigatebird wrote:

But would it be smart to have this new engine technology available for just an A350-2000? The T-XWB engines for the -900 and -1000 already don't have the rate of commonality originally designed, a third different engine in the A350 family won't be too popular with the airlines I believe.

With the proliferation of 'power by the hour' type deals, I think this is much less of an issue these days.

keesje wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

He's right in that Boeing has a potential vulnerability for payload-range demands beyond what the 787-10 can handle. The 787 would require a new landing gear and center wing box to accommodate higher MTOW, which would be much heavier than today's components and compromise the weight advantage that allows the 787 to make up for its smaller and shorter wing. Meanwhile, the 777-9 competes with the A350-1000 by carrying more passengers over the same range, but it pays for its capabilities in weight. An A350 stretch could turn the 777-9 into a somewhat niche aircraft just like the A350-1000 itself turns the 777-8 into an ultra-niche aircraft. Boeing's capability to respond would be limited; the 777-9 can only be stretched by a row or two, and it would be very expensive indeed to make it lighter.

But at the same time he's not acknowledging the reason Airbus hasn't already launched an A350 stretch: engines. The Trent XWB-97 is pushed absolutely as far as it can go without major changes. Much of the chatter around the A350-1000's somewhat-slower-than-expected sales concerns engine reliability. Yet without a thrust increase, an A350 stretch would be range-compromised enough not to threaten the 777-9 in transoceanic markets. It would be like a larger 787-10, and would sell like the 773A at best. The next bigger engine is the GE9X, which would be perfect for an A350 stretch except that it is contractually exclusive to Boeing. RR would face a difficult business case in developing an engine only for the stretch, that would be too heavy to compete with the existing Trent XWB on all smaller A350 variants.

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

I agree the next Boeing WB development might be a 350 seats-8000NM 787-10ER/11 variant, most probably requiring a bigger wing. To face the XWB capabilities more effectively than the 787-10 and 777-8 can do now. RR has engines to build on. GE might consider a GE9 Light..


Apparently Bregier feels with 800 A350s in the backlog and the 77W replacement market coming up the need for additional investment is not there at this moment. A next generation of RR/GE engines is worth waiting for.

How do you do a 350 seat 787-01ERX with more range and 20 more seats in the same length plane? Addin got range means more galley needed so there would be fewer seats, not more.

Difficult (forme) to understand what he is saying.
The 787-10 was a simple stretch trading capacity for range.In so doing it took the plane to its limits in almost every respect.Particularly the MLG/pavement loading.
But as a result it is extremely efficient over the shorter distances it can travel.No issue with that and has done well.

Airbus could/could have done exactly the same.Their origonal 350-1000 was indeed exactly that (but slightly bigger than the 7810).
They decided not to peruse this route (giving away a 70+ order in the process).One can only presume other airliners insisted on the additional range/capability .BA was clearly one.It came at a cost of further developing the wing and engine.And time of course - but they had time on their side as the 773er aircraft were/are still young.
Obviously they could ( if they chose) do exactly the same with the new 1000.They could stretch it (a2000) and trade capacity (now 779 size) for range -again.

I am certainly not qualified to comment on either of these 2 'midrange' routes.Both of course would be highly economical as one is maxing out the capabilities of the frame size in question.Its a matter of demand.Certainly the 7810 has found a market.Whether a similar range market exists at the 2 higher payload positions the 350 family represents I have no idea.

So either they should have done it (ie the 'standard flavours really have too much range built in for some) or they already have got it right.

As a matter of interest, when will A & B both decide they cannot stretch these tube designs any further? and go for a full double-bubble 12 or 16 AB fuselage. Would it generate enough lift, or would the span be too great?

A lot is possible with new technologies. So much for Bregier stating the obvious.

seabosdca wrote:

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

Considering the fact that Bregier will leave Airbus in February, that is not going to happen.

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

pabloeing wrote:

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

Wow - an unknown development on an almost new plane and suddenly it is the best widebody in the world.

Jeez.

pabloeing wrote:

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

Biased much?

When the A350 is "neo'd", or very heavily PIP'd, there will be a stretch. Maybe 10 years away?

Boeing needs to jump on the 787-11 as soon as humanly possible. With many prior widebody aircraft, they've waited far too long before making the final stretch. 747-8, 757-300, 767-400. The sooner they do it, the better.

keesje wrote:

A next generation of RR/GE engines is worth waiting for.

Airbus/Boeing are going to be waiting a while. GE/RR have overspent on this generation of engines, and are going to be in no rush to replace their GEnx, Trent 1000/7000, and Trent XWB engines anytime soon. They will, of course, offer PIPs.

This is also what is making the timing of any possible A380neo probamatic for Airbus.

So when is the 77W replacement cycle going to be at peak? That’s when Airbus will need to have their ducks in a row on the A350-2000. Airlines will be deciding whether they want to replace like-for-like with the -2000, or slightly smaller but less risky -1000. For those looking for growth in capacity, there’s always the 779.

I’ve flown on the CX A359 now a couple of times long-haul in Y and Y+ and it is a great plane in terms of passenger comfort. Clearly CX sees its economic attraction too. I wish Airbus all the best with their new derivatives and hope that my usual long-haul carrier NZ sees the light when looking at the 77E and 77W replacement.

Yes the engine manufacturers need to recover money from the r&d expended on current version engines. These are fearsomely expensive to develop and as we have seen with icing (GE) or early fan blade corrosion (RR Trent 1000) expensive problems can be found long after entry to service.

pabloeing wrote:

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

The OEW of 787-10 isn't officially announced yet, but it should be somewhere around the OEW of A359. This means a 787-10ER would likely be heavier than A359 for about the same capacity. That won't kill it.

How much less range than the -1000 would a simple stretch have, without a thrust bump? The -1000 is capable of 8,000 nm, which is far more than most long-haul flying. Even if 6,000 nm is the more realistic real-world range for an A350-2000, it would cover all of Europe, Asia, and Africa from Dubai, or all of Africa, North America (and much of South America) and almost all of Asia from London.

That would still be a very capable plane, and I'd presume one with a pretty decent CASM. A few years down the line when new engines are available, then a thrust and MTOW bump and you make an 'LR' version for the airlines that need the range.

pabloeing wrote:

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

No it would be a waste of money. Pure fantasy on this forum.

The 787-10 currently hits maximum takeoff weight with a normal payload and about 80% fuel capacity. It can only fill its fuel tanks 100% if the plane has nearly no passengers. The maximum takeoff weight would need to be increased significantly to allow the plane to takeoff with 100% fuel AND decent passenger payload. This would add atleast 10T to the empty weight, stronger wing box, stronger gear. The wing would now be undersized and less efficient at cruise so fuel burn would go up significantly. So on routes under 6000nm the 787-10ER will burn at least 5% more fuel all the time when compared to a lighter normal 787-10. A new wing would be too costly. The Engine thrust would have to be much higher too. The 787-10ER would require a completely new engine version with very little commonality.

The 787-10 is currently brilliant. Its light weight and low maximum takeoff is its greatest strength. It improves effeciency on those medium haul routes. The 787-10 is the most efficient widebody aircraft on routes under 6000nm, as in fuel burn per passenger. The ER would reduce or even eliminate that advantage. The 787-10 has had some big orders in a short period of time.

If customers need 1500nm more range they can simply move up to the 777-9. Spending money making the 787-10ER just to steal sales from the 777X makes no sense.

747-600X wrote:

Boeing needs to jump on the 787-11 as soon as humanly possible. With many prior widebody aircraft, they've waited far too long before making the final stretch. 747-8, 757-300, 767-400. The sooner they do it, the better.

Would the 787-11 be another simple stretch? Without bumping up the maximum takeoff weight a simple stretch would drop the range closer to 5000nm. It would be amazing on short thick medium haul routes.

If you wanted the 787-11 to have a range near 7000nm then it simply cant happen without a larger wing and larger engines. That is a big cost, Boeing already has a larger plane with long range and its called the 777X

flee wrote:

Aviation journalists and enthusiasts are always looking for new aircraft developments. But manufacturers cannot afford to do this constantly and they must keep product lines stable for a period of time. That is why Boeing has such a hard time deciding on a B737 replacement and/or NSA. These are all megabuck projects and need careful evaluation.

Quite true, but now AIrbus has the issue that there really isn't much engineering work at this point in time (A350-1000, A319neo, A321LR are all incremental projects) and one must do something to keep the engineering talent engaged or they will find other things to work on.

The last time Airbus engineering had too much time on their hands they started the ball rolling on UHCA which in turn became A380 ( ref: pg 7 of https://books.google.com/books?id=KcaYj ... ok&f=false ) and we all know how that turned out!

KarelXWB wrote:

A lot is possible with new technologies. So much for Bregier stating the obvious.

seabosdca wrote:

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

Considering the fact that Bregier will leave Airbus in February, that is not going to happen.

A key point. His replacement is whose opinion counts. But since the world isn't beating down Boeing's doors for the 77X, why bother?
We on a.net love to spend OPM, but I see a period of calm while everyone (frame and engine makers) recoup their investments.
Let the 787-10, 777-9 and 350-1000 enter into service, milk them for a few years and then neo them mid next decade.

seabosdca wrote:

But at the same time he's not acknowledging the reason Airbus hasn't already launched an A350 stretch: engines. The Trent XWB-97 is pushed absolutely as far as it can go without major changes. Much of the chatter around the A350-1000's somewhat-slower-than-expected sales concerns engine reliability.

But what's to stop Airbus doing the same to the A350 as Boeing did to the 787-10; same engines & MTOW as the -1000 but with a small stretch? Range would be compromised, as would hot & high performance, but that's not a problem for all customers. It could be very competitive for intra Asia and transatlantic flying.

seabosdca wrote:

Yet without a thrust increase, an A350 stretch would be range-compromised enough not to threaten the 777-9 in transoceanic markets.

The 787-10 also has much less range than the 777-9, but Boeing still sold plenty of them.

Motorhussy wrote:

I’ve flown on the CX A359 now a couple of times long-haul in Y and Y+ and it is a great plane in terms of passenger comfort. Clearly CX sees its economic attraction too. I wish Airbus all the best with their new derivatives and hope that my usual long-haul carrier NZ sees the light when looking at the 77E and 77W replacement.

Likewise.

RJMAZ wrote:

pabloeing wrote:

One B787-10ER would be a A350 killer........one B787-10 with 7500nm would be the number 1 in the widebodies world.

No it would be a waste of money. Pure fantasy on this forum.

The 787-10 currently hits maximum takeoff weight with a normal payload and about 80% fuel capacity. It can only fill its fuel tanks 100% if the plane has nearly no passengers. The maximum takeoff weight would need to be increased significantly to allow the plane to takeoff with 100% fuel AND decent passenger payload. This would add atleast 10T to the empty weight, stronger wing box, stronger gear. The wing would now be undersized and less efficient at cruise so fuel burn would go up significantly. So on routes under 6000nm the 787-10ER will burn at least 5% more fuel all the time when compared to a lighter normal 787-10. A new wing would be too costly. The Engine thrust would have to be much higher too. The 787-10ER would require a completely new engine version with very little commonality.

The 787-10 is currently brilliant. Its light weight and low maximum takeoff is its greatest strength. It improves effeciency on those medium haul routes. The 787-10 is the most efficient widebody aircraft on routes under 6000nm, as in fuel burn per passenger. The ER would reduce or even eliminate that advantage. The 787-10 has had some big orders in a short period of time.

If customers need 1500nm more range they can simply move up to the 777-9. Spending money making the 787-10ER just to steal sales from the 777X makes no sense.

747-600X wrote:

Boeing needs to jump on the 787-11 as soon as humanly possible. With many prior widebody aircraft, they've waited far too long before making the final stretch. 747-8, 757-300, 767-400. The sooner they do it, the better.

Would the 787-11 be another simple stretch? Without bumping up the maximum takeoff weight a simple stretch would drop the range closer to 5000nm. It would be amazing on short thick medium haul routes.

If you wanted the 787-11 to have a range near 7000nm then it simply cant happen without a larger wing and larger engines. That is a big cost, Boeing already has a larger plane with long range and its called the 777X

IMO - Boeing should never have done 777X - the base frame/technology is just too heavy. Instead of designing a new Wing for the 777 they should have designed an XL wing/wingbox for the 787 and made an -10ER (8,000 NM Range) and -11 (7,000 NM range - 10M longer than -10ER - possible with the required new WingBox and gear for the 10ER). A 78M -11, 4M longer than A350-1000 would have been quite efficient.

If they wanted something even larger they should have done the new Wing/Wingbox and Ovalized the 787 Barrel to make it 11W - but that would essentially be a whole new plane

Polot wrote:

Airbus/Boeing are going to be waiting a while. GE/RR have overspent on this generation of engines, and are going to be in no rush to replace their GEnx, Trent 1000/7000, and Trent XWB engines anytime soon.

This!

It's pretty funny to read people talking about A350neo and 787neo.

seabosdca wrote:

If Bregier can scrape an engine out of one of the engine OEMs, then he can quickly develop an airplane around it.

Isn't that why they are looking for buyers of a potential A380NEO? So they can use that engine on the A350 stretch?

Ruscoe wrote:

I suppose just about anything is possible if the potential gains out way the risks (costs) of development.
However, the thing that keeps crossing my mind is why do we keep hearing about new variants of the 350 in the public arena?
At one time there were more weight and derivate variants of the 350 than aircraft flying.
I think one could be excused for asking is this because the future market for the 350 is not that good.
I think it is quite clear that Airbus are trying to shift the 350 further away from the 787, and find a sweet spot for it, because it just can't match the economics of the 254T 787.
As for the 787, I think we will see a cargo version and a 10ER in the future. Unlike the 350 Boeing are going for performance improvements by reducing weight, not increasing MTOW. Having said that I think we will see a coup[le of Tonne MTOW in the 787 in the future.
Pure speculation on my part.

Ruscoe

I do not undestand why A350-900 cannot match 787-9 economy? Known fact fact is, A350 has about 4% more trip fuel over 6000nm distance, while can lift more pax and cargo. Probably in shoreter distance can be more efficient, but It can be offset by highr capacity. It depends if you are able to fill it or not.

scbriml wrote:

Polot wrote:

Airbus/Boeing are going to be waiting a while. GE/RR have overspent on this generation of engines, and are going to be in no rush to replace their GEnx, Trent 1000/7000, and Trent XWB engines anytime soon.

This!

It's pretty funny to read people talking about A350neo and 787neo.

I actually have to agree! It’s a rather silly concept

morrisond wrote:

IMO - Boeing should never have done 777X - the base frame/technology is just too heavy. Instead of designing a new Wing for the 777 they should have designed an XL wing/wingbox for the 787 and made an -10ER (8,000 NM Range) and -11 (7,000 NM range - 10M longer than -10ER - possible with the required new WingBox and gear for the 10ER). A 78M -11, 4M longer than A350-1000 would have been quite efficient.

So I agree. The question is: why didn't they do this? I think Boeing has decided to play it as safe as possible. The 777X is pretty safe - Boeing understands the issues and engineering required. They assume that GE will deliver a good engine. And they know they will sell enough airframes, of this size, to justify the costs.

Naturally better engines will help future new projects, but I think both Boeing and Airbus want to see how their 787/350 projects work in the long term: maintenance issues, production costs, etc. And finally, I think they are working with airlines to produce the right sized/ranged aircraft. If Boeing is happy will their analysis and airlines want that sized aircraft, I think we'll see just what you said. It would be awesome!

RJMAZ wrote:

If you wanted the 787-11 to have a range near 7000nm then it simply cant happen without a larger wing and larger engines. That is a big cost, Boeing already has a larger plane with long range and its called the 777X

For 300-350 seats 3-4 class with significant cargo out of Asia to Europe / America's (a huge segment) there is the 777-8. The 777-8 weighs 20-30t more than those XWB's, but is that really all that important? I think so, it might be even prohibitive for many airlines.

It is the segment Boeing used to dominate with the 777-200ER & 300ER & they are loosing it. Most large 777 operators flying from / to Asia ordered A350s:



The 787-9 seems excellent so far, but is significant smaller.

I predict Boeing launching a bigger wing, engine MTOW etc. for longer 787 fuselages within 5 yrs. Maybe earlier.

uta999 wrote:

As a matter of interest, when will A & B both decide they cannot stretch these tube designs any further? and go for a full double-bubble 12 or 16 AB fuselage. Would it generate enough lift, or would the span be too great?

Seek no more. the A380 is 10+8 ~= 18 across

zkojq wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

But what's to stop Airbus doing the same to the A350 as Boeing did to the 787-10; same engines & MTOW as the -1000 but with a small stretch? Range would be compromised, as would hot & high performance, but that's not a problem for all customers. It could be very competitive for intra Asia and transatlantic flying.

The 773A was "very competitive for intra Asia and transatlantic flying." In fact, it was peerless on those missions when it was introduced. But the transatlantic operators didn't go for it because all of them wanted their aircraft that size to also fly Europe-Asia or TPAC. The intra-Asia operators loved it, but that only got Boeing ~100 sales. Then Boeing added range with the 77W and sales exploded.

I think limited range becomes much more of a problem as the aircraft gets bigger. And even at 787 size, I have to say I've been surprised by how many customers continue to choose the 787-9, and I'm sure range is the reason.

seabosdca wrote:

I think limited range becomes much more of a problem as the aircraft gets bigger. And even at 787 size, I have to say I've been surprised by how many customers continue to choose the 787-9, and I'm sure range is the reason.

I dont think this applies anymore. The growth of the worldwide market has increased to the point there are hundreds of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm. Hundreds more doing routes under 4000nm. This was the main market analysis done by the MOM. This is why the 787-10 is selling extremely well.

keesje wrote:

The 777-8 weighs 20-30t more than those XWB's, but is that really all that important? I think so, it might be even prohibitive for many airlines.

The fact that the 777X engines have lower thrust is proof that it is not all about weight. A larger wing will add empty weight but it will actually improve lift to drag ratio and improve fuel burn at high altitude. Wings are all about compromise and in the case of the 777X it is the least compromised of any aircraft ever built when it comes to the ULH mission.

A simple stretch like the 787-10 puts more load on the wing. It's intitial cruise altitude will be lower, the wing needs a higher angle of attack and produces more and the engines need more thrust. This is great for short/medium haul but the exact opposite needs to be done for ultra long haul.

The 777X wing is full carbon and extremely light. The fuselage is lithium alloy which again is state of the art. Expect to be stratching your head when the 777X burns significantly less fuel per passenger.

Mrak79 wrote:

I do not undestand why A350-900 cannot match 787-9 economy? Known fact fact is, A350 has about 4% more trip fuel over 6000nm distance, while can lift more pax and cargo. Probably in shoreter distance can be more efficient, but It can be offset by highr capacity. It depends if you are able to fill it or not.

Both the 787 and A350 are 9AB aircraft but the XWB has traded passenger comfort for weight and drag. An extra 1cm per seat in the width gives a wider fuselage and more wetted area. The A359 has a larger wing relative to its size than the 789, this is a disadvantage on shorter flights but can become an advantage on long flights as it can carry more fuel and flly much further.

zkojq wrote:

But what's to stop Airbus doing the same to the A350 as Boeing did to the 787-10; same engines & MTOW as the -1000 but with a small stretch? Range would be compromised, as would hot & high performance, but that's not a problem for all customers. It could be very competitive for intra Asia and transatlantic flying.

Imho they'll consider the A350-2K very seriously & before the A380 is even abandonned in the next years.
For strategic reasons, it will need new tech to remain an interesting long-haul frame, if not it will rather serve some extended heavy regional network.

flee wrote:

I think the next order surge would come as B77Ws and A330s retire from airline fleets. With oil prices creeping up, demand for more fuel efficient aircraft might also increase.
.

I don't think we're going to see very many B77Ws retire in the near future...

DWC wrote:

zkojq wrote:

But what's to stop Airbus doing the same to the A350 as Boeing did to the 787-10; same engines & MTOW as the -1000 but with a small stretch? Range would be compromised, as would hot & high performance, but that's not a problem for all customers. It could be very competitive for intra Asia and transatlantic flying.

Imho they'll consider the A350-2K very seriously & before the A380 is even abandonned in the next years.
For strategic reasons, it will need new tech to remain an interesting long-haul frame, if not it will rather serve some extended heavy regional network.

Why does Airbus need to worry about stretching the A35K when the 779 (and A35K) is already selling relatively poorly? Airbus would be better off reinvesting in the popular A32x to stave off the MOM. Airbus seems to have had much greater success with narrowbodies than widebodies other than the A359.

The A35K is "selling poorly" for one glaring reason. It comes down the same production line as the A359, which has sold rather well to date.

Unless you are an A359 client and wish to upgauge, you are not getting a slot any time soon. The order book is pretty full. THAT is the reason why the A35K is selling slowly at the moment, not some nonsense rumour mongering about the XWB-97 which seems perfectly fine so far. That engine also did gain some improvement and change when it was uprated from the baseline XWB-84 and there may well be potential there to go higher as it was developed off the Trent 8104 and 8117 demonstrator engines and their uprates from the Trent 895.

Facts, gentlemen. Not rumours and spin from elsewhere.

Ruscoe wrote:

I suppose just about anything is possible if the potential gains out way the risks (costs) of development.
However, the thing that keeps crossing my mind is why do we keep hearing about new variants of the 350 in the public arena?
At one time there were more weight and derivate variants of the 350 than aircraft flying.
I think one could be excused for asking is this because the future market for the 350 is not that good.
I think it is quite clear that Airbus are trying to shift the 350 further away from the 787, and find a sweet spot for it, because it just can't match the economics of the 254T 787.
As for the 787, I think we will see a cargo version and a 10ER in the future. Unlike the 350 Boeing are going for performance improvements by reducing weight, not increasing MTOW. Having said that I think we will see a coup[le of Tonne MTOW in the 787 in the future.
Pure speculation on my part.
Ruscoe

Two quite different aircraft, two different sweet spots. 789 is a smaller, more constrained airframe. Great on typical long-haul especially with lighter loads. Only viable on ULH with lower-density layouts. A359 has more space and bigger payload - as you would expect given the ~25t greater MTOW. A practical example: NZ is making great use of the 789 on Australian and Asian routes but had to strip out nearly 30 seats to make it work on IAH. And they’ve made it clear the 789 isn’t in the running for the 77E replacement – presumably because the capability and the economics, at NZ’s bigger payloads on current and planned North American routes, don’t match the alternatives (A350 or 77X).

As for weights, the story on the 787 as I recall was the big increase in OEW in the course of its development. The story with the 359 has been the big increase in MTOW (and thus payload and range) without further OEW increases.

This is an interesting topic and references something that seems to be missed in many discussions regarding new airframe development: how will the frame and market respond to normal improvements over expected time frame and what are the possible outcomes.

In this particular case, I see the 787 family has more room to benefit from the usual evolution cycles. Small scale drag and engine PIPs improvements over the course of time not only reduce operating cost on existing route structures but also slowly expand range and therefore the number of city-pairs the frame is capable of doing. This is especially true with the 78J as just a 5% range improvement considerably improves the market (city-pairs) it can compete in. In the case of the 789, these small changes rapidly further improve its ULH capabilities which is the main area its competition is extremely tough. I expect to see paper derated versions become the norm as most airlines don’t need any additional payload-range over what it’s capable of today. This makes the normal improvements less valuable overall as they become single-gain (operating cost reduction) instead of double-gain like the 78J sees with operating cost reduction AND improved market size through increased viable city pairing. As such I think it’ll easily become the biggest winner from the typical evolution programs over the next decade.

This is also the A350’s main issue with typical evolutionally drag and fuel burn improvements: neither model needs more range for 95% of possible customers! While operating cost reductions are quite valuable and important, it’s only a single-acting affect on frame value since the extra range isn’t usable and therefore isnt marketable on its own. This effects ROI on the improvements but I am confident they will proceed anyway with strong enough returns. In short, the A350 frame simply has more than enough capability today, no one is asking for more in quantities! Airbus exceeded their original weight vs capability accusations hence their massive updates. Props to the team!

I expect to see both A and B to focus more on maintenance tweaks and other factors on operating cost (interval extensions) than we’ve seen on previous programs. They’re highly incentivized in these area with Goldcare and other OEM subscription services.

Additionally, keep in mind that there are two (some would argue 3) generations of engines in use now. Many “fuelburn” comparisons are between a A359 with XWB and 789 with T1000s. When compared to the newer T1000-TEN which equalizes much of the SFC gains in the almost 10 years between type cert and present. Compare like to like and the 787 still wins with decent margin on trip cost and CASM although the A359/A35K do exceptionally well at longer stages.

One thing certain: it will be much easier to make a freighter A359 or A35K with its panel section construction than the complicated continuous barrel of the 787. I doubt we’ll ever see a 787F for this reason.

RJMAZ wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

I think limited range becomes much more of a problem as the aircraft gets bigger. And even at 787 size, I have to say I've been surprised by how many customers continue to choose the 787-9, and I'm sure range is the reason.

I dont think this applies anymore. The growth of the worldwide market has increased to the point there are hundreds of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm. Hundreds more doing routes under 4000nm. This was the main market analysis done by the MOM. This is why the 787-10 is selling extremely well.

The 787-10 selling well?
40 sales in the last 10 years
I think the surprise is that the 787-10 hasn't picked up a larger share of the 787 sales.
In that same 4 year period (from Jan 2014) the 787-9 has picked up 264 sales - 6.5 times the 787-10.

This suggests that seabosdca is right

Rgds

I guess it's all up to the strategy of the new management at Airbus. The top three positions at Airbus are changing, and so should their strategies and decisions.

Leahy tried to get airlines onboard with this A350-2000/8000, and Airbus went public about studying this case to only shelve the idea afterwards. It seems airlines didn't bite. I believe that Airbus did their homework and probed the market, and the results weren't encouraging, otherwise they wouldn't have shelved the project. 777X has already got the few sales this segment could offer, and it has been struggling to add more since the gigantic launch order. It reached a point where even an order of 20 frames is considered a great victory for the program. Airbus should exploit other segments of the market that are less risky.

Okcflyer wrote:

This is an interesting topic and references something that seems to be missed in many discussions regarding new airframe development: how will the frame and market respond to normal improvements over expected time frame and what are the possible outcomes.

In this particular case, I see the 787 family has more room to benefit from the usual evolution cycles. Small scale drag and engine PIPs improvements over the course of time not only reduce operating cost on existing route structures but also slowly expand range and therefore the number of city-pairs the frame is capable of doing. This is especially true with the 78J as just a 5% range improvement considerably improves the market (city-pairs) it can compete in. In the case of the 789, these small changes rapidly further improve its ULH capabilities which is the main area its competition is extremely tough. I expect to see paper derated versions become the norm as most airlines don’t need any additional payload-range over what it’s capable of today. This makes the normal improvements less valuable overall as they become single-gain (operating cost reduction) instead of double-gain like the 78J sees with operating cost reduction AND improved market size through increased viable city pairing. As such I think it’ll easily become the biggest winner from the typical evolution programs over the next decade.

This is also the A350’s main issue with typical evolutionally drag and fuel burn improvements: neither model needs more range for 95% of possible customers! While operating cost reductions are quite valuable and important, it’s only a single-acting affect on frame value since the extra range isn’t usable and therefore isnt marketable on its own. This effects ROI on the improvements but I am confident they will proceed anyway with strong enough returns. In short, the A350 frame simply has more than enough capability today, no one is asking for more in quantities! Airbus exceeded their original weight vs capability accusations hence their massive updates. Props to the team!

I expect to see both A and B to focus more on maintenance tweaks and other factors on operating cost (interval extensions) than we’ve seen on previous programs. They’re highly incentivized in these area with Goldcare and other OEM subscription services.

Additionally, keep in mind that there are two (some would argue 3) generations of engines in use now. Many “fuelburn” comparisons are between a A359 with XWB and 789 with T1000s. When compared to the newer T1000-TEN which equalizes much of the SFC gains in the almost 10 years between type cert and present. Compare like to like and the 787 still wins with decent margin on trip cost and CASM although the A359/A35K do exceptionally well at longer stages.

One thing certain: it will be much easier to make a freighter A359 or A35K with its panel section construction than the complicated continuous barrel of the 787. I doubt we’ll ever see a 787F for this reason.

Correct me if I am interpreting your post wrongly, what you are saying is that natural improvements to the 787 would be better for customers than the same improvements we will see with the A350, This is because the A350 would only add range with improvements over and above what airlines need but in the case of the 787 it adds range that airlines could use.

Surely though if you are talking about the 789 and A359 when talking about improvements you are talking about the same thing? Both are used at the far edge of the range/payload of the frames where we have (as per posters regarding NZ) the 789 blocking seats to fly certain routes. If you increase the range on the 787 in this case it would be a great help to block less seats, but with the A359 you are either flying more payload the same distance or you are using less fuel because of the improvements.

On the 78X, if you compare it to the closest competition, the A359, when looking at a potential route that is on the limit right now but will be viable with the incoming improvements, you will still be at the outer edge of performance. You will be at MTOW to fly the route, but while the A359 is heavier you will not be anywhere close to MTOW to fly the same route with a full capacity. So any improvements to the A359 will mean less fuel tanked for the same route, or more cargo that can be used. If their OEW will be similar then it stands to reason any improvements will be the same, no matter the frame.

If we assume that both OEMs will make similar improvements to their products their won't be a case where only one frame will benefit while the other will not. They may benefit in different areas but airlines will save either way. This will either be by being able to fly a route with more passengers (787) or by flying the same route using less fuel (less weight for the same payload) or using more payload (A350). Either way the airlines benefit with the product they have.

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

I think limited range becomes much more of a problem as the aircraft gets bigger. And even at 787 size, I have to say I've been surprised by how many customers continue to choose the 787-9, and I'm sure range is the reason.

I dont think this applies anymore. The growth of the worldwide market has increased to the point there are hundreds of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm. Hundreds more doing routes under 4000nm. This was the main market analysis done by the MOM. This is why the 787-10 is selling extremely well.

The 787-10 selling well?
40 sales in the last 10 years
I think the surprise is that the 787-10 hasn't picked up a larger share of the 787 sales.
In that same 4 year period (from Jan 2014) the 787-9 has picked up 264 sales - 6.5 times the 787-10.

This suggests that seabosdca is right

Rgds

The 787-10 launched in June 2013 and has to date 171 orders.

Most of the customers will use it on regional routes, SQ as far as Australia, UA East Coast Atlantic, EK regional and Europe. A bit more range could see more orders and maybe some 77W replacements.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 787-10 launched in June 2013 and has to date 171 orders.

I think there's a typo in astuteman's post, he was clearly referring to the last four years, not 10. No sales in 2014; 21 in 2015; none in 2016 and 19 in 2017.

Just to repeat the old point that maximum brochure still air fully optimised range figures have no bearing in reality.And these latter numbers are the ones the operators deal with.Furthermore any long haul (global) airline must have as much flexibility built into their aircraft as possible.(unless they really tie a particular a/c to very specific routes,which again is difficult in the real world - things break!).
So Brochure 7knm can easily be a real working 6knm or even less.
Since the size of the Earth never changes the lower the opening range number the worse it gets in terms of connections.
British Airways has a huge amount of USA connections from London.Many 'mid range' so they can run a Midrange fleet of 7810's but the majority of airlines don't have that luxury so plump for the additional flexibility that range offers them even if it comes at a small SFC price.

Most 777-200ER, 777-300ER, A340-300, 340-600, A350-900 operators are used to take 15-20t revenue cargo from hot Asian airports to Europe and USA on top of their 300-350 seats.

The 787-10 is not such an aircraft. The 777-8 is but seems heavy & expensive. The 777-8 will be 10-15t heavier than the 777-200LR. DL & QR each have 10 x 200LR's, they are the biggest operators now (& ordered A350s.)




I think it is a low risk prediction the 787-10 & 777-8 will have their niches, but are hardly the ideal next decade solution for mainline replacement programs on 300-350 seats up to 8000NM. Sales don't tell anything else. And maybe it is the heart of the WB market..