Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:01 am

scbriml wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
one factor will be prominent, Just how fuel efficient will the Rolls Royce engines Be as compared to the GE engines on the 777-8 and -9??
Has Rolls overcome their troubles?


You say this as though GE doesn't have problems of their own.


Yes, like an alleged $38bn accounting fraud https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712245.cms The guy who wrote the report is the same guy who was first onto Enron and Bernie Madoff fraud scams so grab some popcorn.

"In fact, GE's $38 billion in accounting fraud amounts to over 40 per cent of GE's market capitalisation, making it far more serious than either the Enron or WorldCom accounting frauds," said the report.

GE denied the charge saying the 175-page report contained false statements.



To investigate GE's fraud [sic] Markopolos team went out and located the eight largest Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance deals that GE is a counterparty to, accounting for approximately 95 per cent or more of GE's exposure.

Either these eight insurance companies filed false statutory financial statements with their regulators or GE's financial statements are false, alleged the report.

The investigator said he got access to these eight insurers' statutory financial statements filed with the relevant state insurance commissions.

"What they revealed was that GE was hiding massive loss ratios, the highest-ever seen in the LTC insurance industry, along with exponentially increasing dollar losses being absorbed by GE," said the report.

BV
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:29 am

BoeingVista wrote:
scbriml wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
one factor will be prominent, Just how fuel efficient will the Rolls Royce engines Be as compared to the GE engines on the 777-8 and -9??
Has Rolls overcome their troubles?


You say this as though GE doesn't have problems of their own.


Yes, like an alleged $38bn accounting fraud https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712245.cms The guy who wrote the report is the same guy who was first onto Enron and Bernie Madoff fraud scams so grab some popcorn.

"In fact, GE's $38 billion in accounting fraud amounts to over 40 per cent of GE's market capitalisation, making it far more serious than either the Enron or WorldCom accounting frauds," said the report.

GE denied the charge saying the 175-page report contained false statements.



To investigate GE's fraud [sic] Markopolos team went out and located the eight largest Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance deals that GE is a counterparty to, accounting for approximately 95 per cent or more of GE's exposure.

Either these eight insurance companies filed false statutory financial statements with their regulators or GE's financial statements are false, alleged the report.

The investigator said he got access to these eight insurers' statutory financial statements filed with the relevant state insurance commissions.

"What they revealed was that GE was hiding massive loss ratios, the highest-ever seen in the LTC insurance industry, along with exponentially increasing dollar losses being absorbed by GE," said the report.



It's an interesting story. Not due to the engine arm of the company but the Insurance business. Will see how the story pans out as more details are revealed. Could all be a beat up.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:51 am

mutu wrote:
Prost wrote:
Does BA have any interest in operating nonstop to Australia? This would be a good plane for that.

Theoretically yes. It might capture back some of the 1stop premium traffic using the many eastbound alternatives that have eaten in to the UK Aus market.

But would it be viable? The daily LHR SIN SYD flight sees a reasonable amount of traffic as either local LHR SIN or SIN SYD in addition to the uk aus traffic. Which probably keeps that rotation in the profit side of the page.

But looking at an ADL or BNE non stop might be likely subject to the economics of the proposed ULR frame.

Of course also depends how bold QF Re with Sunrise. If they cover all.bases non stop to LHR then maybe not enough market


Interesting....Will this be a new air frame all together - but if it will be released before the 778- then i doubt
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:54 am

RickNRoll wrote:

It's an interesting story. Not due to the engine arm of the company but the Insurance business. Will see how the story pans out as more details are revealed. Could all be a beat up.


With this guys track record I don't see him making it up out of whole cloth, there is something there. My first degree is accounting and in forensic accounting looking how various linked entities report the same item to their regulators / shareholders is a pretty standard way to go looking for smoke..
BV
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:43 am

Stitch wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
The 777x is being sustained by one airline.


Except it really isn't. Emirates may currently have the bulk of frames on order with Qatar well behind, but you also have five other airlines in Europe and Asia that each have ~20 each on order, which is a decent size fleet and a UFO (probably Chinese) that has 10. And if they are Chinese, they are probably going to take more than 10, overall. And we're still early in the 777-300ER replacement phase, which will mean many more RFPs between the A350-1000 and 777-9 down the road. So I feel it is premature to write off (actually or rhetorically) the 777-9 at this point.



That sounds an awful lot like someone wroteon anet a few years ago about the A380 :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:02 pm

Stitch wrote:
Lastly, that leaves us British Airways. They were late to the 777-300ER party and have on a number of occasions noted how it was a mistake waiting as long as they did to add the type. With a large fleet of 747-400 needing replacement, the 777-9 gives them a frame with the capacity they need and better comfort.

Looking at BA's large twin aircraft seating 275 and above (via wiki) it does seem to me that BA is using A350-1000 for more economy heavy roles, closely approximating its highest density 77E configuration which also has no F, whereas 779 seems to be slotted in for the more premium heavy roles closer to 744 and 77W:

                     F    J    W    Y   Sum

Airbus A350-1000     -   56   56  219   331         

Boeing 777-200ER     —   48   24  203   275
Boeing 777-200ER     —   32   52  252   336

Boeing 777-300ER    14   56   44  185   299

Boeing 747-400      14   86   30  145   275
Boeing 747-400      14   52   36  235   337

Boeing 777-9         8   65   46  206   325

--
InsideMan wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Except it really isn't. Emirates may currently have the bulk of frames on order with Qatar well behind, but you also have five other airlines in Europe and Asia that each have ~20 each on order, which is a decent size fleet and a UFO (probably Chinese) that has 10. And if they are Chinese, they are probably going to take more than 10, overall. And we're still early in the 777-300ER replacement phase, which will mean many more RFPs between the A350-1000 and 777-9 down the road. So I feel it is premature to write off (actually or rhetorically) the 777-9 at this point.

That sounds an awful lot like someone wrote on anet a few years ago about the A380

The thing is when a380 entered service the worlds airlines were gambling they could find roles for a 525 seater, and largely they did not. As above we see many of the world's blue chip airlines are finding roles for planes in the 779's size class. Keep in mind as big as the 779 is, the A380 is around one third bigger, and the A380 was an expensive clean sheet whereas the 779 is a less expensive upgrade of 77W, so the analogy isn't all that appropriate.
Last edited by Revelation on Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Looking at BA's aircraft seating 275 and above (via wiki) it does seem to me that BA is using A350-1000 for more economy heavy roles, closely approximating its highest density 77E configuration which also has no F, whereas 779 seems to be slotted in for the more premium heavy roles closer to 744 and 77W:



From another thread it was noted (I think) that a 2nd batch of -1000's would be getting a more premium heavy interior.
BV
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:39 pm

Boeing may need to cede the upper market to Airbus for a while, much as Boeing owned that market with the 747 for decades then the 77W. Boeing should concentrate on getting the MAX airworthy and delivered, then work on a clean sheet to replace it along with MoM. Maybe tie both programs together like the 757/767. Then worry about tackling the upper end. The 777-8 seems too heavy to compete for the A35K, and jury is out on the 777-9 performance just yet.
Zac
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:10 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
From another thread it was noted (I think) that a 2nd batch of -1000's would be getting a more premium heavy interior.

Could be, but all the sources I've checked just say one order of 18 has been placed.

It's hard to see that get split into sub-fleets and the A350 backlog is deep so new frames won't come quickly, so it'll probably be a while before the picture becomes clearer.
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
From another thread it was noted (I think) that a 2nd batch of -1000's would be getting a more premium heavy interior.

Could be, but all the sources I've checked just say one order of 18 has been placed.

It's hard to see that get split into sub-fleets and the A350 backlog is deep so new frames won't come quickly, so it'll probably be a while before the picture becomes clearer.

Yes this current batch of 18 are not premium heavy. There will likely be more A350s coming in seeing as there 36 options for the product. They may come premium heavy. Alex has said if the A350 performs well they will certainly look to take on more
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:44 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Yes this current batch of 18 are not premium heavy. There will likely be more A350s coming in seeing as there 36 options for the product. They may come premium heavy. Alex has said if the A350 performs well they will certainly look to take on more

Yes, A350 has a big role in the future BA and IAG fleets and could very well be more premium, but as you see BA has 77Es that are more premium too, while 744 and 77W had a role in the fleet at the same time with a heavy premium load.

The point being made is that the success of the A350 is not pushing 779 out of fleets, in fact LH and BA have both added 779 in recent times while already having A350 on order or in operation, which is a good indicator that blue chip airlines see roles for both going forward.

To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?
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
 
mig17
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
LH and BA have both added 779 in recent times while already having A350 on order or in operation, ...

When have LH confirmed the 14 last 777-9 of the 34 order? I am not finding the announcement.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Yes this current batch of 18 are not premium heavy. There will likely be more A350s coming in seeing as there 36 options for the product. They may come premium heavy. Alex has said if the A350 performs well they will certainly look to take on more

Yes, A350 has a big role in the future BA and IAG fleets and could very well be more premium, but as you see BA has 77Es that are more premium too, while 744 and 77W had a role in the fleet at the same time with a heavy premium load.

The point being made is that the success of the A350 is not pushing 779 out of fleets, in fact LH and BA have both added 779 in recent times while already having A350 on order or in operation, which is a good indicator that blue chip airlines see roles for both going forward.

To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


LH 779s will not feature First Class too.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
I would add 797 to the list for medium haul and domestic.


except that it doesn't yet exist.
learning never stops.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13276
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:19 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
From another thread it was noted (I think) that a 2nd batch of -1000's would be getting a more premium heavy interior.

Could be, but all the sources I've checked just say one order of 18 has been placed.

It's hard to see that get split into sub-fleets and the A350 backlog is deep so new frames won't come quickly, so it'll probably be a while before the picture becomes clearer.

Yes this current batch of 18 are not premium heavy. There will likely be more A350s coming in seeing as there 36 options for the product. They may come premium heavy. Alex has said if the A350 performs well they will certainly look to take on more


They have no first class, but they are certainly not light on better seats, having 112 of those. That's more than the 77E and one 744 configurations and not that far off in total premium seating from the rest (+2, +7) aside of the other 744 config.

Other than not having first, in terms of premium seating per m2 cabin floor space they exceed or are equivalent to all but the most Premium heavy 744. Even the 167 premium seat A388.

I think "without Frist class" is a better term than "not premium heavy".

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:16 pm

DCA350 wrote:


If you can Ultrafan an A350-1000, you can Ultrafan a 777-9 and the 777-9 will be able to take a larger Ultrafan and as we know from the 737MAX / A320neo "technical discussions", fan size is not just everything, it is the only thing. :rotfl: :silly:[/quote]

True but they are basically even now with the 777-9 having more modern engine tech. Once the engines are at parity the 777-9 will only have capacity as an advantage. We see how well that worked out for the A380 vs the 777W.[/quote]

A380 to 77W in similar configs have about a 150 seat difference.... the 779 to 35J would be 40 to 60 seats, not sure what you're trying to compare from a capacity POV...
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19123
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


Unless BA wants to start non-stops to Australia & possibly New Zealand, I don't see any requirement for ULR-specific frames in their fleet, given their current route network. IIRC, their longest flights are around 13 hours from Heathrow to Buenos Aires and Santiago.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Opus99
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:59 pm

Hmm. I think airbus not just offering the ULR as an ultra range aircraft. But as their new flagship? Given that their offering it as an a380 replacement as well (reportedly) Thoughts?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:15 pm

GE had an amazing LTC care policy, I am thrilled to still have one (now under different company but same terms). My wife died in 2014 after 6 months on LTC, this wonderful policy gives me 7 years of LTC for me, a clause in the policy is that once one of the couple collects benefits, the premiums are automatically covered for the 2nd. So I have not paid any premiums for 5 years but still have 7 years of coverage at $ 6K per month. GE stopped selling this policy about a year after we purchased, because the benefits way exceeded the premiums. My only concern is will the succeeding company go BK before I need the policy.



BoeingVista wrote:
scbriml wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
one factor will be prominent, Just how fuel efficient will the Rolls Royce engines Be as compared to the GE engines on the 777-8 and -9??
Has Rolls overcome their troubles?


You say this as though GE doesn't have problems of their own.


Yes, like an alleged $38bn accounting fraud https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712245.cms The guy who wrote the report is the same guy who was first onto Enron and Bernie Madoff fraud scams so grab some popcorn.

"In fact, GE's $38 billion in accounting fraud amounts to over 40 per cent of GE's market capitalisation, making it far more serious than either the Enron or WorldCom accounting frauds," said the report.

GE denied the charge saying the 175-page report contained false statements.




To investigate GE's fraud [sic] Markopolos team went out and located the eight largest Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance deals that GE is a counterparty to, accounting for approximately 95 per cent or more of GE's exposure.

Either these eight insurance companies filed false statutory financial statements with their regulators or GE's financial statements are false, alleged the report.

The investigator said he got access to these eight insurers' statutory financial statements filed with the relevant state insurance commissions.

"What they revealed was that GE was hiding massive loss ratios, the highest-ever seen in the LTC insurance industry, along with exponentially increasing dollar losses being absorbed by GE," said the report.

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:27 pm

waly777 wrote:
If you can Ultrafan an A350-1000, you can Ultrafan a 777-9


To the best of my knowledge that is not true from a contractual standpoint. As far as I am aware Boeing and GE are on a sole supplier arrangement for the 777-X engine.

Opus99 wrote:
Hmm. I think airbus not just offering the ULR as an ultra range aircraft. But as their new flagship? Given that their offering it as an a380 replacement as well (reportedly) Thoughts?


With the announcement of the A380 stopping production I am hearing that a longer A350 is being worked on.

I would suggest such an aircraft will possibly be of interest to some 777-X customers, especially those who had A380 deposits.

The ULR comes as a by product of this work.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Breathe
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:48 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
scbriml wrote:

You say this as though GE doesn't have problems of their own.


Yes, like an alleged $38bn accounting fraud https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712245.cms The guy who wrote the report is the same guy who was first onto Enron and Bernie Madoff fraud scams so grab some popcorn.

"In fact, GE's $38 billion in accounting fraud amounts to over 40 per cent of GE's market capitalisation, making it far more serious than either the Enron or WorldCom accounting frauds," said the report.

GE denied the charge saying the 175-page report contained false statements.



To investigate GE's fraud [sic] Markopolos team went out and located the eight largest Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance deals that GE is a counterparty to, accounting for approximately 95 per cent or more of GE's exposure.

Either these eight insurance companies filed false statutory financial statements with their regulators or GE's financial statements are false, alleged the report.

The investigator said he got access to these eight insurers' statutory financial statements filed with the relevant state insurance commissions.

"What they revealed was that GE was hiding massive loss ratios, the highest-ever seen in the LTC insurance industry, along with exponentially increasing dollar losses being absorbed by GE," said the report.



It's an interesting story. Not due to the engine arm of the company but the Insurance business. Will see how the story pans out as more details are revealed. Could all be a beat up.

Apologies for going a bit of topic, the guy who's making all the noise (Harry Markopolos) was the person who basically blew thelid on Bernard Madoff.

He's done a few interviews and suggests that GE could end up in bankruptcy in there's a recession.

Regardless of his prophecy, it looks like GE are in a lot worse trouble that most people previously thought.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:49 pm

Breathe wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:

Yes, like an alleged $38bn accounting fraud https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 712245.cms The guy who wrote the report is the same guy who was first onto Enron and Bernie Madoff fraud scams so grab some popcorn.





It's an interesting story. Not due to the engine arm of the company but the Insurance business. Will see how the story pans out as more details are revealed. Could all be a beat up.

Apologies for going a bit of topic, the guy who's making all the noise (Harry Markopolos) was the person who basically blew thelid on Bernard Madoff.

He's done a few interviews and suggests that GE could end up in bankruptcy in there's a recession.

Regardless of his prophecy, it looks like GE are in a lot worse trouble that most people previously thought.


GE's problems stem from its conversion (like a lot of companies) into a financial company that had legacy industrial business, as opposed to engine sales issues
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Lastly, that leaves us British Airways. They were late to the 777-300ER party and have on a number of occasions noted how it was a mistake waiting as long as they did to add the type. With a large fleet of 747-400 needing replacement, the 777-9 gives them a frame with the capacity they need and better comfort.

Looking at BA's large twin aircraft seating 275 and above (via wiki) it does seem to me that BA is using A350-1000 for more economy heavy roles, closely approximating its highest density 77E configuration which also has no F, whereas 779 seems to be slotted in for the more premium heavy roles closer to 744 and 77W:

                     F    J    W    Y   Sum

Airbus A350-1000     -   56   56  219   331         

Boeing 777-200ER     —   48   24  203   275
Boeing 777-200ER     —   32   52  252   336

Boeing 777-300ER    14   56   44  185   299

Boeing 747-400      14   86   30  145   275
Boeing 747-400      14   52   36  235   337

Boeing 777-9         8   65   46  206   325

--
InsideMan wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Except it really isn't. Emirates may currently have the bulk of frames on order with Qatar well behind, but you also have five other airlines in Europe and Asia that each have ~20 each on order, which is a decent size fleet and a UFO (probably Chinese) that has 10. And if they are Chinese, they are probably going to take more than 10, overall. And we're still early in the 777-300ER replacement phase, which will mean many more RFPs between the A350-1000 and 777-9 down the road. So I feel it is premature to write off (actually or rhetorically) the 777-9 at this point.

That sounds an awful lot like someone wrote on anet a few years ago about the A380

The thing is when a380 entered service the worlds airlines were gambling they could find roles for a 525 seater, and largely they did not. As above we see many of the world's blue chip airlines are finding roles for planes in the 779's size class. Keep in mind as big as the 779 is, the A380 is around one third bigger, and the A380 was an expensive clean sheet whereas the 779 is a less expensive upgrade of 77W, so the analogy isn't all that appropriate.


The 332 seat 772ERs are the Gatwick fleet, they fly mostly to leisure destinations and have recently had 16 J seats removed, 24 W added and went from 9 to 10 across in Y which added 30ish seats there. These are not getting the new J seat.

I think the A350-1000s, will mostly (with a lot of fleet shuffling) actually replace the 337 seat 747s, these often operate with 'F as J' where F is not sold, but if J is full top tier frequent flyers are sat in there, still with J standard catering. J seat counts might drop on the other types as the new 'club suite' launching with the A350 rolls out across the fleet.

In terms of BA and a A350ULR, I don't see them buying a subfleet, LHR is worth more to Qantas than SYD is to British Airways. However, if in 2025 an Ultrafan powered A350-1000, with the standard seating config can fly SYD-LHR, possibly with a few blocked seats down the back, that might be an option.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
I'm quite skeptical about the prospects of an A350-1200 / A350-2000.

Such a frame would probably need to be close to 80 meters, and I wonder what modifications will need to be made to support rotation clearance at that length. Going to Type A+ doors will raise the exit limit from 440 to 480, which will probably be enough to cover the extra cabin area so they are saved from having to add overwing exits, which would have raised the engineering costs.

There would also be Time to Market and frame availability issues coming in behind the 777-9. As for the 777-9, much has been said about how that frame was optimized for the ME3 and Emirates especially, and it's not wrong. However, the frame is now appealing to other airlines - airlines that already have the A350-1000 in their fleet or on order. So airline fleet planners outside of the ME3 are seeing an advantage from the 777-9.

Zeke has stated pretty clearly that there is no current 777-300ER mission in the Cathay Pacific network that the A350-1000 cannot do with equal or better loads and at much lower operating costs. Cathay is now moving their 777-300ER fleet from 9-abreast to 10-abreast and two of the main reasons I think an airline would do that is to 1) reduce CASM (more seats lowers the trip costs per seat) and 2) increase RASM (since the extra seats add little to the overall trip cost, their incremental revenue even at low fare buckets should more than cover those costs).

zeke has also noted that one of the factors that favored the A350-900 over the 787-9 in their RFP was that the A350-900 offered a common Economy seat across the widebody fleet. A customer connecting from an A330-300 to an A350-900 or 777-300(ER) would have the exact same seat whereas if they connected to a 787-9, they would have a different seat. With Cathay now going 10-abreast on the 777-300(ER), those customers will now experience a different seat. If Boeing's claims are true, the 777-9 would have the same physical seat as the A330-300 and A350-900/1000 fleet so Cathay could return to a common Economy seat experience for their customers as the 777-300(ER) fleet is retired.

Next, let us look at Lufthansa. Here, the A340-600 fleet could easily be covered by the A350-1000 and the 747-400 fleet could (and likely originally would) have been replaced with the 747-8. Looking at their cabin reconfiguration, I am guessing the 747-400 fleet is now being employed on leisure routes with low(er) premium cabin demand so the 777-9's much lower operating costs would be an important factor and the frame is large enough to meet the large Economy Class cabin requirements.

Just looking at the fleet numbers, one could argue Singapore Airlines has chosen the 777-9 as their 777-300ER replacement, though the A350-1000 should arguably work as well for them in that role as it does for Cathay. Perhaps Singapore is also seeing the benefits of going to 10-abreast on the 777-300ER as Cathay has (?), yet would prefer to just go direct to the 777-9 with a common seat as their A330-300, A350-900 and A380-800 fleets. And of course, there is nothing preventing Singapore from eventually adding the A350-1000 to their fleet.

Lastly, that leaves us British Airways. They were late to the 777-300ER party and have on a number of occasions noted how it was a mistake waiting as long as they did to add the type. With a large fleet of 747-400 needing replacement, the 777-9 gives them a frame with the capacity they need and better comfort.

So will any or all of these airlines wait another 5-10 years (between development, certification and production slot availability) for an A350-1200/A350-2000 when they could have the 777-9 during that time earning them money and lowering their costs?

I am inclined to believe the answer is "no".


That's not true. They don't need to stretch the aircraft too much.

- They could easily put 2 extra frames in both the middle fuselage and the rear fuselage. Which resulted in 100" stretch over A350-1000. It would bring the length of aircraft to 76.33m, which is still shorter than B777-9.
- By reducing the seat pitch to 31" which is currently the standard in many airlines. The 4 extra frames and pitch reduction would resulted in 4 extra row of seats in economy class cabin which would bring the capacity to 351 economy class seats.
- This would bring the capacity closer to B777-9.

Again, Airbus already stated before that the stretch wouldn't required extra doors at all, because the stretch would still be under the limit of 720" between doors.

The seat width on B777X would be the same as in A350. Which is 18" seat width with 1.5" arm rest and 17.25" aisle width. A330 able to accommodate 18" seat width 2" arm rest and 19" aisle width.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:02 am

I would imagine that any stretch of the A350-1000 will only come when the Neo is announced - that means 2025 or later EIS. Development and flight tests will take time and it is best that Airbus used this time (waiting for RR's UltraFan to be ready) wisely and developed the stretch carefully. I wonder what is the design limit of the A350-1000 landing gear? If it cannot take heavier weights, the capability of any stretch will be restricted.
 
Opus99
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:43 am

Turnhouse1 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Lastly, that leaves us British Airways. They were late to the 777-300ER party and have on a number of occasions noted how it was a mistake waiting as long as they did to add the type. With a large fleet of 747-400 needing replacement, the 777-9 gives them a frame with the capacity they need and better comfort.

Looking at BA's large twin aircraft seating 275 and above (via wiki) it does seem to me that BA is using A350-1000 for more economy heavy roles, closely approximating its highest density 77E configuration which also has no F, whereas 779 seems to be slotted in for the more premium heavy roles closer to 744 and 77W:

                     F    J    W    Y   Sum

Airbus A350-1000     -   56   56  219   331         

Boeing 777-200ER     —   48   24  203   275
Boeing 777-200ER     —   32   52  252   336

Boeing 777-300ER    14   56   44  185   299

Boeing 747-400      14   86   30  145   275
Boeing 747-400      14   52   36  235   337

Boeing 777-9         8   65   46  206   325

--
InsideMan wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like someone wrote on anet a few years ago about the A380

The thing is when a380 entered service the worlds airlines were gambling they could find roles for a 525 seater, and largely they did not. As above we see many of the world's blue chip airlines are finding roles for planes in the 779's size class. Keep in mind as big as the 779 is, the A380 is around one third bigger, and the A380 was an expensive clean sheet whereas the 779 is a less expensive upgrade of 77W, so the analogy isn't all that appropriate.


The 332 seat 772ERs are the Gatwick fleet, they fly mostly to leisure destinations and have recently had 16 J seats removed, 24 W added and went from 9 to 10 across in Y which added 30ish seats there. These are not getting the new J seat.

I think the A350-1000s, will mostly (with a lot of fleet shuffling) actually replace the 337 seat 747s, these often operate with 'F as J' where F is not sold, but if J is full top tier frequent flyers are sat in there, still with J standard catering. J seat counts might drop on the other types as the new 'club suite' launching with the A350 rolls out across the fleet.

In terms of BA and a A350ULR, I don't see them buying a subfleet, LHR is worth more to Qantas than SYD is to British Airways. However, if in 2025 an Ultrafan powered A350-1000, with the standard seating config can fly SYD-LHR, possibly with a few blocked seats down the back, that might be an option.

Yes this is correct. Though I believe that BA after judging the performance of the A35K which I’m sure will perform very well will look to expand it onto other routes. They’re really trying to see how it performs on different markets. For example they’re putting in on Dubai. A premium heavy market and second busiest route out of Heathrow to see how it performs in that sector, if results are favourable we might see it on these types of routes in future I think
 
Sokes
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:23 am

h1fl1er wrote:
Breathe wrote:
...
Regardless of his prophecy, it looks like GE are in a lot worse trouble that most people previously thought.


GE's problems stem from its conversion (like a lot of companies) into a financial company that had legacy industrial business, as opposed to engine sales issues


Maybe peer pressure? If RR can do it, why not us?
Can you expand on "conversion into a financial company"?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
olle
Posts: 2271
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:18 am

My memory says that 350-1000 was designed with a strech in mind.
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:01 am

scbriml wrote:
Revelation wrote:
To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


Unless BA wants to start non-stops to Australia & possibly New Zealand, I don't see any requirement for ULR-specific frames in their fleet, given their current route network. IIRC, their longest flights are around 13 hours from Heathrow to Buenos Aires and Santiago.


That was my view as well. If the 1000ULR can lift meaningfully more payload on the EZE, SCL and SIN runs than the baseline -1000 I don't see them getting it. The -1000 is a pretty compelling beast anyway so I'm not sure if there is much value to be added at the expense of flexibility as they go to DXB etc as well which is a short hop by comparison.

I could very much see a BA codeshare on the QF metal doing (a possible) SYD/MEL/BNE non-stop though. I dont think there's enough demand for ULH non-stop to see two carriers slug it out on one route, codesharing looks favourite to me.
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:59 am

Revelation wrote:
To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


There is another factor to not forget in the discussion of whether BA is in the ULR market, and that is fuel security.

I know BA route planners have been interested in aircraft with enough fuel capacity to do a round trip from LHR without the requirement to fuel at the destination end.

I also have it on good authority, that some folks associated with Airbus are calling the ULH 350 variant the 'ten, twenty one', (i.e.; A350-1021). I can only guess that this is because U is the 21st letter in the alphabet?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3589
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:02 am

Maybe it'll be an A351 but changing the wing for that of the A359 external geometry and A351 structural wingbox... it doesn't need all that wing area if its a light plane for 50% of the flight.

Landing at 180t, taking off at 310t giving a flight average weight of ~245t. This doesn't work as a cargo hauler on a shorter route however.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:00 pm

Sokes wrote:
Can you expand on "conversion into a financial company"?

GE over its history has sold expensive things such as power plants, medical devices, aircraft engines, etc. Over time they found they needed to finance some sales themselves either wholly or in part, or to lease the items, because some customers could not finance purchases themselves. Over time this financing business itself began making lots of money, and got itself involved in financing non-GE products too, so it became its own profit center. The risk/reward profile of a finance firm is different and almost always more attractive than an industrial firm. Thus we see claims that GE and other traditional industrial firms are favoring the "easy money" that comes from financing over the slow and risky slog that is investing in an industrial program such as a new jet engine or a new aircraft. Of course the critics don't seem to give these firms any kudos that they still are involved in jet engines and aircraft when they could just sell those things off and become finance companies. Yet we do see GE selling off less rewarding industrial product lines such as locomotive engines.
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
 
Sokes
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
GE over its history has sold expensive things such as power plants, medical devices, aircraft engines, etc. Over time they found they needed to finance some sales themselves either wholly or in part, or to lease the items, because some customers could not finance purchases themselves. Over time this financing business itself began making lots of money, and got itself involved in financing non-GE products too, so it became its own profit center. The risk/reward profile of a finance firm is different and almost always more attractive than an industrial firm. Thus we see claims that GE and other traditional industrial firms are favoring the "easy money" that comes from financing over the slow and risky slog that is investing in an industrial program such as a new jet engine or a new aircraft. Of course the critics don't seem to give these firms any kudos that they still are involved in jet engines and aircraft when they could just sell those things off and become finance companies. Yet we do see GE selling off less rewarding industrial product lines such as locomotive engines.


https://geldbildung.de/wie-entstehen-sp ... onsblasen/ :
Image
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19123
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:58 pm

scbriml wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
one factor will be prominent, Just how fuel efficient will the Rolls Royce engines Be as compared to the GE engines on the 777-8 and -9??
Has Rolls overcome their troubles?


You say this as though GE doesn't have problems of their own.


My comment seems to have grown into a separate topic relating to Ge's finances, which was certainly not my intention. My comment was relating to GE's aero-engine issues.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:53 pm

scbriml wrote:

My comment seems to have grown into a separate topic relating to Ge's finances, which was certainly not my intention. My comment was relating to GE's aero-engine issues.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar:
"Although the TriStar's design schedule closely followed that of its competitor, McDonnell Douglas beat Lockheed to market by a year due to delays in powerplant development. In February 1971, after massive development costs associated with the RB211, Rolls-Royce went into receivership.[15][16] This halted L-1011 final assembly and Lockheed investigated the possibility of a US engine supplier.[17] However the engineering was finalized at that stage in the TriStar's development and its S-duct, which was designed to fit the smaller cross-section of the triple spool RB-211 engine that would have reduced drag, was too small in diameter to accommodate an existing double spool engine.[8] One option presented was potential outsource of RB-211 production to Canadian manufacturer Orenda Engines.[18]

The British government agreed to approve a large state subsidy to restart Rolls-Royce operations on condition the U.S. government guarantee the bank loans Lockheed needed to complete the L-1011 project.[Note 1] Despite some opposition, not least from the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government provided these guarantees.[20] For the rest of the RB211 project, Rolls-Royce remained a government-owned company.[21] "

The TriStar was the far superior plane. Who will order a plane that depends on engines of a company in financial trouble? It's not trivial if engine makers don't take care of their finances. I hope that in future planes get a choice of engines again.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Opus99
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:15 pm

SelseyBill wrote:
Revelation wrote:
To veer back on topic, do we see BA as a A350-1000ULR customer? If so, on what routes and in what numbers?


There is another factor to not forget in the discussion of whether BA is in the ULR market, and that is fuel security.

I know BA route planners have been interested in aircraft with enough fuel capacity to do a round trip from LHR without the requirement to fuel at the destination end.

I also have it on good authority, that some folks associated with Airbus are calling the ULH 350 variant the 'ten, twenty one', (i.e.; A350-1021). I can only guess that this is because U is the 21st letter in the alphabet?

In regards to BA, that makes sense for the ULR variant. But can’t the current A35K do that for let say an LHR-DXB route?
And with regards to airbus calling it the -1021 shows there’s probably more to it than just a ULR
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27170
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Rumor: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:33 pm

Opus99 wrote:
And with regards to airbus calling it the -1021 shows there’s probably more to it than just a ULR


Well it would imply it was powered by a Pratt & Whitney engine, for one (as "2" is the current Airbus engine code for PW). :wideeyed:
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:25 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
This certainly will spell trouble for the 778..... perhaps relegating that frame to a freighter only variant.


T4thH wrote:
The A350-1000ULR has the chance to be the B777X killer, especially the B777-8 killer (which is already selling bad and will be soon likely be as dead as a Dodo). And what airlines do not want to hear any more are trouble with the jet engines. OK, in my opinion the ongoing GE90 issues of the B777X are much less critical in comparison to the RR Trent 1000 of the B787 (and the Trent 7000 of the A330-Neo, as a family member of the Trent 1000 family), still they are there.
And as it is now pretty well seen in the last years, the performance of the Trent XWB of the A350 is just outstanding.
Unbelievable to see, that RR has developed a god mode engine with the Trent XWB and the pure 100% hell with the Trent 1000.
And as seen somewhere prior (just remind the A380), again half of all B777X orders were done by one airline; Emirates.


It's very difficult to "kill" a type. The 787 by all rights should have put the A330 in the grave on technical merits, but fleet commonality, pilot training, frame flexibility, crew familiarity, seat manufacturing & maintenance, and so much more play a part. The 777X will live on without a doubt. The ME3, BA, and Lufthansa will keep it alive if for no other reason than it's incredibly expensive to retrain their crews for so many frames, and Emirates especially doesn't want to double-dip on that tax with their A350s coming onboard along with replacing the A380s with the 777Xs, which at least the 777-300 pilots can swap to with minimal effort.

Now, Boeing should have bitten the bullet and made the fuselage from composites as well. I think they'll be regretting the decision not to for more than a decade to come. That said, the A350-1000 is almost as long as you can make a plane with current runway lengths. The 777-10 and A350-2000 would have maxed that out. But you can't just squeeze a 10th seat into the A350 and have it work for ULH flights either. Economy passengers would riot. The 777X can comfortably have a 10th seat in an economy row, so the economics of Economy and cargo volume are in the 777's favor.

On Airbus' side though, and with particular emphasis on Project Sunrise and flights like it, I think Airbus and the airlines should have the discipline to wait until the A350 NEO for the final frontier ULH flights. The Trent Ultrafan will put another 7% engine efficiency in on top of the Trent XWB. Combine that with the various frame PIPs that have come along, and you could easily fill out the A359ULR with a full 300PAX cabin and cargo while maintaining your current fuel volume and range. THAT is a 777-8 killer. Cutting back the fuel volume required for the A359/K standard frames and missions would put Boeing in an incredible sore spot when it comes to the economics of the 787-9 and 777-9 as well. Maybe some frame improvements could bring back the A358 and put the 789CEO in the ground.

Fun to speculate, I admit, but the truth is it's incredibly hard to kill a type, even if by technical merits it SHOULD be dead.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:29 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
This certainly will spell trouble for the 778..... perhaps relegating that frame to a freighter only variant.


T4thH wrote:
The A350-1000ULR has the chance to be the B777X killer, especially the B777-8 killer (which is already selling bad and will be soon likely be as dead as a Dodo). And what airlines do not want to hear any more are trouble with the jet engines. OK, in my opinion the ongoing GE90 issues of the B777X are much less critical in comparison to the RR Trent 1000 of the B787 (and the Trent 7000 of the A330-Neo, as a family member of the Trent 1000 family), still they are there.
And as it is now pretty well seen in the last years, the performance of the Trent XWB of the A350 is just outstanding.
Unbelievable to see, that RR has developed a god mode engine with the Trent XWB and the pure 100% hell with the Trent 1000.
And as seen somewhere prior (just remind the A380), again half of all B777X orders were done by one airline; Emirates.


It's very difficult to "kill" a type. The 787 by all rights should have put the A330 in the grave on technical merits, but fleet commonality, pilot training, frame flexibility, crew familiarity, seat manufacturing & maintenance, and so much more play a part. The 777X will live on without a doubt. The ME3, BA, and Lufthansa will keep it alive if for no other reason than it's incredibly expensive to retrain their crews for so many frames, and Emirates especially doesn't want to double-dip on that tax with their A350s coming onboard along with replacing the A380s with the 777Xs, which at least the 777-300 pilots can swap to with minimal effort.

Now, Boeing should have bitten the bullet and made the fuselage from composites as well. I think they'll be regretting the decision not to for more than a decade to come. That said, the A350-1000 is almost as long as you can make a plane with current runway lengths. The 777-10 and A350-2000 would have maxed that out. But you can't just squeeze a 10th seat into the A350 and have it work for ULH flights either. Economy passengers would riot. The 777X can comfortably have a 10th seat in an economy row, so the economics of Economy and cargo volume are in the 777's favor.

On Airbus' side though, and with particular emphasis on Project Sunrise and flights like it, I think Airbus and the airlines should have the discipline to wait until the A350 NEO for the final frontier ULH flights. The Trent Ultrafan will put another 7% engine efficiency in on top of the Trent XWB. Combine that with the various frame PIPs that have come along, and you could easily fill out the A359ULR with a full 300PAX cabin and cargo while maintaining your current fuel volume and range. THAT is a 777-8 killer. Cutting back the fuel volume required for the A359/K standard frames and missions would put Boeing in an incredible sore spot when it comes to the economics of the 787-9 and 777-9 as well. Maybe some frame improvements could bring back the A358 and put the 789CEO in the ground.

Fun to speculate, I admit, but the truth is it's incredibly hard to kill a type, even if by technical merits it SHOULD be dead.


but by the same token, wouldn't we expect GE to have better engines at the same time as RR? RR hasn't exactly been killing it with engines lately so I'm not super optimistic about their ultrafan as the small GTFs haven't been a bed of roses.

The next generation fans attached to 789 and 78xs will annihilate the widebody market to pretty much every range flown.

I mean, what you're positing is a hail mary based upon an engine upgrade to reverse and "kill" what is 5:1 dominance in the past half decade in net orders. Not happening. Whatever new engines go to manufacturer A will also go to B and the relative positions will remain.

What airbus needs to do to get competitive is what they said in that Bloomberg article- cut costs (a lot). If they cannot or do not do this, they will be irrelevant as a widebody manufacturer in 5 years.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:39 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
This certainly will spell trouble for the 778..... perhaps relegating that frame to a freighter only variant.


T4thH wrote:
The A350-1000ULR has the chance to be the B777X killer, especially the B777-8 killer (which is already selling bad and will be soon likely be as dead as a Dodo). And what airlines do not want to hear any more are trouble with the jet engines. OK, in my opinion the ongoing GE90 issues of the B777X are much less critical in comparison to the RR Trent 1000 of the B787 (and the Trent 7000 of the A330-Neo, as a family member of the Trent 1000 family), still they are there.
And as it is now pretty well seen in the last years, the performance of the Trent XWB of the A350 is just outstanding.
Unbelievable to see, that RR has developed a god mode engine with the Trent XWB and the pure 100% hell with the Trent 1000.
And as seen somewhere prior (just remind the A380), again half of all B777X orders were done by one airline; Emirates.


It's very difficult to "kill" a type. The 787 by all rights should have put the A330 in the grave on technical merits, but fleet commonality, pilot training, frame flexibility, crew familiarity, seat manufacturing & maintenance, and so much more play a part. The 777X will live on without a doubt. The ME3, BA, and Lufthansa will keep it alive if for no other reason than it's incredibly expensive to retrain their crews for so many frames, and Emirates especially doesn't want to double-dip on that tax with their A350s coming onboard along with replacing the A380s with the 777Xs, which at least the 777-300 pilots can swap to with minimal effort.

Now, Boeing should have bitten the bullet and made the fuselage from composites as well. I think they'll be regretting the decision not to for more than a decade to come. That said, the A350-1000 is almost as long as you can make a plane with current runway lengths. The 777-10 and A350-2000 would have maxed that out. But you can't just squeeze a 10th seat into the A350 and have it work for ULH flights either. Economy passengers would riot. The 777X can comfortably have a 10th seat in an economy row, so the economics of Economy and cargo volume are in the 777's favor.

On Airbus' side though, and with particular emphasis on Project Sunrise and flights like it, I think Airbus and the airlines should have the discipline to wait until the A350 NEO for the final frontier ULH flights. The Trent Ultrafan will put another 7% engine efficiency in on top of the Trent XWB. Combine that with the various frame PIPs that have come along, and you could easily fill out the A359ULR with a full 300PAX cabin and cargo while maintaining your current fuel volume and range. THAT is a 777-8 killer. Cutting back the fuel volume required for the A359/K standard frames and missions would put Boeing in an incredible sore spot when it comes to the economics of the 787-9 and 777-9 as well. Maybe some frame improvements could bring back the A358 and put the 789CEO in the ground.

Fun to speculate, I admit, but the truth is it's incredibly hard to kill a type, even if by technical merits it SHOULD be dead.


But B787-8 did kill A330-800neo.

A330-900neo have been going quite nicely because of cheaper purchasing price, low fuel burn, commonality with A330, less range and payload capability than B787-9 which is good for shorter international flights and faster delivery compared to B787-9 backlogs. But this is many factors that made A330-900neo work.

B777-8. What did it have apart from range that only Qantas and SQ need?
B777-9 have better fuel burn and no direct competition from Airbus.

A350-1000ULR already kill B777-8. The engine problems doesn't help either.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:15 pm

ewt340 wrote:
But B787-8 did kill A330-800neo.

A330-900neo have been going quite nicely because of cheaper purchasing price, low fuel burn, commonality with A330, less range and payload capability than B787-9 which is good for shorter international flights and faster delivery compared to B787-9 backlogs. But this is many factors that made A330-900neo work.

B777-8. What did it have apart from range that only Qantas and SQ need?
B777-9 have better fuel burn and no direct competition from Airbus.


A350-1000ULR already kill B777-8. The engine problems doesn't help either.


Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.

The 779 DOES have direct competition from the A350-1000 384 vs. 414 is not a big PAX difference, and the A350-1000 is a much lighter airframe, much cheaper to land, which is why I think Boeing is going to regret not redoing the fuselage in composites as well, but oh well, that'll be the 777Y family then...
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:31 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
but by the same token, wouldn't we expect GE to have better engines at the same time as RR? RR hasn't exactly been killing it with engines lately so I'm not super optimistic about their ultrafan as the small GTFs haven't been a bed of roses.

The next generation fans attached to 789 and 78xs will annihilate the widebody market to pretty much every range flown.

I mean, what you're positing is a hail mary based upon an engine upgrade to reverse and "kill" what is 5:1 dominance in the past half decade in net orders. Not happening. Whatever new engines go to manufacturer A will also go to B and the relative positions will remain.

What airbus needs to do to get competitive is what they said in that Bloomberg article- cut costs (a lot). If they cannot or do not do this, they will be irrelevant as a widebody manufacturer in 5 years.


Nope. GE's too busy with the GE9x, the NMA engine, and fixing the CFM LEAP.

The XWB's been flawless, which is incredibly strange given its elder brother, the 1000, has been a dumpster fire.

Mind you I'm speaking purely on technical merit, not the business merit. The 777X will not sell well, of that you have my guarantee. BA's not interested beyond the amount needed to get rid of its A380 fleet, LH isn't beyond the same, SQ isn't beyond the same, the AM3 aren't at all, EY just erased its -8 order, Qatar is going to do the same, leaving who exactly?

That 5:1 dominance is mostly because Airbus tried to prop up the A330 NEO the wrong way. If the NEO had been redone in composites, the 787 would be in much more even competition, and the A350 may not yet be here to be fair. But let's put that aside. The 777-300 family did not have a competitor until the A350 series. Now that it does, every technical merit other than raw cargo space goes to the A350 family until Boeing shows the 777X beating their initial targets and PR materials, which are out of date on the nearest competitor. That 4% cheaper passenger-seat-mileage is probably a fairy tale by now with the rapid iteration on the A350.

Engine exclusivity is a thing.

Airbus IS competitive. As for costs, Boeing wants almost the sticker price of the A380 for a plane with barely 2/3 the capacity. Talk about costs... And the MD bean counters wanting to cut costs to the bone are the reason for the 737 MAX disaster, so let's not pretend Airbus is somehow over a barrel. Airbus is flush with cash and Boeing's stretched thin, broke, and on fire. The 777X is a good plane, and the A350 is a good plane, but I think Airbus deserves this win on merit, even though, were it my decision, I'd tell them both to shelve the idea of getting Project Sunrise until the 787 NG or A350 NEO. Prestige aside, jet fuel is not about to get any cheaper.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:39 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.


Don't overegg the pudding.

Cockpit and cabin commonality fades into irrelevance when faced with a fuel burn difference of >1% (assuming everything else equal including seat count).

Add that fuel saving up over the lifetime* of the airframe and the cost of retraining pilots/crew** onto a new type becomes trivial in comparison.


*say the aircraft flies 40,000 FH. Fuel burn is averaged at 6 T/hr. At 1% burn difference and a JetA price of $0.6/Litre that is approx $1.8 million over the airframe life.


**what is the cost of converting a pilot? $30K a head? The cost of cabin crew retraining would be background noise.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:55 am

Amiga500 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.


Don't overegg the pudding.

Cockpit and cabin commonality fades into irrelevance when faced with a fuel burn difference of >1% (assuming everything else equal including seat count).

Add that fuel saving up over the lifetime* of the airframe and the cost of retraining pilots/crew** onto a new type becomes trivial in comparison.


*say the aircraft flies 40,000 FH. Fuel burn is averaged at 6 T/hr. At 1% burn difference and a JetA price of $0.6/Litre that is approx $1.8 million over the airframe life.


**what is the cost of converting a pilot? $30K a head? The cost of cabin crew retraining would be background noise.


I'm afraid it's not background noise. Many fleet decisions have come down to quick entry into service for exactly the reasons I stated. Time not in the air, both for pilots, crew, and airframes, is money lost.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:38 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
I'm afraid it's not background noise. Many fleet decisions have come down to quick entry into service for exactly the reasons I stated. Time not in the air, both for pilots, crew, and airframes, is money lost.


Wages "lost" in retraining time?

[The introduction of new frames usually brings with it capability growth that causes network growth which needs staff growth - so you aren't limited to a finite staff pool where 2 pilots on type training means an aircraft off the fleet. Same for cabin crew. No airline can operate so finely balanced such that they cannot have one set of cabin crew "out of action" without affecting operations.]

Can you note any fleet decisions that have come down to the reasons you've stated? [and I mean specific to crew training - ordering more 77W to add to an existing 77W fleet (instead of say A330) because current MX and flight ops are set up for the 77W does not count as crew training. The 778 will be so different from the 77W for groundside that this is not applicable]
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 6:26 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
But B787-8 did kill A330-800neo.

A330-900neo have been going quite nicely because of cheaper purchasing price, low fuel burn, commonality with A330, less range and payload capability than B787-9 which is good for shorter international flights and faster delivery compared to B787-9 backlogs. But this is many factors that made A330-900neo work.

B777-8. What did it have apart from range that only Qantas and SQ need?
B777-9 have better fuel burn and no direct competition from Airbus.


A350-1000ULR already kill B777-8. The engine problems doesn't help either.


Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.

The 779 DOES have direct competition from the A350-1000 384 vs. 414 is not a big PAX difference, and the A350-1000 is a much lighter airframe, much cheaper to land, which is why I think Boeing is going to regret not redoing the fuselage in composites as well, but oh well, that'll be the 777Y family then...


1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.
 
abies111
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 6:39 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:


The XWB's been flawless, which is incredibly strange given its elder brother, the 1000, has been a dumpster fire.


Could the A350 frame itself have been a factor, allowing more intensely derated take-offs than the B789 frame?
 
tphuang
Posts: 5215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 6:54 pm

ewt340 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
But B787-8 did kill A330-800neo.

A330-900neo have been going quite nicely because of cheaper purchasing price, low fuel burn, commonality with A330, less range and payload capability than B787-9 which is good for shorter international flights and faster delivery compared to B787-9 backlogs. But this is many factors that made A330-900neo work.

B777-8. What did it have apart from range that only Qantas and SQ need?
B777-9 have better fuel burn and no direct competition from Airbus.


A350-1000ULR already kill B777-8. The engine problems doesn't help either.


Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.

The 779 DOES have direct competition from the A350-1000 384 vs. 414 is not a big PAX difference, and the A350-1000 is a much lighter airframe, much cheaper to land, which is why I think Boeing is going to regret not redoing the fuselage in composites as well, but oh well, that'll be the 777Y family then...


1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:47 pm

tphuang wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

Um, what planet are you on? The 778 is a drop-in replacement for both the 777-200LR and 777-300ER depending on your configuration. That commonality with the cockpit and cabins is very valuable.

The 779 DOES have direct competition from the A350-1000 384 vs. 414 is not a big PAX difference, and the A350-1000 is a much lighter airframe, much cheaper to land, which is why I think Boeing is going to regret not redoing the fuselage in composites as well, but oh well, that'll be the 777Y family then...


1. B777-300ER carry more passengers and have way less range, hence better economic. Majority are extremely young.
2. B777-200LR doesn't sell well at all.

With the same configurations of 2 class cabin and the latest business class seat. A350-1000 could carry 48 Business Class Seat and 315 economy class seat, total of 363 seats, not 384 seats.
B777-9 could carry 48 Business Class seat and 368 economy class seat. Total of 416 seats. That's 53 seats difference.

You know A350-1000ULR already win against B777-8.


Those 50 extra seat will be sold at a huge discount. And the other 315 Y seats will probably yield lower too since there are more inventory of Y seat to sell now. Think what a discounted ULH y seat is priced at and how much j seat priced at.

Let's do the following example.
Let the average yield on the 315 seat on A350-1000 be 100. And let's say J fares go 5x that, so 500. Same number of J seats to sell on 779 and 35k, so let's assume same yield. Since there are more Y seat to sell, the average yield for the first 315 seat on 779 will be a little lower, let's 95. The remaining 53 seats will be at the lowest price bucket, let's say 60.

total revenue brought in by 35K would be 55500
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 57105
about 3% more in total revenue

Let's say I'm being overly pessimistic here. Let's say the first 315 Y seat on 779 are sold at same yield as A350-1000 and the remaining 53 sold at 30% discount (so 70)
total revenue brought in by 779 would be 59210
about 6.7% more in total revenue

would be interesting to see what the total trip cost of 35K vs 779 is. If 779 trip cost is more than 7% higher than 35K, then whoever is buying 779 better be really confident they can sell those extra 53 y seat at a price that's closer to those first 315 seats. Cause a lot of time those last seats are filled by low yielding connection itineraries.


There are markets which support the capacity of the 779. By your logic, the 359 would better off than the 35K as it has less seats, then the 789 better than the 359 as it has less seats too.

Airlines will order what matches the route capacity required by their network. A few airlines will have the 35K and 779 as the seat capacity is differentiated enough.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus to launch A350-1000ULR

Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:56 pm

abies111 wrote:
Could the A350 frame itself have been a factor, allowing more intensely derated take-offs than the B789 frame?


I think Indirectly yes. As the 787 is “more electric” RR had to move where they extracted the power out of the engine to drive the generators. That in turn changes the internal geometry to make that work.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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