Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:55 pm

Polot wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
So far as I know there is no thread on this. The two NBs, the 330s, the 787s, the 777s have all been stretched to the maximum their bones allow. Ironically Airbus hoped to do the same with the 380. The smaller and shorter legged versions of these planes are not economical and have been abandoned. It does leave some big holes, those middle of the market twin aisles in particular. In hindsight a rewinged 330 MOM, essential a modern 300, looks pretty good. Is it still possible?


Definitely possible, but feasibility may be another story. As mentioned earlier, I think a better option at this point may be to add a A350-700 and resurrect the -800 as a stretch of the -700, as opposed to a shrink of the -900. The A350 will be in production much longer than the A330, so I think it makes more sense to base a sub-variant off it from many stand points.

texl1649 wrote:
The 777 and A350 both have an ability/likelihood to get larger, with future derivatives.


Unlikely IMO.

To make a A350-700 work you would need to make so many changes that you are essentially just creating an entirely new aircraft that just so happens to have knowledge and tech learned from the A350 applied to it (which Airbus will of course do for any brand new plane, as would Boeing). The fuselage is just too big and the overall frame too heavy to make a competitive A350 derivative in that space.

Moving the A350 larger with a -1100 and then creating a A330 stretch is far more likely than your idea.


Other than the wing, what would make it so much different than the A300/310 to the A330?

The A350 could go larger, but I don't see the worthwhile demand. At least not right now. A stretch of the A330 would essentially be the A359.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:08 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
I assume Airbus is realizing the same cost advantages in opening a plant in Alabama to produce A320's, otherwise, why go to the expense of opening a new line?

Enders has said they do not save money making A320s in USA. The lower labor costs are offset by higher shipping costs, etc. He also says it was done to increase Airbus's global footprint, and in particular raise Airbus's stature in the USA, and he wishes he was able to persuade the rest of Airbus to globalize further.
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
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11689
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:21 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

Definitely possible, but feasibility may be another story. As mentioned earlier, I think a better option at this point may be to add a A350-700 and resurrect the -800 as a stretch of the -700, as opposed to a shrink of the -900. The A350 will be in production much longer than the A330, so I think it makes more sense to base a sub-variant off it from many stand points.



Unlikely IMO.

To make a A350-700 work you would need to make so many changes that you are essentially just creating an entirely new aircraft that just so happens to have knowledge and tech learned from the A350 applied to it (which Airbus will of course do for any brand new plane, as would Boeing). The fuselage is just too big and the overall frame too heavy to make a competitive A350 derivative in that space.

Moving the A350 larger with a -1100 and then creating a A330 stretch is far more likely than your idea.


Other than the wing, what would make it so much different than the A300/310 to the A330?

The A350 could go larger, but I don't see the worthwhile demand. At least not right now. A stretch of the A330 would essentially be the A359.

1) The A300 fuselage is smaller, and better suited for the A330-200/-300 market segment.

2) Streching a fuselage (as done with A300->A330) almost always works out better than shrinking a fuselage. Adding capability is usually easier than taking it away.

3) There were much more changes done to the A300 than just a new wing to get the A330/A340. There is a reason why it is called an A330, not A300-X00, with their own separate type certificates and why the A330/A340 were not on the same assembly line.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:06 pm

bigjku wrote:
Trent 7000 has a list price of $37.9 million. GEnX is $28.7 million. Those are list prices. The Trent 1000 has a list price basically the same as the 7000 last time I looked. Yes the 700 is cheaper but not relevant goinrg forward.

Have to compare whole of life cost, including hours, cycles and special factor costs (high use and environment penalties, low use forgiveness, etc), plus length of contract and fixed price period, to compare apples with apples.

Excluding legacies, most A330 customers are not purchasing engines anyway.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
It's a bit of a challenge to resolve what you wrote with:

lightsaber wrote:
Material is cheap. I routinely handle $5,000 assemblies with $22 of material.

I.e, most of the cost is not in the material.


Hence why I took care to use the terms material and assembly in my post. Obviously the cost of an assembly is post-manufacturing process (if still pre final assembly).


Revelation wrote:
It's also hard to resolve the use of kilograms as the denominator in your statement. It presumes that 1kg of AL can provide the same benefit as 1kg of CFRP, which isn't true, otherwise it wouldn't be used.


Of course they aren't equivalent.

I'm not going to even attempt do a full lifecycle cost analysis for a post on a.net - not that I would be able to obtain the data and no-one has the data yet as it doesn't exist beyond projections. That is the work of several theses I've came across!

What are your expectations of a post on here?!?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:42 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
What are your expectations of a post on here?!?

I just asked for some help in understanding the context of your statements, which you've now provided.

Thanks for that.

I didn't mean it as an attack. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Many times people post simplified rules of thumb without much understanding of their context.

It's clear you understand, and now the context should be clearer to all readers.
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
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:49 pm

Let me post my oppinion again. The A330NEO is more the replacement of the A340-200 and A340-300 than the replacement of the A330-200 and A330-300. Especially with the 251mT MTOW.
The A330 started with a 212mT MTOW, it's now at 242mT and will grow towards 251mT. I expect for all A330(NEO) variants there is a ~200mT MTOW (center tank disabled) paper lower rated option. The A330-300 lower 199mT variant is called the A330R, AFAIK it's also optimized for more shorter range flights.
This A330R and the A330-200 lower MTOW variants are at the upper bound of the MOM segment. The A321NEO is at the lower bound of the MOM segment.

I still think the A330-800 will sell. I expect Airbus released conservative performance numbers for the A330NEO variants. The real performance numbers become known during the test flights and when the launch operators start using the A330NEO. AFAIK several airlines wait for real performance numbers before placing orders. Besides this Airbus reorganized their sales department last year. And for A330NEO orders the wild speculation about the B797 isn't helpful either.

Now two translated dutch sayings.
I think Boeing is more stupid than a donkey, because they are making the same mistake twice.
Don't drive a cat into a corner, it's going to make strange jumps.

The original A350 involved a bit more than the A330NEO program. I expect Airbus will announce further A330 improvements soon. I expect this will involve improvements to the fuselage.
Because of Brexit I think Airbus is reluctant of launching the development of a new wing for either a A32x(narrow body) or A33x (twin aisle). In my opinion both a larger wing & longer fuselage on the A32x and a smaller wing and fuselage on the A33x (A300NEO) are clean-sheet designs (new wing, new center fuselage, new tale, new plane length, different thrust rating engines.).

I really think the situation for the A330-800 is far brighter than many people on this forum think. I think a mouse is turned into a elephant with the situation for both the A319NEO and A330-800. We'll see who's judgment is right!
 
RB211trent
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:35 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:50 pm

Planesmart wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Trent 7000 has a list price of $37.9 million. GEnX is $28.7 million. Those are list prices. The Trent 1000 has a list price basically the same as the 7000 last time I looked. Yes the 700 is cheaper but not relevant goinrg forward.

Have to compare whole of life cost, including hours, cycles and special factor costs (high use and environment penalties, low use forgiveness, etc), plus length of contract and fixed price period, to compare apples with apples.

Excluding legacies, most A330 customers are not purchasing engines anyway.


Why are most customers not purchasing engines? Just because an engine is covered by a total care contract the manufacturer does not own the engine, it just concerns its maintenance. Unless you are referring to leased aircraft
 
trex8
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:41 pm

RB211trent wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Trent 7000 has a list price of $37.9 million. GEnX is $28.7 million. Those are list prices. The Trent 1000 has a list price basically the same as the 7000 last time I looked. Yes the 700 is cheaper but not relevant goinrg forward.

Have to compare whole of life cost, including hours, cycles and special factor costs (high use and environment penalties, low use forgiveness, etc), plus length of contract and fixed price period, to compare apples with apples.

Excluding legacies, most A330 customers are not purchasing engines anyway.


Why are most customers not purchasing engines? Just because an engine is covered by a total care contract the manufacturer does not own the engine, it just concerns its maintenance. Unless you are referring to leased aircraft

Even before power by the hour became almost the norm, engine OEMs were selling engines like HP sell printers. They almost give it away then kill you on the ink (parts).

Some years ago I recall a thread where someone in the industry said the airframe manufacturers charge the airlines full list price for the engine and immediately on delivery engine OEMs will kick back a huge rebate to the airline. In more cases than not, engine selection comes down to the finance package rather than the actual/perceived performance advantages etc versus the competition as the products are so similar and most airlines do PBTH so in house maintenance capabilities are far less important than in the past.
 
PDPsol
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:09 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:17 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Let me post my oppinion again. The A330NEO is more the replacement of the A340-200 and A340-300 than the replacement of the A330-200 and A330-300. Especially with the 251mT MTOW.
The A330 started with a 212mT MTOW, it's now at 242mT and will grow towards 251mT. I expect for all A330(NEO) variants there is a ~200mT MTOW (center tank disabled) paper lower rated option. The A330-300 lower 199mT variant is called the A330R, AFAIK it's also optimized for more shorter range flights.
This A330R and the A330-200 lower MTOW variants are at the upper bound of the MOM segment. The A321NEO is at the lower bound of the MOM segment.

I still think the A330-800 will sell. I expect Airbus released conservative performance numbers for the A330NEO variants. The real performance numbers become known during the test flights and when the launch operators start using the A330NEO. AFAIK several airlines wait for real performance numbers before placing orders. Besides this Airbus reorganized their sales department last year. And for A330NEO orders the wild speculation about the B797 isn't helpful either.

Now two translated dutch sayings.
I think Boeing is more stupid than a donkey, because they are making the same mistake twice.
Don't drive a cat into a corner, it's going to make strange jumps.

The original A350 involved a bit more than the A330NEO program. I expect Airbus will announce further A330 improvements soon. I expect this will involve improvements to the fuselage.
Because of Brexit I think Airbus is reluctant of launching the development of a new wing for either a A32x(narrow body) or A33x (twin aisle). In my opinion both a larger wing & longer fuselage on the A32x and a smaller wing and fuselage on the A33x (A300NEO) are clean-sheet designs (new wing, new center fuselage, new tale, new plane length, different thrust rating engines.).

I really think the situation for the A330-800 is far brighter than many people on this forum think. I think a mouse is turned into a elephant with the situation for both the A319NEO and A330-800. We'll see who's judgment is right!


Best assessment here, beyond all the 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' hypothetical design development speculation that seems to plague this discussion thread! "Wrong engines, wrong design, too big, too heavy, 'white elephant', wrong market strategy, etc."

The A330neo's most important characteristic is its market focus: it directly competes with Boeing's Dreamliner; with an emphasis on 'competes', meaning it offers reasonably comparable capabilities and features. Carriers have a strong vested interest ensuring the Airbus-Boeing 250-300 pax wide body market remains as competitive as possible. Last time we checked, South African Airways could not call up COMAC and UAC to order the yet-to-be developed CR929 (sarcasm aside).

The A330neo offers i) lower capital acquisition costs; ii) superior Y class passenger comfort; iii) faster delivery availability; iv) comparable average-seat costs per trip; and v) drastically lower capitalized development costs to amortize against future production, compared to the B787. Posters on this thread suggest Airbus further develop the A330neo program to win order competitions from carriers without considering the model has yet to even complete a single commercial flight! Once the likes of TAP, Delta, Azul, and AirAsiaX start operating the A330-900 and proving out its capabilities and efficiency on commercial missions, other carriers will pay a lot more attention to the model. The A330-900 remains in flight testing, with certification expected next quarter and launch customer deliveries to TAP sometime this summer, so orders for the program could look rather different in twelve months.

The wide body market segment covered by the A330neo and B787 is larger (units not value) than the A350/B777 market, including 95 carriers with A330ceo fleets. Airbus already had a perfectly good vessel in the form of the A330ceo, while Boeing is saddled with over $20 billion in un-amortized, capitalized development costs it must expense against future deliveries. Airbus has no such 'albatross' around its neck and will certainly have the opportunity to present its A330neo offer to every carrier currently operating the model's earlier variant. Airbus turned lots of carriers to the A330ceo when Boeing failed to meet its development, certification, production, and delivery objectives. These customers offer the A330neo a rich installed base of potential orders for the model.

Furthermore, Airbus has a clear long-haul low-cost-carrier ("LH LCC") for the A330-800, with better efficiencies compared to the B787-8. This LH LCC strategy formed the basis of a Leehman news analysis three months ago:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/06/airbu ... -a330-800/

In short, the A330neo is anything but 'niche', or 'dead in the water'. The launch customer has yet to receive any frames and the program has not even been certified! We should allow the market to 'work itself out' in the form of validated performance and efficiency data, and real-world operating results from carriers around the globe. Once these events happen (very soon, over the next twelve months), then we shall see how well Toulouse has planned for its commercial future.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:33 pm

PDPsol wrote:
Furthermore, Airbus has a clear long-haul low-cost-carrier ("LH LCC") for the A330-800, with better efficiencies compared to the B787-8. This LH LCC strategy formed the basis of a Leehman news analysis three months ago...


Which depends on the A330-800 being configured at 9-abreast, as well, which destroys the "superior Y class passenger comfort" angle.

Frankly, Airbus tried the same "LH LCC" plan five years ago with the A340-600, pitching it to 747-400 charter airlines configured for the maximum certified 475 seats (either in an all-Economy 8-abreast or a mix of 18 Business Class and 457 Economy at 9-abreast). That went nowhere.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:52 pm

Is the A330-900 that much of a question mark that carriers are sitting it out for now? I'd think it's probably a pretty well-defined aircraft and that there aren't many surprises left to discover at this stage of it's development.
-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.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:03 pm

PDPsol wrote:
The A330-900 remains in flight testing, with certification expected next quarter and launch customer deliveries to TAP sometime this summer, so orders for the program could look rather different in twelve months.

Agree, and would even say "should" rather than "could".

The title of the thread suggests that there is pressure on Airbus to ensure that this happens, and I think it's correct.

Eric Schulz said more or less the same thing:

“The next 24 months, the next three years, are the years when things have to accelerate, that is for the A330neo and the A350-1000,” he said, adding it was common for airlines to wait until jets entered service before making major decisions.

... but he gave himself 24-36 months rather than 12! :biggrin:

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sing ... SKBN1FR144
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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:03 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Is the A330-900 that much of a question mark that carriers are sitting it out for now?


In general, I would expect any A330-300 operator to be very comfortable with going to the A330-900. And I would expect most airlines are comfortable and confident with whatever performance guarantees Airbus is offering.

I expect the order book is being "held back" more by there not being an urgent need to replace existing A330-300 aircraft. As that replacement cycle ramps up, so should A330-900 orders.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:16 am

I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:24 am

Stitch wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Is the A330-900 that much of a question mark that carriers are sitting it out for now?


In general, I would expect any A330-300 operator to be very comfortable with going to the A330-900. And I would expect most airlines are comfortable and confident with whatever performance guarantees Airbus is offering.

I expect the order book is being "held back" more by there not being an urgent need to replace existing A330-300 aircraft. As that replacement cycle ramps up, so should A330-900 orders.

By the time there is a need to replace the 333s, the market would had moved on. Just look at how many young frames there are. As I have mentioned before, Airbus had reduced the market for its new techology A330neo by aggressively selling A330ceos earlier on to fight off the 787. They were hugely successful in that but that has come back to bite them once the tides turned. Why would anyone think of a more expensive replacement for a 5 year old A330 that still has loads of life in it, and there is not just a few young A330s, but tons of them.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:47 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
bigjku wrote:

Sure. Tell me why not?


The A330ceo has paid itself off and made a profit for years now. The A330neo like the A320neo is a low risk development and very inexpensive for Airbus to produce. It is most definitely cheaper to produce an A330 than a 787 right now. Although 787 cost seemed to have been going down steadily.


What’s the reason that carriers have not leaped onto it given it’s an otherwise fantastic airframe? Particularly the -800? I’d think that a much lower price would be possible, outweighing any 787 advantage.


I think this is to do with the order cycle. If you do an analysis of airlines currently operating A330s on regional routes in Asia you will see the answer. There are several that have A330 and 777-200A frames between 10 and 20 years old that are coming up for replacement. Airbus knows this or course. I'd argue that the A330 is more comfortable as a regional passenger mover for the majority of passengers than the 787 and it's also a great freight mover. Are we really suggesting that just because some airlines haven't ordered the aircraft at this point that they won't? I don't buy the prediction of only 200 orders above for a minute. Further, the A338 and A339 is hardly an expensive new aircraft development for Airbus on which they've bet the future of the company. The argument that the NEO is dead because one variant of aircraft has no orders at this point in time and the present backlog for the 339 isn't as impressive as we have come to expect is flawed IMHO.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:50 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.


How is an 8 abreast 32 inch seat pitch A330 the worst plane for comfort in the market? Have you actually flown on a 787 or A330 with any regularity in economy? If you have, then you wouldn't be making the statement you are. I don't doubt that some airlines have configurations that are more or less comfortable but overall, the A330 is highly popular with airlines and passengers as a regional people mover - hence its popularity!
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:41 am

NZ321 wrote:
How is an 8 abreast 32 inch seat pitch A330 the worst plane for comfort in the market?


Airbus statements market the "LH LCC" A330 at 9-abreast so that would be around 16.5" seat width and probably 29-30" seat pitch.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:13 am

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
It is completely accepted within the industry that the cost of a composite part is significantly more than its metallic equivalent. If you don't believe me, then go look at some cost modelling research papers of theses on the subject.

Quantification of exactly how much more expensive is difficult given the various sizes and number of parts within an assembly. But, as a very high level rule of thumb, I've seen estimations that the cost of CFRP is about 4x that of aluminium per kg of assembly. I've seen other estimations where its ~ 8x the cost of aluminium per kg of material (not assembly). This makes sense given the reduced part count of a composite assembly.

It's a bit of a challenge to resolve what you wrote with:

lightsaber wrote:
Material is cheap. I routinely handle $5,000 assemblies with $22 of material.


I.e, most of the cost is not in the material.


No. It's not. It's really really easy.

If the 787 was made out of a 100t ingot of titanium, then it would indeed be possible, as one poster suggested, to make it out of titanium for $2m to $3m.
However, Boeing are hoping to use 3D printing to shave $3M of the price of the TI components in a 787, despite TI being only 15% of the material weight of the bare airframe of a 787.
That, by my calculation is a about $90 per lb REDUCTION in the price of TI PARTS in a 787, which is a very, very long way from the "$30 per lb cost of TI" quoted up-thread.
This suggests that something has gone very, very awry with the "material is cheap" argument.

(As an aside, the fact that a 787 has 15 tonnes+ of TI in the airframe is simply staggering - it's no wonder it's so expensive to make :faint: )

In the case of the $5000 assembly, that assembly will typically (don't know if this specific instance would) reach the OEM as a finished part, in which case the whole of that cost appears in the BOM of a 787 as a MATERIAL cost.
I can tell you without any fear of contractiction - sorry, correction any fear of being wrong - the contradcition will inevitably come, that to BOEING, some 30%-40% of the cost of a 787 will be MATERIAL. That cost to the OEM is germane to any complex manufactured product - i.e. it's a fact.

Amiga 500 quite rightly pointed out the cost of a composite PART is more expensive - note, not the composite raw material thread itself.

To complete the resolution that you desire, the
"material is cheap"
statements should be modified to read
"RAW material is cheap".
Unfortunately planes aren't made out of raw material as such.
They're made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce

It's funny in a way.
The topic of the week in conversation at work has been the "lean enterprise", as opposed to just "lean manufacturing", and just how easy it is for the majority of people to look through the wrong end of a lens and consider the economics of a small part of the system whilst remaining uncomprehending of how the overall system behaves, and how the small part impacts (or doesn't) the overall system.
This argument is an example of that

Rgds
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:12 am

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
It is completely accepted within the industry that the cost of a composite part is significantly more than its metallic equivalent. If you don't believe me, then go look at some cost modelling research papers of theses on the subject.

Quantification of exactly how much more expensive is difficult given the various sizes and number of parts within an assembly. But, as a very high level rule of thumb, I've seen estimations that the cost of CFRP is about 4x that of aluminium per kg of assembly. I've seen other estimations where its ~ 8x the cost of aluminium per kg of material (not assembly). This makes sense given the reduced part count of a composite assembly.

It's a bit of a challenge to resolve what you wrote with:

lightsaber wrote:
Material is cheap. I routinely handle $5,000 assemblies with $22 of material.


I.e, most of the cost is not in the material.


No. It's not. It's really really easy.

If the 787 was made out of a 100t ingot of titanium, then it would indeed be possible, as one poster suggested, to make it out of titanium for $2m to $3m.
However, Boeing are hoping to use 3D printing to shave $3M of the price of the TI components in a 787, despite TI being only 15% of the material weight of the bare airframe of a 787.
That, by my calculation is a about $90 per lb REDUCTION in the price of TI PARTS in a 787, which is a very, very long way from the "$30 per lb cost of TI" quoted up-thread.
This suggests that something has gone very, very awry with the "material is cheap" argument.

(As an aside, the fact that a 787 has 15 tonnes+ of TI in the airframe is simply staggering - it's no wonder it's so expensive to make :faint: )

In the case of the $5000 assembly, that assembly will typically (don't know if this specific instance would) reach the OEM as a finished part, in which case the whole of that cost appears in the BOM of a 787 as a MATERIAL cost.
I can tell you without any fear of contractiction - sorry, correction any fear of being wrong - the contradcition will inevitably come, that to BOEING, some 30%-40% of the cost of a 787 will be MATERIAL. That cost to the OEM is germane to any complex manufactured product - i.e. it's a fact.

Amiga 500 quite rightly pointed out the cost of a composite PART is more expensive - note, not the composite raw material thread itself.

To complete the resolution that you desire, the
"material is cheap"
statements should be modified to read
"RAW material is cheap".
Unfortunately planes aren't made out of raw material as such.
They're made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce

It's funny in a way.
The topic of the week in conversation at work has been the "lean enterprise", as opposed to just "lean manufacturing", and just how easy it is for the majority of people to look through the wrong end of a lens and consider the economics of a small part of the system whilst remaining uncomprehending of how the overall system behaves, and how the small part impacts (or doesn't) the overall system.
This argument is an example of that

Rgds

Good post, the only thing I would add to this is: remember also the added cost of machining/ 3D printing to aerospace grade specifications. We print 3D wings for our experiments, and most of the cost isn't for the material - in fact, the material cost pales in comparison to the cost it takes for the parts to get machined/ 3D printed to acceptable precision and finish. This is for wings to be used in lab experiments. I'd imagine the requirements would be much more stringent for something that actually flies with passengers (=safety) and has to make money for the customers (=performance). In addition, at least based on my limited experience with 3D printing, printing at higher resolution requires more time. So, either you tie up the 3D printers you have to print more slowly and get the resolution you want, or you invest in multiple 3D printers to achieve the overall rate you want. Either way, your expenses per part go up.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:10 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.



For years we have been told comfort doesn't matter so maybe that message is just being heeded? Yes it is wrong for posters to suddenly drop the argument about comfort just because their favoured product will all of a sudden be used as a LCC. At the same time being concerned about comfort when it wasn't an issue before falls into the same category, or does 0.7" make a difference in comfort when 1" doesn't? :spin:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10256
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:57 am

Just shows how perfectly right Boeing got the 787 fuselage diameter, offering a perfect balance of comfort and efficiency.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:24 am

enzo011 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.



For years we have been told comfort doesn't matter so maybe that message is just being heeded? Yes it is wrong for posters to suddenly drop the argument about comfort just because their favoured product will all of a sudden be used as a LCC. At the same time being concerned about comfort when it wasn't an issue before falls into the same category, or does 0.7" make a difference in comfort when 1" doesn't? :spin:

Have you ever taken a 9 abreast A330? I have and I would not recommend it to anyone, especially the window seat. Give me a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787 anytime over the 9 abreast A330.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:29 am

NZ321 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.


How is an 8 abreast 32 inch seat pitch A330 the worst plane for comfort in the market? Have you actually flown on a 787 or A330 with any regularity in economy? If you have, then you wouldn't be making the statement you are. I don't doubt that some airlines have configurations that are more or less comfortable but overall, the A330 is highly popular with airlines and passengers as a regional people mover - hence its popularity!

I was referring to someone's comment about the A330 being an efficient plane in a 9 abreast configuration.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:36 am

Yup I have flown A330 X9.Its ok for holiday charter type flight as you expect nothing more.But not for legacy full Y flights.Of course at X8 it is fine (18" as a rule).Would love to fly the 787 in its origonal X8 guise (18.5"?).But the X9 version isn't great and we know the complaints a legacy airline like BA got (17.0" if that).So much so that they changed their seating for their 789's to get as much additional room as possible (armrests?).
The trouble is that the mid twin battle between A and B is so intense that it has become a race to the bottom (literally).The 772er offered 18.5" in X9 econ origonally ,the the 330 reduced this to 18" then the 787 to 17" now the 330 NEO to 16.5"!!!Needs to stop!
 
fsabo
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:51 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
I love some of the guys around...

When times are good for the A330, they trumpet the 8 abreast as more comfortable than other planes in the market.

When times are bad for the A330, they say its a more efficient plane than the same planes they used to compare with, but they conveniently ignore that this means making it the worst plane for comfort in the market.

You really can't have your cake and eat it.



For years we have been told comfort doesn't matter so maybe that message is just being heeded? Yes it is wrong for posters to suddenly drop the argument about comfort just because their favoured product will all of a sudden be used as a LCC. At the same time being concerned about comfort when it wasn't an issue before falls into the same category, or does 0.7" make a difference in comfort when 1" doesn't? :spin:

Have you ever taken a 9 abreast A330? I have and I would not recommend it to anyone, especially the window seat. Give me a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787 anytime over the 9 abreast A330.


It depends upon your build and what bothers you. I flew in a 10 across 777. While it was cramped the worst part was the noise. For me 9 across in a 777 wasn't significantly better; still just as loud and same intensity headache towards the end of the flight.

I'd rather have 9 across in a 787 than 9 across in a 777. I might even rather have a 9 across in a A330NEO; at least it wouldn't be so loud. I'd really have to try to see how much the narrowness would bother me.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:53 am

NeBaNi wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's a bit of a challenge to resolve what you wrote with:



I.e, most of the cost is not in the material.


No. It's not. It's really really easy.

If the 787 was made out of a 100t ingot of titanium, then it would indeed be possible, as one poster suggested, to make it out of titanium for $2m to $3m.
However, Boeing are hoping to use 3D printing to shave $3M of the price of the TI components in a 787, despite TI being only 15% of the material weight of the bare airframe of a 787.
That, by my calculation is a about $90 per lb REDUCTION in the price of TI PARTS in a 787, which is a very, very long way from the "$30 per lb cost of TI" quoted up-thread.
This suggests that something has gone very, very awry with the "material is cheap" argument.

(As an aside, the fact that a 787 has 15 tonnes+ of TI in the airframe is simply staggering - it's no wonder it's so expensive to make :faint: )

In the case of the $5000 assembly, that assembly will typically (don't know if this specific instance would) reach the OEM as a finished part, in which case the whole of that cost appears in the BOM of a 787 as a MATERIAL cost.
I can tell you without any fear of contractiction - sorry, correction any fear of being wrong - the contradcition will inevitably come, that to BOEING, some 30%-40% of the cost of a 787 will be MATERIAL. That cost to the OEM is germane to any complex manufactured product - i.e. it's a fact.

Amiga 500 quite rightly pointed out the cost of a composite PART is more expensive - note, not the composite raw material thread itself.

To complete the resolution that you desire, the
"material is cheap"
statements should be modified to read
"RAW material is cheap".
Unfortunately planes aren't made out of raw material as such.
They're made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce

It's funny in a way.
The topic of the week in conversation at work has been the "lean enterprise", as opposed to just "lean manufacturing", and just how easy it is for the majority of people to look through the wrong end of a lens and consider the economics of a small part of the system whilst remaining uncomprehending of how the overall system behaves, and how the small part impacts (or doesn't) the overall system.
This argument is an example of that

Rgds

Good post, the only thing I would add to this is: remember also the added cost of machining/ 3D printing to aerospace grade specifications. We print 3D wings for our experiments, and most of the cost isn't for the material - in fact, the material cost pales in comparison to the cost it takes for the parts to get machined/ 3D printed to acceptable precision and finish. This is for wings to be used in lab experiments. I'd imagine the requirements would be much more stringent for something that actually flies with passengers (=safety) and has to make money for the customers (=performance). In addition, at least based on my limited experience with 3D printing, printing at higher resolution requires more time. So, either you tie up the 3D printers you have to print more slowly and get the resolution you want, or you invest in multiple 3D printers to achieve the overall rate you want. Either way, your expenses per part go up.


I think we are discussing cost behaviour here.

As I understand it titanium parts can have up to 90% material wastage. If we consider the manufacturing process (machining) would be some where in the range of 5-30 times the cost of the raw material itself, the material and relatively low tech (machining) manufacturing process would be relatively expensive in relationship to other materials using more advanced manufacturing processes.

In some instances Boeing have swapped out titanium parts (door fuselage inserts on the 787) for cheaper composite parts.

In the instance you describe, Boeing are simply changing the manufacturing process, not the material itself (there would have been a lot of R&D to develop a titanium grade for 3D printing)..

As such, we would have to assume (all else being equal) the whole of cost equation for 3D printed titanium parts would be cheaper than another material and manufacturing process.

If we use a cost equation based on $$/tonne for 3D printed parts in comparison to machined titanium parts, the equation would look something like this:

Machined Titanium

Material costs - $17,000.00 / 90% wastage = $153,000.00
Manufacturing - 10 tonne x 5 x $17,000.00 = $850,000.00
Facilities / Overheads - 14% = $140,000.00
TOTAL = $1,143,000.00/tonne

3D Printed Titanium

Material costs - $34,000.00 x 5% wastage = $35,700.00
Manufacturing - 1.05 tonne x 30 x $17,000.00 = $535,000.00
Facilities / Overheads - 20% = $114,000.00
TOTAL = $685,000.00/tonne

As you stated 3D printing technology is an evolving manufacturing process with relatively high costs. For the manufacture of plastics there are quite a few well established manufacturing processes (injection moulding) that 3D printing will always have a hard time trying to compete with. As 3D printing is the only alternative manufacturing process for relatively expensive machined titanium parts, the cost equation for using 3D printing for this material type would be very different to that for plastics.

To further the argument, Boeing recently signed an agreement with a new company to supply composite parts for the 787. In this instance the material type (composites) remained the same, but the manufacturing process changed from an autoclave to out-of-autoclave quick cure process.

I think we are witnessing a convergence of materials and manufacturing technologies where step changes in manufacturing processes are resulting in a significant reduction in the cost of aircraft parts.
 
fsabo
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:56 am

travelhound wrote:
NeBaNi wrote:
astuteman wrote:

No. It's not. It's really really easy.

If the 787 was made out of a 100t ingot of titanium, then it would indeed be possible, as one poster suggested, to make it out of titanium for $2m to $3m.
However, Boeing are hoping to use 3D printing to shave $3M of the price of the TI components in a 787, despite TI being only 15% of the material weight of the bare airframe of a 787.
That, by my calculation is a about $90 per lb REDUCTION in the price of TI PARTS in a 787, which is a very, very long way from the "$30 per lb cost of TI" quoted up-thread.
This suggests that something has gone very, very awry with the "material is cheap" argument.

(As an aside, the fact that a 787 has 15 tonnes+ of TI in the airframe is simply staggering - it's no wonder it's so expensive to make :faint: )

In the case of the $5000 assembly, that assembly will typically (don't know if this specific instance would) reach the OEM as a finished part, in which case the whole of that cost appears in the BOM of a 787 as a MATERIAL cost.
I can tell you without any fear of contractiction - sorry, correction any fear of being wrong - the contradcition will inevitably come, that to BOEING, some 30%-40% of the cost of a 787 will be MATERIAL. That cost to the OEM is germane to any complex manufactured product - i.e. it's a fact.

Amiga 500 quite rightly pointed out the cost of a composite PART is more expensive - note, not the composite raw material thread itself.

To complete the resolution that you desire, the
"material is cheap"
statements should be modified to read
"RAW material is cheap".
Unfortunately planes aren't made out of raw material as such.
They're made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce

It's funny in a way.
The topic of the week in conversation at work has been the "lean enterprise", as opposed to just "lean manufacturing", and just how easy it is for the majority of people to look through the wrong end of a lens and consider the economics of a small part of the system whilst remaining uncomprehending of how the overall system behaves, and how the small part impacts (or doesn't) the overall system.
This argument is an example of that

Rgds

Good post, the only thing I would add to this is: remember also the added cost of machining/ 3D printing to aerospace grade specifications. We print 3D wings for our experiments, and most of the cost isn't for the material - in fact, the material cost pales in comparison to the cost it takes for the parts to get machined/ 3D printed to acceptable precision and finish. This is for wings to be used in lab experiments. I'd imagine the requirements would be much more stringent for something that actually flies with passengers (=safety) and has to make money for the customers (=performance). In addition, at least based on my limited experience with 3D printing, printing at higher resolution requires more time. So, either you tie up the 3D printers you have to print more slowly and get the resolution you want, or you invest in multiple 3D printers to achieve the overall rate you want. Either way, your expenses per part go up.


I think we are discussing cost behaviour here.

As I understand it titanium parts can have up to 90% material wastage. If we consider the manufacturing process (machining) would be some where in the range of 5-30 times the cost of the raw material itself, the material and relatively low tech (machining) manufacturing process would be relatively expensive in relationship to other materials using more advanced manufacturing processes.

In some instances Boeing have swapped out titanium parts (door fuselage inserts on the 787) for cheaper composite parts.

In the instance you describe, Boeing are simply changing the manufacturing process, not the material itself (there would have been a lot of R&D to develop a titanium grade for 3D printing)..

As such, we would have to assume (all else being equal) the whole of cost equation for 3D printed titanium parts would be cheaper than another material and manufacturing process.

If we use a cost equation based on $$/tonne for 3D printed parts in comparison to machined titanium parts, the equation would look something like this:

Machined Titanium

Material costs - $17,000.00 / 90% wastage = $153,000.00
Manufacturing - 10 tonne x 5 x $17,000.00 = $850,000.00
Facilities / Overheads - 14% = $140,000.00
TOTAL = $1,143,000.00/tonne

3D Printed Titanium

Material costs - $34,000.00 x 5% wastage = $35,700.00
Manufacturing - 1.05 tonne x 30 x $17,000.00 = $535,000.00
Facilities / Overheads - 20% = $114,000.00
TOTAL = $685,000.00/tonne

As you stated 3D printing technology is an evolving manufacturing process with relatively high costs. For the manufacture of plastics there are quite a few well established manufacturing processes (injection moulding) that 3D printing will always have a hard time trying to compete with. As 3D printing is the only alternative manufacturing process for relatively expensive machined titanium parts, the cost equation for using 3D printing for this material type would be very different to that for plastics.

To further the argument, Boeing recently signed an agreement with a new company to supply composite parts for the 787. In this instance the material type (composites) remained the same, but the manufacturing process changed from an autoclave to out-of-autoclave quick cure process.

I think we are witnessing a convergence of materials and manufacturing technologies where step changes in manufacturing processes are resulting in a significant reduction in the cost of aircraft parts.


Who in their right mind throws away titanium shavings?
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:09 pm

When titanium is machined the waste material is not thrown away. It can be recasted for the fraction of the cost of making new material
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:27 pm

I was going to put waste recovery in my numbers, but I didn't want to over complicate the numbers.

The concept is more important than the numbers
 
WIederling
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:20 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
You really can't have your cake and eat it.


you are looking at the wrong cake then :-)

In a 787 what every you pay in Y you get LCC comfort ( across. one sole exception).
on an A330 you get reasonable 8 across comfort for most y arrangements
_except_ for the all out LCC arrangement at 9 across.

you see the difference?
Murphy is an optimist
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:30 pm

WIederling wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
You really can't have your cake and eat it.


you are looking at the wrong cake then :-)

In a 787 what every you pay in Y you get LCC comfort ( across. one sole exception).
on an A330 you get reasonable 8 across comfort for most y arrangements
_except_ for the all out LCC arrangement at 9 across.

you see the difference?

An A330neo at 8 abreast is certainly not more efficient than a 787 at 9-abreast, an A330neo at 9 abreast may be more efficient than a 787 at 9 abreast but it's certainly not as comfortable. That's the overriding tradeoff.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:49 pm

WIederling wrote:
jeffrey0032j wrote:
You really can't have your cake and eat it.


you are looking at the wrong cake then :-)

In a 787 what every you pay in Y you get LCC comfort ( across. one sole exception).
on an A330 you get reasonable 8 across comfort for most y arrangements
_except_ for the all out LCC arrangement at 9 across.

you see the difference?

The difference is that we weren't discussing "most y arrangements", the poster specifically mentioned the "LH LCC" configuration.
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
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:55 pm

parapente wrote:
The trouble is that the mid twin battle between A and B is so intense that it has become a race to the bottom (literally).The 772er offered 18.5" in X9 econ origonally ,the the 330 reduced this to 18" then the 787 to 17" now the 330 NEO to 16.5"!!!Needs to stop!


Airlines have crammed in an extra Y seat, giving sub-17 inch width for many decades before the A330NEO.
Finnair 3-4-3 on MD-11
Cathay Pacific 3-4-3 on L-1011
Air Transat 3-3-3 on A310 (same fuselage cross-section as A330)
AirAsia X 3-3-3 on A330ceo/A340
Thomsonfly 2-4-2 on 767

The A330NEO may have the same appeal as the A310s and 767s did to charter airlines in the past for up and coming ULCCs. Seats too narrow for legacies to implement but just about wide enough for the most price-concious segment of the market.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:36 pm

astuteman wrote:
Amiga 500 quite rightly pointed out the cost of a composite PART is more expensive - note, not the composite raw material thread itself.

To complete the resolution that you desire, the
"material is cheap"
statements should be modified to read
"RAW material is cheap".
Unfortunately planes aren't made out of raw material as such.
They're made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce

Amiga500 wrote:
Quantification of exactly how much more expensive is difficult given the various sizes and number of parts within an assembly. But, as a very high level rule of thumb, I've seen estimations that the cost of CFRP is about 4x that of aluminium per kg of assembly. I've seen other estimations where its ~ 8x the cost of aluminium per kg of material (not assembly). This makes sense given the reduced part count of a composite assembly.

My lack of resolution is more about the nature of the difference between CRFP and Al (although the Ti discussion was quite insightful, thank you) rather than the nature of the difference between raw material cost and finished parts cost.

So if we go with "raw material is cheap" and "(airplanes are) made out of complex, expensive PARTS requiring lots of engineering, infrastructure, and expensive processes and equipment to produce" and "the cost of CFRP is about 4x that of aluminum per kg of assembly" and "the cost of CFRP is about ~ 8x the cost of aluminum per kg of material" then is ~4x the difference due to the difference in raw materials and ~4x due to difference in engineering, processes and equipment required to convert raw material to parts?

Can we predict how these cost factors will change over time?

I view Al as mature technology, and have hopes that CFRP will improve with time, but maybe new trends favor both equally?

And (again, unfortunately) is normalizing by kilogram a sensible thing to do?

Or am I making too much of these observed rules of thumb and need to read theses about models of pricing?

Unfortunately as a layman (as are many a.net readers) I doubt I can take on such theses.

Observationally, on the scale of very big parts, it's been interesting to see some people suggest going to a CFRP fuse was a mistake, and CS100/CS300 chose to use Al after first exploring CFRP, even after it was known that 787 and A350 went with CFRP.

I guess we'll learn more when we see the next clean sheet emerge.

If we see a CFRP fuse perhaps we can conclude that the expensive materials and procedures are justified by perceived or actual value.
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
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:02 pm

astuteman wrote:
No. It's not. It's really really easy.

Your reply in this thread got me to thinking about the A330neo threads from four years ago just as the program launch was being "mulled", namely:

viewtopic.php?t=569361 ( one of the better tech-ops threads we've had )

and

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=567731 ( the usual rabble-rousing :biggrin: )

A question you framed in the tech-ops thread:

astuteman wrote:
Which works better?
A T1000/GEnx A330NEO in 2018 with a 4%-5% fuel burn penalty to the 787
An "Advance" NEO in 2020 with a 2%-3% fuel burn advantage over the 787


So, with the benefit of hindsight, what path would you have preferred?

For me, an interesting recollection is how some even back then advocated either making a better A358 or shutting down the program in favor of A338/9.

One thing I wrote back then still isn't too far off the mark:

Revelation wrote:
The main advantage of the NEO is not in avoiding the A358, but it is in reusing the existing manufacturing and supply chain for A330 to fill one market space whilst the A350 family is also being massively successful and profitable in filling its market space. This presumes of course that you can produce a NEO that is good enough that the market will keep buying in the face of other options and in enough volume to pay off the development costs quickly enough to return a better ROI than some other programs Airbus could be persuing.
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
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:05 pm

As I understand it an A338 has a few more seats then the A332 and the A339 a few more then the A333 that the B788 and B789 original was compared to. the RR 1000 TEN and RR 7000 I suppose give equal efficiency.

It seems like Airbus can sell the A338 for around USD 90 million and A339 for USD 100. this is around 30% less then Boeing sells the 787 for.

This with the info that the A339 becomes better then expected tells me that we will rather have a 60-40 in he favor of the B787 vs A330 not 75-25 that A.net seems to consider.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10725
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
Enders has said they do not save money making A320s in USA. The lower labor costs are offset by higher shipping costs, etc. He also says it was done to increase Airbus's global footprint, and in particular raise Airbus's stature in the USA, and he wishes he was able to persuade the rest of Airbus to globalize further.

Would have been better if he said it was for currency reasons or to win the tanker contract.
A major US carrier became the largest operator of Airbus a/c when they did not have a plant in the USA, in addition, there were hundreds of Airbus a/c flying around at a number of other USA carriers, all before the consolidation of the last few years. Today only one USA carrier of any consequence does not operate Airbus a/c, how much more stature do they want in the USA, Boeing as a subsidiary?
 
NZ321
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:42 pm

Well for all those doom and gloomers re the NEO we have a confirmed order from TK for 25+5 A339 plus Indigo are close to an order for 50 aircraft.
Plane mad!
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:54 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Well for all those doom and gloomers re the NEO we have a confirmed order from TK for 25+5 A339 plus Indigo are close to an order for 50 aircraft.


Unless I'm missing something, the 25+5 order was for the A350-900.
-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.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:02 pm

par13del wrote:
Today only one USA carrier of any consequence does not operate Airbus a/c, how much more stature do they want in the USA, Boeing as a subsidiary?


That is funny. From the nation that has to stamp US on everything.:-)

Mercedes "partnering" with Chrysler was a bust wasn't it?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26091
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:25 pm

par13del wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Enders has said they do not save money making A320s in USA. The lower labor costs are offset by higher shipping costs, etc. He also says it was done to increase Airbus's global footprint, and in particular raise Airbus's stature in the USA, and he wishes he was able to persuade the rest of Airbus to globalize further.

Would have been better if he said it was for currency reasons or to win the tanker contract.

I found the interview ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... erson-year ):

The facility’s origins date back to the company’s A330-based bid for the U.S. Air Force’s tanker aircraft contract, which Airbus ultimately lost. Enders and Christian Scherer, Airbus’ chief strategist at the time, came up with the idea of instead assembling commercial narrowbodies in Alabama. “Can it be wrong to become more engaged industrially in the world’s biggest aviation market?” Enders asked. The answer was clear to him.

Mobile and the Bombardier tie-up are part of a long-term drive by Enders to make the company more international. Airbus also operates an assembly plant in Tianjin, China. “I always thought that European integration can only be the basis for internationalization, because that is where we would get a real advantage,” he says. “That was only going to be possible if we stepped beyond Europe and built an industrial presence in China, India and the U.S.”

In fact, Enders laments that the company’s push into the U.S. has not been bold enough. “I think we should have done more. We clearly have to do more,” he says.

So his view is much expansive than just dealing with currency fluxuations and trying to win defense contracts. I think that's gone over a lot of people's heads.

NZ321 wrote:
Well for all those doom and gloomers re the NEO we have a confirmed order from TK for 25+5 A339 plus Indigo are close to an order for 50 aircraft.

Actually TK confirmed for A359 not A339...

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -a-446654/

Indigo deal would be for A339 and would be a big win for the program.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ide-bodies
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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:08 pm

enzo011 wrote:
For years we have been told comfort doesn't matter so maybe that message is just being heeded?


It matters, but it may or may not matter more than other factors (price, schedule, convenience, etc.).

For me, I value convenience and comfort more than price so I always fly First or Business Class and try to schedule non-stops were possible, accepting that I cannot travel as much as I could if I ranked price first as opposed to last.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:01 am

Guys good info. I thought it would be useful to look at the income statements for both a and B.

I included lmt and Raytheon to see how the defense components contributed but could not draw any conclusions.

I think it’s fair to say that AB needs to sell the 330 for as much as they can get. I say this because AB management has a clearly stated goal to increase both profit and cash flow

http://financials.morningstar.com/incom ... region=fra

http://financials.morningstar.com/incom ... region=usa

http://financials.morningstar.com/incom ... region=usa

http://financials.morningstar.com/incom ... region=usa
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:41 am

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Which works better?
A T1000/GEnx A330NEO in 2018 with a 4%-5% fuel burn penalty to the 787
An "Advance" NEO in 2020 with a 2%-3% fuel burn advantage over the 787


So, with the benefit of hindsight, what path would you have preferred?

The problem I see is the fuel burn improvement of the advance engine would make the A330-900 a 8000+nm frame and the A330-800 a 9000+ nm frame at the 251T maximum takeoff weight. So it would become less attractive for regional work.

You would be cutting the A350's lunch and increasing the amount of overlap between the A339 and A359.

It would have made it even more important to lighten the A330 to move it away from the A350.

Waiting for the advance engine and keeping the A330 heavy would have seen it dead on arrival as the A350 would have reached high production numbers by that stage.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
You would be cutting the A350's lunch and increasing the amount of overlap between the A339 and A359.


Capacity wise they don't overlap. A338 A339 A359 A3510 show rising line capacity.
As long as OEW does not increase for MTOW increases nothing changes for the shorter range application.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:14 pm

I realize the -10 has 40 more seats than the 900 but from a fuel burn stand point aren’t those extra 40 seats almost for free?

If I’ve got this right isn’t this pressure enough?
 
WIederling
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:45 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I realize the -10 has 40 more seats than the 900 but from a fuel burn stand point aren’t those extra 40 seats almost for free?

If I’ve got this right isn’t this pressure enough?


280t to 308/312t MTOW ~ 10% more fuel burn for MTOW limited flights
135t to 155t ( nominal ) OEW delta is 20%.

A 779X EIS delivered A3510 will be better than the larger 779X and
will best the same size 77W by 25%
Murphy is an optimist
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Pressure mounts on Airbus A330 in widebody order battle

Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:11 pm

seahawk wrote:
Just shows how perfectly right Boeing got the 787 fuselage diameter, offering a perfect balance of comfort and efficiency.


I'm replying to this regardless of whether it is sarcasm or bait.

2018 was the first year I could choose between a 777 or 787 and an A350 on the routes I'll fly, and for two flights specifically -- despite paying more for the A350 carriers -- I chose the A350. As a matter of comparison, I used to seek out 777s exclusively because I considered them a prime example of Boeing's engineering heyday.

When I go back to the US, there is a good chance that I will change alliances entirely -- purely because my US airline of choice doesn't currently have any A350s or A330s.

For me, Boeing got the 787 cabin width fragrantly and fundamentally wrong. They designed a product that appears to be uneconomical at 8 abreast and considered uncomfortable by many at its economical operating configuration. While airlines might appreciate this "choice" (which I liken to bullying), as a part of the flying public I also have my choice of carrier.

If Boeing could prove that the 787 at 8 abreast is significantly more economical to operate than an A330 at a comparable stage length and payload, I will gladly stand corrected. But so far -- all I see is that the 787 needs to run at 9 abreast to compete with the A330neo. And the argument of cabin width as being in Boeing's favor I'm not sure I agree with.

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