SteinarN
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:07 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
SteinarN wrote:
The other option Boeing have is to cut the asking price for the 77X so much that they sell it for a substantial loss or at best break even on a recuring cash flow basis. But that is no viable option either.


"Market intelligence", IIRC, says Boeing can build the 77W for less than $100mil right now. I don't expect the 779 to be much above that figure.
So I think there's room for Boeing to see positive cash flow from 779 sales for at least half a decade - whether it's enough to cover the ~$5bn investment is a different story.

It may be that Boeing never expected full recoupment of 777X development costs, but saw no other option at the time to keep its engineers paid and stay at the bleeding edge of wing/engine tech for the next project. Had Boeing not launched 777X it either (1) would have lost the entire market above 787 and a good portion of its engineering talent or (2) would have had to spend ~$15bn on a clean sheet replacement that probably couldn't be pushed out far enough for Ultrafan engines.

Had option (2) been a double-decker of ~450 seats it might have been a world-beater, but maybe the 777X is a placeholder for such a Y3 project next decade, after early 777X death.


I would believe the 77X will be (substantially) more costly to build, the huge carbon fibre wing must cost much more to build than the smaler aluminum wing, and the engines too must cost substantially more to build. However the rest of the aircraft stays more or less the same, so as a percentage of the total aircraft it might just be in the single digit percentage more costly to build.

Regarding which opportunities Boeing had in 2013 regarding the 77W. They couldnt wait for GE to develop a geared engine, thats for sure. Maybe they could have developed an all new carbon fibre aircraft, but I wont even in hindsight dare to say if that would have been a better solution either. So i think there was no clearly better option than what they ended up doing.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:11 pm

bigjku wrote:
Is any current aircraft built to accommodate such large bypass ratios and fans though?


If you're talking about Ultrafan BPR, I addressed that above: new "slim-line" nacelles mean that the on-wing engine shouldn't should be much larger, if any, than current engines.
TXWB's nacelle diameter is 156in - 35% bigger than than the fan.
Slim-line nacelles look to be ~5% bigger than the fan, meaning no nacelle increase until the fan exceeds ~150in.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:02 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Airframers should be building their planes to Ultrafan and its contemporaries. Instead Boeing launched the 777X with probably the last direct-drive large turbofan and seems committed to older tech on its NMA as well. I just don't get it.


RR has submitted an Ultrafan-based proposal for the 797. For all we know Boeing will surprise us and move forward with it.

Do you think it's impractical to use an Ultrafan-like engine on the 777X, beyond the issue you raised above that you wouldn't expect such a beast to be competitive with the A350?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:11 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Do you think it's impractical to use an Ultrafan-like engine on the 777X, beyond the issue you raised above that you wouldn't expect such a beast to be competitive with the A350?


Probably not impossible but might require higher landing gear. And as you say, a metal 777X can't compete against a plastic A350 when the engines are equal.

--------------------

One other thought.
For a few years I've been predicting that Ultrafan NEO/MAX A350/787 will come earlier than most imagine. With higher production rates than historically, the business case for re-engining closes earlier than in the past.

But I always thought it made sense for Boeing to move first on the 787, as the A350 currently has the SFC edge (~2%).
That was before Boeing's current seeming caution about new engine tech.

The danger here for Airbus is that, yes, you kill the 777X but then Boeing has to respond and the 787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).
I'd rather have the smaller plane than the bigger, provided we're talking about single-deck tubes.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:13 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).


That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:00 pm

WIederling wrote:
That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )


787 MAX 10 would most likely require only new engines and whatever minimal changes to structure they would require to become much more competitive with the current A350-900 on payload range, which is "good enough" for most airlines. It would most likely surpass 7000 nm in Boeing's newly conservative brochure range calculation, meaning it could fly most TPAC and Far East-Europe routes without difficulty.

The only other thing I wonder about is whether new engines might warrant a reevaluation of the longer raked wingtip originally planned for the 787-9.
 
moa999
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:50 am

I wonder whether this news may also help Airbus win the Project Sunrise competition with Qantas.

Take say 6 350-1000ULR in 2022 or so, which are slightly undersized for what Qantas ideally wants with longhaul underfloor pods (for yoga, lounges) instead of cargo as they can't carry freight and make the range.

Then trade-up to a 2000ULR in 2025/26 which should meet their ideal aircraft, remove the pods and cascade the 1000s to replace some of their earlier 330s on domestic and Asian routes.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:21 am

I look at the GE-9X vs Ultrafan as being a similar competition between the GTF and LEAP.

No doubt the gearbox is a real game changer, but so are exotic materials. I think RR's geared fan will provide the bulk of the efficiency gains on the Ultrafan and the bulk of GE's gains will come from gains derived with exotic materials.

It seems exotic materials such as CMC's are the tougher road and I have little doubt that GE leads the way in that. You can't exactly slap any old gearbox on the front of a jet, but I think it's going to be easier for GE to rig up a GTF than RR, (or Pratt for that matter), to catch up to the state of the art in materials.

If/when GE rigs a GTF to their engines, they will lead the pack, but in the meantime, I think it's likely that they will have PIP'd the GE9X enough that it will be at least equal in efficiency to the Ultrafan, when it finally arrives...whenever that will be...which stave off doom of the 77X a while longer.
What the...?
 
morrisond
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:49 am

WIederling wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).


That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )


That assumes a larger fan. With geared fans could you not get away with a smaller core and same size fan for higher by pass ratio?

Otherwise with a bigger fan aren't you pumping out way too much Thrust?
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:00 am

morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).


That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )


That assumes a larger fan. With geared fans could you not get away with a smaller core and same size fan for higher by pass ratio?

Otherwise with a bigger fan aren't you pumping out way too much Thrust?


A smaller core with the same size Fan (for a higher bypass ratio), would generate less thrust as the thrust coming from the bypass sections is less "dense" than the thrust from the core section. Higher BPR for the same thrust theoretically implies bigger fan sections and smaller core sections.

787, A350, 777X will all run into clearance issues with ultrafan-type engines unless other solutions are found or modifications made to the airframe. It's the 748s and A380s that are going to have the least trouble with such a re-engine, funnily enough.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:39 am

It’s my understanding that T1000/TXWB diameters are already well-optimized and there isn’t much to be gained by going to a larger diameter. Obviously the material technology already existed to make either larger if it was needed given the GE90/T800/4090 have had larger diameters for a couple decades. The re-engined A350 / 787 aren’t going to need more thrust as the fuel burn reduction will allow same range on less fuel load so MTOW don’t need increased and runway performance is already good enough.

Geared fans may need to be a couple inches larger to optimize on a slower fan speed whereas current engines give up a bit of fan effiencny to reduce size and cost of the low spool by keeping shaft speed up.

That said, I understand the current size of fan largely is centered on the SFC vs drag curve and additional increases in fan size for SFC improvement as largely offset by additional aerodynamic drag.
 
LDRA
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:45 am

Reduce hub size for more fan face area. The fan spins slower in GTF application, so less structural load on hub
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:36 am

morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).


That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )


That assumes a larger fan. With geared fans could you not get away with a smaller core and same size fan for higher by pass ratio?

Otherwise with a bigger fan aren't you pumping out way too much Thrust?


Here's the fundamentals about thrust:
-Thrust is a function of (1) the amount of air accelerated by the engine and (2) the amount of acceleration applied to the air. I.e. it's a matter of the change in momentum.
-ENERGY expended by the engine is a matter of (1) the amount of air accelerated by the engine and (2) the kinetic energy imparted to the air, which is determined by the SQUARE of acceleration.

So the most efficient engine accelerates air by an infinitesimal amount, thereby minimizing the effect of thrust's linear relationship with momentum and quadratic relationship with energy.

The amount of air flow into the engine is a matter of the engine's frontal area.
So by definition a more efficient fan is sucking in less air per unit of thrust, as it is imparting less acceleration per unit of air (the measure of acceleration per unit of air mass is captured by "specific thrust").

So a more-propulsively-efficient engine will, ceteris paribus, always produce less thrust than a less-propulsively-efficient fan of the same frontal area and fan diameter.
Last edited by Matt6461 on Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
ewt340
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:38 am

Airbus probably looking into beefing up A350-1000 with some sort of simple stretch and engines that are tad bit more powerful.

Now B787-10ER would be a big problem for A350-900.

They need to counter that before Boeing make their moves. Cause the efficiency on the ER version would be too great to counter with the current states of A350-900.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21445
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:49 am

william wrote:
The variable pitch is what set this project apart. So its another GTF engine (soon all the three major players will have GTF engines). The variable pitch was to allow the engine not have thrust reverse doors or clamshells thus saving weight.


I think that variable pitch will be the next step. But OMG can you imagine all the IFSDs and issues? I mean, Look at the PW1000G.

I'm disappointed, too, but RR is wise to take it one step at a time. I'm optimistic, though. Unlike PW, RR is not likely to forget that things expand when they get hot or fail at designing seals
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10422
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:54 am

Okcflyer wrote:
It’s my understanding that T1000/TXWB diameters are already well-optimized and there isn’t much to be gained by going to a larger diameter. Obviously the material technology already existed to make either larger if it was needed given the GE90/T800/4090 have had larger diameters for a couple decades. The re-engined A350 / 787 aren’t going to need more thrust as the fuel burn reduction will allow same range on less fuel load so MTOW don’t need increased and runway performance is already good enough.

Geared fans may need to be a couple inches larger to optimize on a slower fan speed whereas current engines give up a bit of fan effiencny to reduce size and cost of the low spool by keeping shaft speed up.

That said, I understand the current size of fan largely is centered on the SFC vs drag curve and additional increases in fan size for SFC improvement as largely offset by additional aerodynamic drag.


All true, but the gear shifts that optimum point. The gear enables you to drive a bigger bypass ratio fan with a smaller, faster running, more efficient core before the extra drag eats up all the advantage.

Matt6461 wrote:
The danger here for Airbus is that, yes, you kill the 777X but then Boeing has to respond and the 787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).
I'd rather have the smaller plane than the bigger, provided we're talking about single-deck tubes.


But they don't have a choice, do they? Either they do the Neo, and may eak out exclusivity in that thrust range, or Boeing puts it on the 787 anyways.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:53 am

morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
787MAX takes over the heart of the market in the A359 segment (787-10MAX).


That IMHO would be a revamp comparable to the 777X.
New legs, new Wing, new Engines ( do we really like the way the fuselage is done? )


That assumes a larger fan. With geared fans could you not get away with a smaller core and same size fan for higher by pass ratio?

Otherwise with a bigger fan aren't you pumping out way too much Thrust?


core size ( shrinking with temps+ and OPR+) and bypass ratio are optimax linked.
The larger fan gives you better propulsive efficiency
( at the cost of some more drag fended off with those "thin rim" nacelles.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12941
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:32 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
btw - Keesje's ecoliner is garbage.


What a sudden aggression. The Ecoliner was a nice project ages ago. I have no idea why you are suddenly so ferociously trying to downplay the concept on details, as it was hardly specified and basic specs are in line with similar aircraft. Are you fighting your own assumptions in terms of L/D etc.? Or do you have to kill a concept you basically like, but want to replace yourself? Feel free! The king is dead, long live the king? :wink2:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775819

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:33 pm

DocLightning wrote:
william wrote:
The variable pitch is what set this project apart. So its another GTF engine (soon all the three major players will have GTF engines). The variable pitch was to allow the engine not have thrust reverse doors or clamshells thus saving weight.


I think that variable pitch will be the next step. But OMG can you imagine all the IFSDs and issues? I mean, Look at the PW1000G.

I'm disappointed, too, but RR is wise to take it one step at a time. I'm optimistic, though. Unlike PW, RR is not likely to forget that things expand when they get hot or fail at designing seals


Does elimination of variable pitch from the Ultrafan make it so different from the "original" Ultrafan that we are talking about something more like the mooted RR Advance?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3068
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
btw - Keesje's ecoliner is garbage.


What a sudden aggression. The Ecoliner was a nice project ages ago. I have no idea why you are suddenly so ferociously trying to downplay the concept on details, as it was hardly specified and basic specs are in line with similar aircraft. Are you fighting your own assumptions in terms of L/D etc.? Or do you have to kill a concept you basically like, but want to replace yourself? Feel free! The king is dead, long live the king? :wink2:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775819

Image


Has it been over 10 years really since you debuted this? Wow, time flies.
.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:53 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
william wrote:
The variable pitch is what set this project apart. So its another GTF engine (soon all the three major players will have GTF engines). The variable pitch was to allow the engine not have thrust reverse doors or clamshells thus saving weight.

I think that variable pitch will be the next step. But OMG can you imagine all the IFSDs and issues? I mean, Look at the PW1000G.

I'm disappointed, too, but RR is wise to take it one step at a time. I'm optimistic, though. Unlike PW, RR is not likely to forget that things expand when they get hot or fail at designing seals

Does elimination of variable pitch from the Ultrafan make it so different from the "original" Ultrafan that we are talking about something more like the mooted RR Advance?

The Advance did not have a gear. It was a "rebalancing" of work between the spools in anticipation of the gear. It appears that circumstances did not allow for it to be offered on the market. The "big deal" about UltraFan will be the gear, the "rebalanced" core, and a CFRP fan (last I heard...). That's a lot to take on all in one shot. Seems VP was a step too far.
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
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:12 pm

keesje wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
btw - Keesje's ecoliner is garbage.


What a sudden aggression. The Ecoliner was a nice project ages ago. I have no idea why you are suddenly so ferociously trying to downplay the concept on details, as it was hardly specified and basic specs are in line with similar aircraft. Are you fighting your own assumptions in terms of L/D etc.? Or do you have to kill a concept you basically like, but want to replace yourself? Feel free! The king is dead, long live the king? :wink2:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775819

Image


Completely off topic, but I notice that lower deck 2nd door is too close to the wing to allow a jet bridge, and upper deck 1st door is over wing, making emergency chute deployment problematic. Nice picture, though.
 
User avatar
kmz
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:55 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:30 pm

Could the A350neo move be a measure to reserve capacity at RR and keep RR from offering the UltraFan to the NMA?

seabosdca wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Airframers should be building their planes to Ultrafan and its contemporaries. Instead Boeing launched the 777X with probably the last direct-drive large turbofan and seems committed to older tech on its NMA as well. I just don't get it.


RR has submitted an Ultrafan-based proposal for the 797. For all we know Boeing will surprise us and move forward with it.

Do you think it's impractical to use an Ultrafan-like engine on the 777X, beyond the issue you raised above that you wouldn't expect such a beast to be competitive with the A350?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:41 pm

keesje wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
btw - Keesje's ecoliner is garbage.


What a sudden aggression. The Ecoliner was a nice project ages ago. I have no idea why you are suddenly so ferociously trying to downplay the concept on details, as it was hardly specified and basic specs are in line with similar aircraft. Are you fighting your own assumptions in terms of L/D etc.? Or do you have to kill a concept you basically like, but want to replace yourself? Feel free! The king is dead, long live the king? :wink2:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=775819

Image


I didn't realize you'd read that Keesje or I would have been more polite.

But look: You have a nice picture but you have not a sliver of aerodynamics or even physics backing up your proposal.

In fact, as we have discussed in the past, you don't even know the basics of aerodynamics well enough to forecast a plane's performance.

As I've said in the past, however, I appreciate your design idea and the conversation it enabled. I just wish you were willing to learn a little more to give that conversation some depth.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:20 pm

morrisond wrote:
There is also nothing stopping Boeing from extending the 787 Further either.

The wing apparently is good for 280T - it would just need new Gear - Ultrafans on an 787-11 at 270-280T could be quite the plane .

Lift to drag is very important. If the wing stays the same but you stretch the fuselage, you increase the drag part of the equation.

The 787-10 has a worse lift to drag ratio than the 787-9 even though the MTOW is the same.

The 787-10 already has an average lift to drag ratio. Increasing MTOW to 270T to make a 787-10ER also increases drag. This would move the 787-10ER into underwinged territory with a low initial climb altitude.

Adding a stretch as well to make a 787-11 it would now be severely underwinged in terms of wing area. It would only be efficient on short flights which negates the MTOW bump.

The best option by far is to keep everything as it is. Fit new engines with 5% less fuel burn either by a massive PIP or a new engine around 2025. This would bump the range of the 787-10 close to the current 787-9. Boeing could then do a simple stretch to make the 787-11 keeping the same 254T MTOW and still have over 6000nm brochure range.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:35 pm

I cannot imagine a further 78X stretch ... the largest airplanes are poor selling at this point. A380, 77X, A35K, and 78X. The A359 and 789 each have more orders individually than the big 4 combined.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:11 pm

Does anyone remember how much the longer raked tips originally planned for the 787-9/-10 would have increased wing area? I can't imagine it's very much, but maybe those would be helpful in the event of a 787 MTOW increase.
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:46 pm

I could imagine that RR will develop two Ultrafan engine variants for light and heavy A350s. But that Airbus develops three A350 length variants.

This would allow four useful combinations:
-A350neo-900 with the small Ultrafan engine
-A350neo-1000Regional with the small Ultrafan engine and the light A350-900 landing gear (very efficient due to light aircraft, but only regional range, e.g. New York to Europe)
-A350neo-1000ULR with the big Ultrafan engine (capable for any direct connection around the world, without a seatcount limit - like Sydney-London)
-A350neo-1100 with the big Ultrafan engine (80m long optimized for hub based operation -> shorter flights with higher seat count)
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6428
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:27 am

JoergAtADN wrote:
I could imagine that RR will develop two Ultrafan engine variants for light and heavy A350s. But that Airbus develops three A350 length variants.

This would allow four useful combinations:
-A350neo-900 with the small Ultrafan engine
-A350neo-1000Regional with the small Ultrafan engine and the light A350-900 landing gear (very efficient due to light aircraft, but only regional range, e.g. New York to Europe)
-A350neo-1000ULR with the big Ultrafan engine (capable for any direct connection around the world, without a seatcount limit - like Sydney-London)
-A350neo-1100 with the big Ultrafan engine (80m long optimized for hub based operation -> shorter flights with higher seat count)


The -1000 Regional would be a pretty straightforward update of the 777-300A, which struggled in the marketplace. It's hard to make such big aircraft work for short flights.

I agree with the likely outcome of putting a big Ultrafan on a -1000—but I think the result is that it will get a slightly smaller one, not that it will get stretched.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:27 am

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
There is also nothing stopping Boeing from extending the 787 Further either.

The wing apparently is good for 280T - it would just need new Gear - Ultrafans on an 787-11 at 270-280T could be quite the plane .

Lift to drag is very important. If the wing stays the same but you stretch the fuselage, you increase the drag part of the equation.

The 787-10 has a worse lift to drag ratio than the 787-9 even though the MTOW is the same.
[/quote]

If you lengthen the fuselage, you do increase drag. And if the weight remains the same, you decrease lift/drag.

But the important number is actually drag per passenger. And I assume the 787-10 has a lower drag per passenger, and therefore better economics when it has sufficient range.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5926
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:32 am

Matt6461 wrote:
A350NEO, especially with a stretch, means Airbus sets the 777X expiration date prior to its EIS.
That means long-term planners may opt into the A350 family in the interim rather than ordering 777X.

Hopefully this means Boeing launches a new VLA soon.


VLAs are dead. Simple as that. The A380 proves it. The future is long ranged smaller planes. Something A321 sized that could fly the usual international routes would be perfect. Think of it, flying Los Angeles to Tokyo on a single aisle plane with 180 other people - it's the perfect solution IMO. Especially given people want more frequency.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:19 am

cpd wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
A350NEO, especially with a stretch, means Airbus sets the 777X expiration date prior to its EIS.
That means long-term planners may opt into the A350 family in the interim rather than ordering 777X.

Hopefully this means Boeing launches a new VLA soon.


VLAs are dead. Simple as that. The A380 proves it. The future is long ranged smaller planes. Something A321 sized that could fly the usual international routes would be perfect. Think of it, flying Los Angeles to Tokyo on a single aisle plane with 180 other people - it's the perfect solution IMO. Especially given people want more frequency.


The problem is airport capacity (slots), especially for a city pair like Los Angeles and Tokyo. And for a 6+ hour flight a twin-aisle is so much more convenient both for the passengers and cabin crew.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8361
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:42 am

cpd wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
A350NEO, especially with a stretch, means Airbus sets the 777X expiration date prior to its EIS.
That means long-term planners may opt into the A350 family in the interim rather than ordering 777X.

Hopefully this means Boeing launches a new VLA soon.


VLAs are dead. Simple as that. The A380 proves it. The future is long ranged smaller planes. Something A321 sized that could fly the usual international routes would be perfect. Think of it, flying Los Angeles to Tokyo on a single aisle plane with 180 other people - it's the perfect solution IMO. Especially given people want more frequency.


When fuel is cheap and the VLA is badly designed. Imagine a war with Iran or governments deciding to tax CO2 emissions from planes, suddenly the larger aircraft looks much better. The future is constantly changing. A VLA is only dead if it costs the same or even more per seat mile than the smaller plane. If it commands a clear and meaningful cost advantage it wins.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:09 am

Finn350 wrote:
cpd wrote:
VLAs are dead. Simple as that. The A380 proves it. The future is long ranged smaller planes. Something A321 sized that could fly the usual international routes would be perfect. Think of it, flying Los Angeles to Tokyo on a single aisle plane with 180 other people - it's the perfect solution IMO. Especially given people want more frequency.


The problem is airport capacity (slots), especially for a city pair like Los Angeles and Tokyo. And for a 6+ hour flight a twin-aisle is so much more convenient both for the passengers and cabin crew.

That is completely incorrect. Smaller aircraft doing point to point actually frees up slots at the big hubs.

Here is what I wrote in another thread

"I'll give you an example with numbers.

Lets say you had 2000 people per day flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, one way. 600 passengers are originating from SanFrancisco. 600 passengers arriving in Sydney then travel to Brisbane. Of the 600 passengers going to Brisbane 200 originated from SanFrancisco, 400 originated from Los Angeles. This means only 1000 of the passengers from Los Angeles actually want to go to Sydney.

Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

On the point to point model you would have three daily 335 seat aircraft travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft travelling from SanFrancisco to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft flying Los Angeles to Brisbane. Finally you have one daily 200 seat flight from SanFrancisco to Brisbane.

Sydney and Los Angeles hubs see only five landings and takeoffs with the point to point model opposed to nine with the hub and spoke model. You've just freed up four slots.

Brisbane to SanFrancisco would be considered a "point to point" route. It is made possible due to efficient medium sized aircraft like the 787."
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:47 am

seabosdca wrote:
Does anyone remember how much the longer raked tips originally planned for the 787-9/-10 would have increased wing area? I can't imagine it's very much, but maybe those would be helpful in the event of a 787 MTOW increase.


-3 53m, -8 60m -9 63m
see WP history from Dez. 2007
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ifications
Murphy is an optimist
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:39 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

Your exemplary numbers are so wrong that they dont reflect the reality. The truth is that the outbound 77W from LA is fed from a very large number of inbound LA narrowbodies (say from 30 to 60 cities in the Americas). So the share from each city is much smaller than your example suggests. So the number of cities that would just warrant an own Australia flight (long before talking about a flight to an Australian secondary city) is very small vs. the number of cities, that will always feed their Australia traffic through LA.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:13 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

Your exemplary numbers are so wrong that they dont reflect the reality. The truth is that the outbound 77W from LA is fed from a very large number of inbound LA narrowbodies (say from 30 to 60 cities in the Americas). So the share from each city is much smaller than your example suggests. So the number of cities that would just warrant an own Australia flight (long before talking about a flight to an Australian secondary city) is very small vs. the number of cities, that will always feed their Australia traffic through LA.


Sure. Now take the scenario further. Imagine hypothetical narrow body flights to Syndey from SF, PHX, SD, Oakland, and Los Vegas. And a wide body from LA -> Sydney. Whatever small town you live in, you connect to one of those cities, and then on to Sydney. Now there are fewer people and fewer flights going through LA. And San Diego -> Sydney is more than just the people for San Diego, it's also all the connecting people who chose that route. And San Diego connects to a very large number of places.
 
smartplane
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:40 pm

As Lightsaber champions, volume is king.

Unless in transition (winding down an old model family or building up a new), even WB under 10 a month is now bespoke. Better have some very special performance credentials to extract bigger margins to offset the low volume.

If the Boeing Board had their choices again, there would be no 777X, 748 or even 767 tanker, which are all low profit distractions.

Instead, the 787 would have 2x wing options, 2x undercarriage options, and an 11 and the 737 a MAX10 and even 11 would have been launched years earlier.

And here lies the challenge for the 797. The more capable the 737 and 787, the lower volume and/or lower margin and/or higher performing the 797 and 777 must be to meet the value bar, which with the 737 and 787 is increasing year on year.

Boeing has the same dilemma as at Airbus. They haven't got the 'balls' (and who would blame them), to announce a 737/A320 replacement, which would cause a hiatus (sales and margins) on the outgoing models.

In future, much more comfortable to the respective Board's to attach new engine technology to improved air frames.

So if it's all about the engines................ Here's another dilemma. Just like the air frame OEM's, engine OEM's want volume. They want their technology replicated on as many air frames as possible.

But given the issues experienced recently by PW and RR, and lesser extent GE, is there more money (and less risk) to be made building and maintaining engines, or by licencing the technology and collecting royalties? Those engine Board's are increasingly focused on the latter.

Boeing has already realised the value of brand and mass assembly. Airbus lags. Next logical step is surely adding engine brands to the respective portfolios, together with scaling volumes.

Perhaps the flow of expertise headhunted from vehicle OEM's to aircraft OEM's in the last couple of years is a pointer to the future.

As for ultrafan on the A350 within 6 years? If RR becomes part of Airbus, maybe. If RR remains standalone, more likely to appear on the 787 first, unless Boeing acquires GE, in which RR licences to GE.
 
ewt340
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:31 pm

JoergAtADN wrote:
I could imagine that RR will develop two Ultrafan engine variants for light and heavy A350s. But that Airbus develops three A350 length variants.

This would allow four useful combinations:
-A350neo-900 with the small Ultrafan engine
-A350neo-1000Regional with the small Ultrafan engine and the light A350-900 landing gear (very efficient due to light aircraft, but only regional range, e.g. New York to Europe)
-A350neo-1000ULR with the big Ultrafan engine (capable for any direct connection around the world, without a seatcount limit - like Sydney-London)
-A350neo-1100 with the big Ultrafan engine (80m long optimized for hub based operation -> shorter flights with higher seat count)


A350-1000neo Regional wouldn't sell that well. Just like B777-300.
A350-1000neoLR wouldn't sell well either, because the basic A350-1000 already have massive range. All Airbus could do to this aircraft now is to increase the MTOW slightly.

A350-2000 (whatever we want to call it) shouldn't and wouldn't be stretched to 80m. It would likely to be stretched by 150" (or 6 frames) to 77.59m in length. We know this from previous comments by Airbus regarding the stretched design. They want to keep the configurations within the exit limit of four door pairs. They would also increase the overall MTOW to around 319t. This way, they could get a range of 7,600nm which is around the same as B777-9X and B787-9.

And I do believe there's rules on how the maximum distance between doors on aircraft fuselage is around 60 ft or 720 inch. Otherwise you need to add more doors in between or overwing exits, like A320 or B737.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:45 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Your exemplary numbers are so wrong that they dont reflect the reality.
Damn, kitplane01 and yourself completely missed the point.

Did you honestly expect me to break traffic into 20 cities/townd at each end. People do not want to read a thesis.

If a 30 people took a turboprop from Sydney to the outback, I have excluded them for obvious reasons.

But the slots still reduce at the hubs. The small feeder routes that were flowing into both Los Angeles and Sydney can now flow traffic into Brisbane and San Francisco.
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:07 pm

Hello ewt340,
ewt340 wrote:
A350-1000neo Regional wouldn't sell that well. Just like B777-300.

The difference is, that the very latest engine generation would be used, in a configuration optimized for the needed MTOW.
ewt340 wrote:
A350-1000neoLR wouldn't sell well either, because the basic A350-1000 already have massive range. All Airbus could do to this aircraft now is to increase the MTOW slightly.

For New Zealand / Australia to Europe / North America, it is not enough. The light A350 would beat all competition on this distance with such an engine.

ewt340 wrote:
And I do believe there's rules on how the maximum distance between doors on aircraft fuselage is around 60 ft or 720 inch. Otherwise you need to add more doors in between or overwing exits, like A320 or B737.

But afaik, it's allowed to place galleys, toilets and stairs before the first or behind the last door. A long range aircraft needs a lot of galley space, better to free the space in the middle of the fuselage for seats and put the galleys at the ends.

Jörg
 
ewt340
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:21 pm

JoergAtADN wrote:
Hello ewt340,
ewt340 wrote:
A350-1000neo Regional wouldn't sell that well. Just like B777-300.

The difference is, that the very latest engine generation would be used, in a configuration optimized for the needed MTOW.
ewt340 wrote:
A350-1000neoLR wouldn't sell well either, because the basic A350-1000 already have massive range. All Airbus could do to this aircraft now is to increase the MTOW slightly.

For New Zealand / Australia to Europe / North America, it is not enough. The light A350 would beat all competition on this distance with such an engine.

ewt340 wrote:
And I do believe there's rules on how the maximum distance between doors on aircraft fuselage is around 60 ft or 720 inch. Otherwise you need to add more doors in between or overwing exits, like A320 or B737.

But afaik, it's allowed to place galleys, toilets and stairs before the first or behind the last door. A long range aircraft needs a lot of galley space, better to free the space in the middle of the fuselage for seats and put the galleys at the ends.

Jörg


B777-300 only sold around 60 aircraft. Many airlines prefered the variants with the longer range because they could use it for long-haul flights and if there's few hours left, they could deployed it in short domestic routes. It's to maximize the utilization of the aircraft. That's why sometimes you see B777 or A380 on short domestic/regional flights sometimes.

New-Zealand to Europe is extremely Far. There wouldn't be any direct flight there. It would be too unbearable for passengers. Qantas, already uses B787-9 from Perth to London. They won't be able to fill 300 seater either for such long flights. 250-280 A350-900ULR would work better for non-stop flights between SYD/MEL-LHR. And even if they would do -1000LR, only few airlines would ordered it, it's gonna be a failure fro Airbus because the amount of money they need developed the LR would be too expensive compared to the final profit they gonna get from the sales of the LR version alone.

They could put those galleys and toilets BUT, stretching the aircraft to exactly 80 meters would be a challenge for them. They could put those toilets and galleys into the cargo areas like LH's A340-600. Especially since they wouldn't be able to filled most of the ULD with revenue cargo on long-flights.
What they need to do with A350-2000 is to make sure that it got enough range and extremely low fuel consumptions. Not stretching it too much.

Funny thing is that A350-1000 could carry extra 18-21 passengers if they moved most of their lavatories and small amount of galleys into the cargo areas.
 
moa999
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:38 am

Think Qantas has already told Airbus that the 900ULR doesn't work for them and want something bigger.

Hence the Sunrise comp is between the 9X and what I assume will be called the 1000ULR

2025/26 delivery of a neo may help the 1000ULR argument. Take it now (or for 2022 delivery) and them shift it to the 333 routes when you start getting 350neos which will presumably be better suited to the Sunrise objectives
 
ewt340
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:57 am

moa999 wrote:
Think Qantas has already told Airbus that the 900ULR doesn't work for them and want something bigger.

Hence the Sunrise comp is between the 9X and what I assume will be called the 1000ULR

2025/26 delivery of a neo may help the 1000ULR argument. Take it now (or for 2022 delivery) and them shift it to the 333 routes when you start getting 350neos which will presumably be better suited to the Sunrise objectives


Actually, Alan Joyce dial back on that. I don't think the capability for 300 passengers in 4 class configurations would work. Probably gonna be on 260-280 at max.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-dials-back-project-sunrise-expectations?fbclid=IwAR1QKc2KcnoId4gMG10jbonqTPPTNaME9qCk-QsyYRbrfLJ13l6BrO5cc94
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:53 am

RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Your exemplary numbers are so wrong that they dont reflect the reality.
Damn, kitplane01 and yourself completely missed the point.

No. Your skewed numbers suggest that a San Francisco - Brisbane flight would be possible and contribute to less slots in LA and Sydney. But as the share of pax from San Francisco in the today LA outbound flight is much smaller than you suggest (for the reasons I explained), there will be no San Francisco - Brisbane flight anytime soon.

Lets make some more realistic numbers (at least getting right the magnitude of order):

The today outbound LA flights to Sidney carry Pax from easily 50 or so inbound flights (= slots). Of these 50 feeder destinations a shift to more point-to-point would mean, that maybe 5 of them could become candidates to get an own new Australia flight (if they dont have one already) sometimes in the future.

But 1.) these 5 we would find almost certainly to be somewhat slot constrained hubs too.

And 2.) until the new routes will be established and PAX from these 5 cities transfer less through LA, the inbound LA pax volume will have increased anyway (by new routes and more frequency and larger planes) so that the today flights from LA to Australia will remain and stay "well-fed".

And 3.) long before these 5 ex Australia feeder cities would get multiple Australia flights, they would just get a single Sidney flight, which would make the new flight a point-to-hub-flight (including one slot less in Sidney!). Smaller cities than LA, than can hope to get an Australia flight due to the whole point-to-point-idea in the future would connect to Sidney, so from Sidneys perspective every added "point-to-point" flight from the US would cost one slot more. Australian secondary cities, adding "point-to-point" flights to the US, would connect to LA, wouldn't they? So increased slot pressure on both sides when implementing the "point-to-point"-idea.

Why is that?
Because the assumption, that "point-to-point" would actually happen as the name suggests (really connections between secondary cities on both ends) and thus would reduce slots at the hubs is wrong. First because in the pure sense e.g. not 1% of the 787 routes are "point-to-point" routes. There might be a larger percentage of new point-to-hub relations, but as I said, these add and not reduce the pressure on slot availability on the hub´s side.

B.t.w. can't you discuss without swearwords?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
2175301
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:45 am

While I do see newer engines being retrofitted onto existing platforms... with perhaps minor stretches. I'm not sure you are going to see a lot more money invested in the 777X or the larger A350 concept aircraft; because, I don't think the market is large enough to achieve payback and profit on larger aircraft.

I believe that newer engines retrofitted on the next size smaller aircraft (787, etc), perhaps wish a minor stretch, will grab a lot of market that the A350/B777 have.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12200
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:48 am

JoergAtADN wrote:
The difference is, that the very latest engine generation would be used, in a configuration optimized for the needed MTOW.

....that was the case back then too.
The Trent892 was "the very latest engine generation," and it still didn't do much for that configuration.

There's very limited demand for a 350seater+ on shorthaul/mediumhaul routes; and the market has long shown that that demand is typically best met by "abusing" a longer range model with far more flexibility, than buying something of that size with such a niche limitation.

The Japanese regional market is all that that would work in, and even it has shown its limits (e.g. 783)
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:13 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Your exemplary numbers are so wrong that they dont reflect the reality.
Damn, kitplane01 and yourself completely missed the point.

No. Your skewed numbers suggest that a San Francisco - Brisbane flight would be possible and contribute to less slots in LA and Sydney. But as the share of pax from San Francisco in the today LA outbound flight is much smaller than you suggest (for the reasons I explained), there will be no San Francisco - Brisbane flight anytime soon.

Lets make some more realistic numbers (at least getting right the magnitude of order):

The today outbound LA flights to Sidney carry Pax from easily 50 or so inbound flights (= slots). Of these 50 feeder destinations a shift to more point-to-point would mean, that maybe 5 of them could become candidates to get an own new Australia flight (if they dont have one already) sometimes in the future.

But 1.) these 5 we would find almost certainly to be somewhat slot constrained hubs too.

And 2.) until the new routes will be established and PAX from these 5 cities transfer less through LA, the inbound LA pax volume will have increased anyway (by new routes and more frequency and larger planes) so that the today flights from LA to Australia will remain and stay "well-fed".

And 3.) long before these 5 ex Australia feeder cities would get multiple Australia flights, they would just get a single Sidney flight, which would make the new flight a point-to-hub-flight (including one slot less in Sidney!). Smaller cities than LA, than can hope to get an Australia flight due to the whole point-to-point-idea in the future would connect to Sidney, so from Sidneys perspective every added "point-to-point" flight from the US would cost one slot more. Australian secondary cities, adding "point-to-point" flights to the US, would connect to LA, wouldn't they? So increased slot pressure on both sides when implementing the "point-to-point"-idea.

Why is that?
Because the assumption, that "point-to-point" would actually happen as the name suggests (really connections between secondary cities on both ends) and thus would reduce slots at the hubs is wrong. First because in the pure sense e.g. not 1% of the 787 routes are "point-to-point" routes. There might be a larger percentage of new point-to-hub relations, but as I said, these add and not reduce the pressure on slot availability on the hub´s side.

B.t.w. can't you discuss without swearwords?


I think RJMAZs point is valid and it feels very much like you are using strategem 25 in order to win the point rather than understand the arguments being set forth, the major point being that a smaller long range jet can be used to effectively change the market dynamics away from the super hub system to a more dynamic second tier hub system. This has been occurring in many transport and logistic systems for a long time trying to minimise fuel use and time in motion as well as network increases. The principles work (See:EK @DXB) and to argue specific numbers against the general point is silly.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12941
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:45 am

.

Scott believes the likelyhood of a stretch grew.

The prospect of a new, Rolls-Royce Ultra Fan engine for the A350 around 2025 will give the -2000 significantly superior economics to the 777-9 and a longer range, a preliminary analysis by LNA shows.


https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/18/a380-end-opens-opportunity-for-a350-2000/

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airbus A350 to have RR Ultrafan Engines from ~2025, Ostrower

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:57 am

flipdewaf wrote:
...you are using strategem 25 in order to win the point

No idea how that is related to what I wrote.

Also, please notice that the discussed topic is alleged slot reduction due to "point-to-point", and not "point-to-point" market dynamics in itself.

flipdewaf wrote:
the major point being that a smaller long range jet can be used to effectively change the market dynamics away from the super hub system to a more dynamic second tier hub system. This has been occurring in many transport and logistic systems for a long time trying to minimise fuel use and time in motion as well as network increases.

Smaller long range jets exist since the nineties and for TATL ranges since the eighties. Tell me which super hub saw less market dynamic since then? Back up your claim with just one ICAO code of a hub.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

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