User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:55 pm

enzo011 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Scottron12:

We know he is pushing back on RR deliveries per the quotes. It happens to be all Airbus short term

We know EK has not signed the 779 delivery contract due to uncertainty. So it is also impacted on GE engines and spectacular descriptions of a cargo door opening on a proof test.

I believe EK is in cash preserving mode and negotiating in the media for better deals such as the aircraft/engine deal ANZ received that links were provided earlier (RR complained they wouldn't meet GE's offer).

So tons of speculation. But what we know is EK asked more of RR than they were willing to put in writing.

The flowing contracts are unsigned for final delivery:. A339, A359, and 779. Note:. It is too early to discuss/sign for 778.

I interpret prior STC comments that EK is trying to slow/stop A380 deliveries by any means possible. Due to T900 issues (sand errosion, fuel burn miss), it is probable he has some legal ground.

Until the 779 issues are fixed, EK is only receive Airbus aircraft powered by RR. Hence why so much discussion on those two.

I believe both the A380 and 77W fleet need to be reduced.l and I don't mean all with 779s either.

Lightsaber



I agree with you, if I haven't got your point wrong, that EK is using all they have at their disposal to try and readjust their order book to change their strategy going forward. I will once again take issue with your assertion that it is only Airbus in the firing line with his quotes. Yes the article in the OP certainly focuses on Airbus but if you look around you can see Boeing and GE is in the spotlight as well.

With 115 777-9s and 35 -8s on order since November 2013 the delay is something Clark is not happy with: “First flight should have been by October last year and in June we were told it won’t be flying until Q1 next year. That, of course, affects deliveries to us. We were due to receive the first aircraft in June next year, we had 6 or 9 coming on delivery after that but all is now set back. Let’s assume that Boeing has a 13-16 months certification-program, that means we can’t be sure when we will get these airplanes. We are keen to get them, but they should be reliable.”


And then this,

“There is no stability in the Rolls-Royce program at the moment as we see it. Until such time we have definitive guarantees that if we power our aircraft with their engines that will be fit-for-purpose from day one without any restrictions, we are not prepared to make those commitments at this stage”, says Clark. “I am a little bit irritated that over the years we as an airline and I think the industry has been subjected to the requirements of engine manufacturers and take whatever consequences when they don’t work. We are not in a business where aircraft don’t function properly. I need a 99.5 percent dispatch reliability to make it work”.


So it is clear he is focusing on RR and it looks like he wants to use this as a way to get leverage, but his position isn't consistent at all. He is very down on the RR engines but he was supposed to get his first 779 in June. He also wants a 99.5% reliability, I doubt he will get it on the 777X so again if we are consistent and take him at his word on the Airbus and RR criticisms, on the 777X we can assume that this means that he will delay deliveries to 2024 or 2025, when they reach 99.5% dispatch reliability. Seeing that the 787 only got to 99.4% in January 2018, good luck to him getting any new aircraft with new engines.

So what position can we take on this? I don't know what his plans are with these statements, whether to get out of the Airbus contract and RR contract or to downsize, but we can acknowledge that there is a inconsistency in his statements that will make him a hypocrite either way.

Quotes from this article, Sir Tim Clark: I only take delivery of reliable aircraft and engines (update)

As I noted, the 779 delivery contract hasn't been signed. Without clearer delivery definition, Boeing losses payments. At this time I speculate EK has less leverage on Boeing/GE as payments must be too low to be worthy of discussion.

Airbus has A380s and soon A339s that will be held up until STC is satisfied. In other words, scheduled payments won't happen on the A359 and A339 until resolved and I speculate STC is working to delay A388 deliveries to preserve cash.

So I noted both are impacted, but as the pause button was hit by GE/Boeing, no leverage for STC. No significant change in cash flow. But for Airbus/RR, an immediate hit on cash flow.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:09 pm

seabosdca wrote:

I think the widely rumored high-gross-weight A350-1000 would be clearly superior to the 778 on the missions he was expecting to use the 778 to fly.

I don't know if I'd agree on that. One beauty of the 777-300ER for Emirates, oddly enough, is it lets them fly tycoons' cars around the world on passenger-oriented flights. You can't use the A350 for that, too narrow. The 777X family retains some niche but often used capabilities for Emirates that the A350 just does not replace.

As for his previous lack of interest in the normal-weight A350-1000: that was when he was still in gangbusters growth mode, and was expecting to use the A350-1000 as his smallest aircraft, on mostly regional service, as a stepping stone to 777-9s and A380s. With that vision, he got upset when Airbus made the -1000 heavier. Now that he is in shrink mode instead, the role of the A350-1000 would be as a 77W replacement, where he doesn't need the greater capacity of the 777-9. Without the A350-1000, his alternatives are to grow capacity in the face of low load factors (777-9) or to shrink dramatically (787, A350-900).

I think both A350 variants have a role to play, but Airbus is very reluctant to discount the A350 heavily thus far, and Tim is looking hard for discounts.

And Airbus wonders why the A350 is still selling (relatively) poorly compared to the 787 and A330-900...

I swear Boeing's sales team is extraordinary. Now if the project management teams could just be restrained to not make engineering decisions on behalf of engineers and not be so ridiculously ambitious as to outsource the entire development of an aircraft...
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:48 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
[
The 339 is of course a stopgap for EK but it will ironically earn them the best profit margin of the frames they have on order (assuming they take no 787s)

How does it beat the A350 on profit margin?


it's very significantly cheaper to acquire. Like just judging by "market value" numbers compiled by airinsight, leeham, etc., $30M cheaper without any aggressive pricing by AB. I quoted Leeham's estimates on production costs of each of these frames on a prior thread; they explain a great deal.

the 330N's cheap acquisition price and relatively comparable performance to the 789 is why this is the 2nd best-selling widebody over the past 6 years. And why for example Delta ordered actually more 339s and deferred 359s despite the latter being the newer, better, higher-performance plane.

GE will get exclusive rights to it with a GE9x derivative or end up in a 2-way race with PW. So, the Ultrafan goes to the A350 NEO exclusively to start. The A359 NEO by a bit of napkin math has the range of the 778 (10% range uplift at the same fuel capacity is not unreasonable going by the A330 NEO) while having far better flight economics and passenger comfort than the 778.


we're comparing a plane that hasn't sold to a plane that hasn't sold. The 35K, sorry...it's not compelling and more time or a better engine probably won't change that. The future isn't going that direction; it was another big miscalculation by AB.

77W replacements are going to go to a 78x, especially if we posit a NG engine. Comparing a 2025 plane (assuming RR can get this engine working which is a rosy scenario) to the 778, which almost nobody wants...I'm not seeing the angle.

Everyone here, and Airbus too, is assuming that everyone will run out and replace their 77Ws with a jet with the same number of seats but much more efficient. What we're seeing and have seen is that this is *not* what's been happening. Airlines are replacing big jets with smaller ones. Nothing is going to reverse this trend.

And Airbus wonders why the A350 is still selling (relatively) poorly compared to the 787 and A330-900...

I swear Boeing's sales team is extraordinary. Now if the project management teams could just be restrained to not make engineering decisions on behalf of engineers and not be so ridiculously ambitious as to outsource the entire development of an aircraft...


Airbus is not willing to lose money on the plane. They cannot match Boeing's price...even the 339 cannot if Boeing is willing to break even. The 787 may or may not have more range or any of these other things but it's a miracle on the metric of "cheap." And in efficiency it's a class leader.

Think of it like an invasive species on the widebody market that's going to wipe out all the diversity. what we're hearing from UAL and other 78x operators is "give us more of these plz" Airlines that operate them will mop up those that don't...the 339 is AB's best widebody right now when you factor all the details in, of which acquisition price is a serious measure.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:43 pm

h1fl1er wrote:

it's very significantly cheaper to acquire. Like just judging by "market value" numbers compiled by airinsight, leeham, etc., $30M cheaper without any aggressive pricing by AB. I quoted Leeham's estimates on production costs of each of these frames on a prior thread; they explain a great deal.

Meh, and I suppose it comes down to some unknowns about the maintenance required for composite frames vs. aluminum long-term, but I would think the deferred C and D checks for metal fatigue by a good 5-10 years pending FAA and EASA reviews in the next half decade would make up the 30 million USD difference. That's before lower landing/takeoff fees, better freight capability for more agile operating models (pick up some freight when pax is slack, like AC does on the daily YVR-BNE during the off season), and superior space for better passenger products (competitiveness) come into play too. But there again time to market on new routes also matters so...

the 330N's cheap acquisition price and relatively comparable performance to the 789 is why this is the 2nd best-selling widebody over the past 6 years. And why for example Delta ordered actually more 339s and deferred 359s despite the latter being the newer, better, higher-performance plane.

Now, I know ANZ didn't have A330s before, and introducing yet ANOTHER type to the fleet would be fatiguing right now, but with the 787 fleet so badly crippled by the RR T1000 issues, if the A330 NEO was really that comparable, I don't think ANZ would have changed engine OEMs on the 787. I think they'd have gone with the A330 NEO. I realize Boeing has been trying very hard to nuke the A330 program from orbit, but they'd had to have offered ANZ below-cost contracts with GE for the 787 to have been so compelling after ANZ's been this brutally hurt.

GE will get exclusive rights to it with a GE9x derivative or end up in a 2-way race with PW. So, the Ultrafan goes to the A350 NEO exclusively to start. The A359 NEO by a bit of napkin math has the range of the 778 (10% range uplift at the same fuel capacity is not unreasonable going by the A330 NEO) while having far better flight economics and passenger comfort than the 778.


we're comparing a plane that hasn't sold to a plane that hasn't sold.

Well, I'm not comparing anything. I'm just calling where I think the engine chips will fall on the next generations of current wide bodies, based primarily in how much 787 operators have been burnt by RR and that RR couldn't make the 2025 deadline for Boeing's 797, which I believe will EIS right when Boeing announces the 787 NG for the following year to yank the wind out of Airbus' sails.

The 35K, sorry...it's not compelling and more time or a better engine probably won't change that. The future isn't going that direction; it was another big miscalculation by AB.

77W replacements are going to go to a 78x, especially if we posit a NG engine. Comparing a 2025 plane (assuming RR can get this engine working which is a rosy scenario) to the 778, which almost nobody wants...I'm not seeing the angle.

Everyone here, and Airbus too, is assuming that everyone will run out and replace their 77Ws with a jet with the same number of seats but much more efficient. What we're seeing and have seen is that this is *not* what's been happening.


Airlines are replacing 777-200s with 787s and A330Ns, no doubt. The 777-300s are as yet to be replaced. For the really big trunk players like BA, LH, AF, QR, and KA, we're seeing a lot of A350 action to get rid of 777s. The AM3 haven't retired a single 777W frame yet. Their brand new ULH routes have been given to the 787(UA, AA) and A350(DL), but the existing 777W routes are still flying at capacity. Delta is flying the A350 where its 200LRs were flying because it tended to pack its 200s pretty tight for long haul, but that's fairly unique.

The 777-300ERs still flying are fairly young and won't get replacements scheduled for another 10 years. The AM3 will hold out for the NG and NEO and be launch customers, as has been their tradition.

Airlines are replacing big jets with smaller ones. Nothing is going to reverse this trend.

Eh, I see it more as a shuffling of the deck and optimization than abandonment. We know the 747-8i sold to airlines who needed it. The A35K will sell to airlines who need it. The 777X will sell to airlines who either want a twin to replace their 747s (BA, LH, and KA especially) or who need to down-gauge from A380s (the ME3, BA, potentially QF, potentially SQ).

With such a ridiculously strong USD, it's not a surprise to see flights into the U.S. from long-haul destinations like Australia and China falling, so it doesn't yet make sense for the AM3 to place orders to replace 77Ws if an even better version of current "successor" products will likely be on the market or at least ready to order by 2025-2027. A 787-10 NG is a bigger step down in capacity than the A359, but the A359 has a lot of wasted frame weight because of its much greater range at higher capacity.

When the AM3 and Air Canada make their moves to replace their 77Ws, most of the industry will be jumping over each other for strategic orders. And by then we'll know how much of a market is left for 747 and A380-sized craft. If boeing hadn't cheeped out of the 777X's fuselage and gone for composites there too, the 777X would have more takers for sure.

Airbus is not willing to lose money on the plane. They cannot match Boeing's price...even the 339 cannot if Boeing is willing to break even. The 787 may or may not have more range or any of these other things but it's a miracle on the metric of "cheap." And in efficiency it's a class leader.

Think of it like an invasive species on the widebody market that's going to wipe out all the diversity. what we're hearing from UAL and other 78x operators is "give us more of these plz" Airlines that operate them will mop up those that don't...the 339 is AB's best widebody right now when you factor all the details in, of which acquisition price is a serious measure.

I never said they had to LOSE money. Hell just look at the price tags of the A350 and 777X. Boeing should be knocking 40 million off each one given the Aluminum fuselages and the metal fatigue C and D checks that'll come along for that, cheap bastards...

But I just don't see why Airbus can't come up with decent discounts. Yes, maybe margins fall to 10 million USD or less per frame. So what? Boeing's going to strangle their future prospects at this point. Hell if Boeing really went balls to the wall on Project Sunrise they'd have offered to Qantas a modified 788(LR). With the common, larger wings on it from the -9/10 and an up-sized central tank, QF could have flown 200 people from Sydney to London economically in 2023 and kept the pressure on Boeing and Airbus to make a real next-gen product for 300 people by 2025/6/7. The modified 788 could have had the modified central tank taken out and replaced with the stock unit for Jet Star and it would have been essentially seamless delivery of a prestige project.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:51 pm

enzo011 wrote:

He also wants a 99.5% reliability, I doubt he will get it on the 777X so again if we are consistent and take him at his word on the Airbus and RR criticisms, on the 777X we can assume that this means that he will delay deliveries to 2024 or 2025, when they reach 99.5% dispatch reliability. Seeing that the 787 only got to 99.4% in January 2018, good luck to him getting any new aircraft with new engines.




For comparison, the Trent XWB reached 99.9% dispatch reliability in 2018. Is it a record to achieve this figure within 3 years of service?

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 10-446074/
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:58 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
For comparison, the Trent XWB reached 99.9% dispatch reliability in 2018. Is it a record to achieve this figure within 3 years of service?


If folks on this thread were listening to what Tim was saying about wanting drama-free airplanes, they wouldn't be so ready to say that Tim doesn't want the A350.

It's a different world than it was two years ago, let alone five years ago when he cancelled the first A350 order.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:00 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:

He also wants a 99.5% reliability, I doubt he will get it on the 777X so again if we are consistent and take him at his word on the Airbus and RR criticisms, on the 777X we can assume that this means that he will delay deliveries to 2024 or 2025, when they reach 99.5% dispatch reliability. Seeing that the 787 only got to 99.4% in January 2018, good luck to him getting any new aircraft with new engines.




For comparison, the Trent XWB reached 99.9% dispatch reliability in 2018. Is it a record to achieve this figure within 3 years of service?

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 10-446074/

The GEnx-1B had achieved the same in 3 years.
https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... enx-engine
 
xwb777
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:42 pm

I am lost reading all the posts. Can someone tell me why EK is not happy with the A339 ? Or why the A339 cannot fit in EK's fleet?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3545
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:45 pm

This is just a reminder to please not turn this thread into an Airbus vs. Boeing argument.

atcsundevil
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:54 am

Most of us understand the biggest advantage of the hub and spoke model. It allows a small city such as Adelaide to fill a daily A380 and fly to the hub where passengers then travel to dozens of different destinations. It allows dozens of destinations to all fly in the one aircraft.

Emirates should keep this same model and do it with small widebodies and even smaller cities. It should in theory connect towns that would struggle to fill a 737. It should be in theory be able to hit small towns in Europe with populations of under 100,000. It would give them options with one less stop. An untapped market.

Saving fuel is actually pretty minor part of the hub and spoke model. Flipdewaf calculated the fuel burn saving was around 10% and fuel only makes up a fraction of the trip costs. The extra fuselage cycles and crew wages at the hub would cancel out nearly all fuel savings.

I would break Emirates routes into four parts. Thick/Thin and Short/Long

Thin routes under 4000nm = A321
Thick routes under 4000nm = 787-10
Thin routes over 4000nm = 787-8
Thick routes over 4000nm = A350/777X
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8621
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:56 am

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yet the A380s are only the tip of the iceberg. The huge 777 fleet would be equally oversized without the large number of A380s.

Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.


Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:44 am

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yet the A380s are only the tip of the iceberg. The huge 777 fleet would be equally oversized without the large number of A380s.

Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.


Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.


Well they do have FlyDubai as a partner to fly into destinations that are too small to handle anything larger than a 737. That way they don't have to put the Emirates brand on any narrow bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they order the 797. It would allow EK to offer a lower capacity widebody to connect smaller cities that currently are served by FlyDubai using barrrow bodies.
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:44 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:

He also wants a 99.5% reliability, I doubt he will get it on the 777X so again if we are consistent and take him at his word on the Airbus and RR criticisms, on the 777X we can assume that this means that he will delay deliveries to 2024 or 2025, when they reach 99.5% dispatch reliability. Seeing that the 787 only got to 99.4% in January 2018, good luck to him getting any new aircraft with new engines.




For comparison, the Trent XWB reached 99.9% dispatch reliability in 2018. Is it a record to achieve this figure within 3 years of service?

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 10-446074/

The GEnx-1B had achieved the same in 3 years.
https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... enx-engine

How do you get to thee years from EIS based on that press release? If the 747-8 was delivered in October 2011 and that press release is October 2011, and you are basing your three years claim on the date of the press release, then 4 years is your answer? Or am I missing something?

In addition, this press release was issued a few moths before the Genx icing problems became apparent. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the Trent Xwb will not develop issues later, or even tomorrow, but I think you could have been ore generous with your facts.
Last edited by majano on Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
AirIndia
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 2:43 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:50 am

seahawk wrote:
realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.

That is exactly what FlyDubai is starting to do
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8621
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.


Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.


Well they do have FlyDubai as a partner to fly into destinations that are too small to handle anything larger than a 737. That way they don't have to put the Emirates brand on any narrow bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they order the 797. It would allow EK to offer a lower capacity widebody to connect smaller cities that currently are served by FlyDubai using barrrow bodies.


FlyDubai is not connected to their system. Why would you book a flight to DXB and then connect there on your own to FlyDubai, when you can connect in IST for example and have a checked through flight?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8423
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
I don't know if I'd agree on that. One beauty of the 777-300ER for Emirates, oddly enough, is it lets them fly tycoons' cars around the world on passenger-oriented flights. You can't use the A350 for that, too narrow. The 777X family retains some niche but often used capabilities for Emirates that the A350 just does not replace.


It would be interesting how you get to that conclusion. The 777, the A350 and even the A340 and A300 load the same pallets and containers, the pallets with plenty space for cars.
 
HaulSudson
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:02 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:46 am

seahawk wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.


Well they do have FlyDubai as a partner to fly into destinations that are too small to handle anything larger than a 737. That way they don't have to put the Emirates brand on any narrow bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they order the 797. It would allow EK to offer a lower capacity widebody to connect smaller cities that currently are served by FlyDubai using barrrow bodies.


FlyDubai is not connected to their system. Why would you book a flight to DXB and then connect there on your own to FlyDubai, when you can connect in IST for example and have a checked through flight?


It is connected to their system.
 
HaulSudson
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:02 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Most of us understand the biggest advantage of the hub and spoke model. It allows a small city such as Adelaide to fill a daily A380 and fly to the hub where passengers then travel to dozens of different destinations. It allows dozens of destinations to all fly in the one aircraft.

Emirates should keep this same model and do it with small widebodies and even smaller cities. It should in theory connect towns that would struggle to fill a 737. It should be in theory be able to hit small towns in Europe with populations of under 100,000. It would give them options with one less stop. An untapped market.



Well, very few in this thread seem to understand that model.


Seems most arguments in this thread can be summarized as follows : EK doesn't own any 787, therefore it is doomed.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:30 am

mjoelnir wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
I don't know if I'd agree on that. One beauty of the 777-300ER for Emirates, oddly enough, is it lets them fly tycoons' cars around the world on passenger-oriented flights. You can't use the A350 for that, too narrow. The 777X family retains some niche but often used capabilities for Emirates that the A350 just does not replace.


It would be interesting how you get to that conclusion. The 777, the A350 and even the A340 and A300 load the same pallets and containers, the pallets with plenty space for cars.


Seems obvious, it is not a Boeing and only Boeing aircraft is able to do that. Did you not know about the special cars the very rich has that is just too wide to fit in an Airbus A350 but will fit comfortably in the 77W? That 30cm extra width makes all the difference.
 
worldranger
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:58 am

seahawk wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.


Well they do have FlyDubai as a partner to fly into destinations that are too small to handle anything larger than a 737. That way they don't have to put the Emirates brand on any narrow bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they order the 797. It would allow EK to offer a lower capacity widebody to connect smaller cities that currently are served by FlyDubai using barrrow bodies.


FlyDubai is not connected to their system. Why would you book a flight to DXB and then connect there on your own to FlyDubai, when you can connect in IST for example and have a checked through flight?


FlyDubai IS connected to the EK booking system and the integration continues apace with 60min connections in DXB.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8621
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:36 am

HaulSudson wrote:
seahawk wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well they do have FlyDubai as a partner to fly into destinations that are too small to handle anything larger than a 737. That way they don't have to put the Emirates brand on any narrow bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if they order the 797. It would allow EK to offer a lower capacity widebody to connect smaller cities that currently are served by FlyDubai using barrrow bodies.


FlyDubai is not connected to their system. Why would you book a flight to DXB and then connect there on your own to FlyDubai, when you can connect in IST for example and have a checked through flight?


It is connected to their system.


You are right, seems in the German version this is only true for some destinations. Some destinations are connected some are not.
 
xwb777
Topic Author
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:27 pm

Flydubai is connected to Emirates system. Flydubai now uses terminal 3 for flights that sees heavy connections to/from Emirates.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:51 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.

Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.

I think we're mostly in agreement.

I think it's important to retain the level of frequency to be able to offer three banks of connections but as you say there's no reason to increase it.

I realize EK has nothing smaller than 77W now, that's why I wrote that going to A350/789 was an even better idea.

I think flying A380s to some of the marginal destinations is what is causing poor load factors and poor yields.

I think EK over invested in A380s, and so do they, because they're (still) in the process of cancelling their A380 orders.

Unfortunately for them the procedure that led them to commit to 138 or so A380s means they've got large numbers of owned and leased Whales for many years to come.

These aircraft have engines that are a generation older than 787/A350, two generations older than GE9X, three generations older than upcoming UltraFan.

Running those engines out till the 2030s is going to be eye wateringly expensive, and will only make sense for trunk routes where all seats fill with good yields.

So many of those routes would do much better with people bombers such as 787-10, A35X and 777-9.
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
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:02 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
iMeh, and I suppose it comes down to some unknowns about the maintenance required for composite frames vs. aluminum long-term, but I would think the deferred C and D checks for metal fatigue by a good 5-10 years pending FAA and EASA reviews in the next half decade would make up the 30 million USD difference. That's before lower landing/takeoff fees, better freight capability for more agile operating models (pick up some freight when pax is slack, like AC does on the daily YVR-BNE during the off season), and superior space for better passenger products (competitiveness) come into play too. But there again time to market on new routes also matters so...


the 339 would have lower fees for lower MTOW than the 359. Cheaper to operate. It's a cheaper plane on nearly any metric.

Now, I know ANZ didn't have A330s before, and introducing yet ANOTHER type to the fleet would be fatiguing right now, but with the 787 fleet so badly crippled by the RR T1000 issues, if the A330 NEO was really that comparable, I don't think ANZ would have changed engine OEMs on the 787. I think they'd have gone with the A330 NEO. I realize Boeing has been trying very hard to nuke the A330 program from orbit, but they'd had to have offered ANZ below-cost contracts with GE for the 787 to have been so compelling after ANZ's been this brutally hurt.


not following here...ANZ chose the best plane at the best price. Nobody sane would take a 787 with RR at this point. Airlines don't let engines dictate the frames they take. The 339 did not have the route capability ANZ needed either.

Well, I'm not comparing anything. I'm just calling where I think the engine chips will fall on the next generations of current wide bodies, based primarily in how much 787 operators have been burnt by RR and that RR couldn't make the 2025 deadline for Boeing's 797, which I believe will EIS right when Boeing announces the 787 NG for the following year to yank the wind out of Airbus' sails.


As badly as RR's engines are performing ex-XWB, they have big problems getting said ultrafan out in that timeframe. It's far too optimistic. Expect multi year slippage, giving the 9x an exclusive and a tailwind to boeing.

Airlines are replacing 777-200s with 787s and A330Ns, no doubt. The 777-300s are as yet to be replaced. For the really big trunk players like BA, LH, AF, QR, and KA, we're seeing a lot of A350 action to get rid of 777s.


no, we aren't. See, this is my problem with this line of conversation- we aren't seeING anything of the sort. What we *saw* 10 years ago may have been what you describe. What we are seeING now in the present tense is not the same sales trend as we saw 10 years ago. Things have changed. It happened whenever Boeing apparently cut production costs markedly for the 789 model and it had sufficient in service track record for the fence-sitting airlines to see. Likewise with competing models which didn't get a cost cut. We're not seeing any kind of trend toward the bigger jets. The 787 and 330N are #1 and #2 over the past 6 years.

Their brand new ULH routes have been given to the 787(UA, AA) and A350(DL), but the existing 777W routes are still flying at capacity. Delta is flying the A350 where its 200LRs were flying because it tended to pack its 200s pretty tight for long haul, but that's fairly unique.


I'm not aware of any routes they have subbed 359s for the 77L. Can you specify them? DL's an interesting case because they took more 339s, converted to 339s from 359 and even grabbed another 77L last year. They're a really price conscious airline and focused on profits and so their purchasing behavior is very illustrative. They clearly see the 339 for their routes as a better fit...yeah it's an "old" plane and all that but they're in the business of profits not ego. Why pick up another 77L if the 359 is so exceptional? Cost, efficiency, payload...range...I mean, whatever it was, it made sense to them in lieu of a 359.

Eh, I see it more as a shuffling of the deck and optimization than abandonment. We know the 747-8i sold to airlines who needed it. The A35K will sell to airlines who need it. The 777X will sell to airlines who either want a twin to replace their 747s (BA, LH, and KA especially) or who need to down-gauge from A380s (the ME3, BA, potentially QF, potentially SQ).


Sure. What is true is true. What's not up is down. It's really a matter of how many will sell and the current trend isn't favorable.

But I just don't see why Airbus can't come up with decent discounts. Yes, maybe margins fall to 10 million USD or less per frame. So what? Boeing's going to strangle their future prospects at this point. Hell if Boeing really went balls to the wall on Project Sunrise they'd have offered to Qantas a modified 788(LR). With the common, larger wings on it from the -9/10 and an up-sized central tank, QF could have flown 200 people from Sydney to London economically in 2023 and kept the pressure on Boeing and Airbus to make a real next-gen product for 300 people by 2025/6/7. The modified 788 could have had the modified central tank taken out and replaced with the stock unit for Jet Star and it would have been essentially seamless delivery of a prestige project.


Sunrise theoreticals aside, even with a $10M margin, they cannot match the 787's price. The difference is further apart than that according to Leeham. Sunrise isn't a strategically significant market niche at any rate. It'd be cool to see a jet with 10000nm range in the real world but not that many would sell. The 77L sold zero 3-ACT variants and only one or two airlines took even a 1-ACT version.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Most of us understand the biggest advantage of the hub and spoke model. It allows a small city such as Adelaide to fill a daily A380 and fly to the hub where passengers then travel to dozens of different destinations. It allows dozens of destinations to all fly in the one aircraft.

Emirates should keep this same model and do it with small widebodies and even smaller cities. It should in theory connect towns that would struggle to fill a 737. It should be in theory be able to hit small towns in Europe with populations of under 100,000. It would give them options with one less stop. An untapped market.

Saving fuel is actually pretty minor part of the hub and spoke model. Flipdewaf calculated the fuel burn saving was around 10% and fuel only makes up a fraction of the trip costs. The extra fuselage cycles and crew wages at the hub would cancel out nearly all fuel savings.

I would break Emirates routes into four parts. Thick/Thin and Short/Long

Thin routes under 4000nm = A321
Thick routes under 4000nm = 787-10
Thin routes over 4000nm = 787-8
Thick routes over 4000nm = A350/777X


The Hub system here is well described, but it is so different than the hub/hub plus a hop to smaller town at one or both ends. 1Stop as a term emphasizes the strengths of the EK system.

They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields


People living in a smaller town, and flying the distance to another smaller town a long way away would likely be happy to do it with 1Stop, conveniently located airport at both ends even if that involved one longer stop.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8621
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.

Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.

I think we're mostly in agreement.

I think it's important to retain the level of frequency to be able to offer three banks of connections but as you say there's no reason to increase it.

I realize EK has nothing smaller than 77W now, that's why I wrote that going to A350/789 was an even better idea.

I think flying A380s to some of the marginal destinations is what is causing poor load factors and poor yields.

I think EK over invested in A380s, and so do they, because they're (still) in the process of cancelling their A380 orders.

Unfortunately for them the procedure that led them to commit to 138 or so A380s means they've got large numbers of owned and leased Whales for many years to come.

These aircraft have engines that are a generation older than 787/A350, two generations older than GE9X, three generations older than upcoming UltraFan.

Running those engines out till the 2030s is going to be eye wateringly expensive, and will only make sense for trunk routes where all seats fill with good yields.

So many of those routes would do much better with people bombers such as 787-10, A35X and 777-9.


I just would not blame it on one aircraft type. They had a strategy of going as big as possible and while operating an A380 to a marginal destination is bad, opening a new destination with a 777W is not fun either. Back in the time I always said that getting rid of the A330 fleet was a huge mistake and will cost them. They were perfect door openers for new markets. Imho the A330NEO (apart from having RR engines) would serve them nicely added by 787-9s for longer routes and a smaller 777-9 fleet as the biggest frame in the future.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:00 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
iMeh, and I suppose it comes down to some unknowns about the maintenance required for composite frames vs. aluminum long-term, but I would think the deferred C and D checks for metal fatigue by a good 5-10 years pending FAA and EASA reviews in the next half decade would make up the 30 million USD difference. That's before lower landing/takeoff fees, better freight capability for more agile operating models (pick up some freight when pax is slack, like AC does on the daily YVR-BNE during the off season), and superior space for better passenger products (competitiveness) come into play too. But there again time to market on new routes also matters so...


the 339 would have lower fees for lower MTOW than the 359. Cheaper to operate. It's a cheaper plane on nearly any metric.

Now, I know ANZ didn't have A330s before, and introducing yet ANOTHER type to the fleet would be fatiguing right now, but with the 787 fleet so badly crippled by the RR T1000 issues, if the A330 NEO was really that comparable, I don't think ANZ would have changed engine OEMs on the 787. I think they'd have gone with the A330 NEO. I realize Boeing has been trying very hard to nuke the A330 program from orbit, but they'd had to have offered ANZ below-cost contracts with GE for the 787 to have been so compelling after ANZ's been this brutally hurt.


not following here...ANZ chose the best plane at the best price. Nobody sane would take a 787 with RR at this point. Airlines don't let engines dictate the frames they take. The 339 did not have the route capability ANZ needed either.

Well, I'm not comparing anything. I'm just calling where I think the engine chips will fall on the next generations of current wide bodies, based primarily in how much 787 operators have been burnt by RR and that RR couldn't make the 2025 deadline for Boeing's 797, which I believe will EIS right when Boeing announces the 787 NG for the following year to yank the wind out of Airbus' sails.


As badly as RR's engines are performing ex-XWB, they have big problems getting said ultrafan out in that timeframe. It's far too optimistic. Expect multi year slippage, giving the 9x an exclusive and a tailwind to boeing.

Airlines are replacing 777-200s with 787s and A330Ns, no doubt. The 777-300s are as yet to be replaced. For the really big trunk players like BA, LH, AF, QR, and KA, we're seeing a lot of A350 action to get rid of 777s.


no, we aren't. See, this is my problem with this line of conversation- we aren't seeING anything of the sort. What we *saw* 10 years ago may have been what you describe. What we are seeING now in the present tense is not the same sales trend as we saw 10 years ago. Things have changed. It happened whenever Boeing apparently cut production costs markedly for the 789 model and it had sufficient in service track record for the fence-sitting airlines to see. Likewise with competing models which didn't get a cost cut. We're not seeing any kind of trend toward the bigger jets. The 787 and 330N are #1 and #2 over the past 6 years.

Their brand new ULH routes have been given to the 787(UA, AA) and A350(DL), but the existing 777W routes are still flying at capacity. Delta is flying the A350 where its 200LRs were flying because it tended to pack its 200s pretty tight for long haul, but that's fairly unique.


I'm not aware of any routes they have subbed 359s for the 77L. Can you specify them? DL's an interesting case because they took more 339s, converted to 339s from 359 and even grabbed another 77L last year. They're a really price conscious airline and focused on profits and so their purchasing behavior is very illustrative. They clearly see the 339 for their routes as a better fit...yeah it's an "old" plane and all that but they're in the business of profits not ego. Why pick up another 77L if the 359 is so exceptional? Cost, efficiency, payload...range...I mean, whatever it was, it made sense to them in lieu of a 359.

Eh, I see it more as a shuffling of the deck and optimization than abandonment. We know the 747-8i sold to airlines who needed it. The A35K will sell to airlines who need it. The 777X will sell to airlines who either want a twin to replace their 747s (BA, LH, and KA especially) or who need to down-gauge from A380s (the ME3, BA, potentially QF, potentially SQ).


Sure. What is true is true. What's not up is down. It's really a matter of how many will sell and the current trend isn't favorable.

But I just don't see why Airbus can't come up with decent discounts. Yes, maybe margins fall to 10 million USD or less per frame. So what? Boeing's going to strangle their future prospects at this point. Hell if Boeing really went balls to the wall on Project Sunrise they'd have offered to Qantas a modified 788(LR). With the common, larger wings on it from the -9/10 and an up-sized central tank, QF could have flown 200 people from Sydney to London economically in 2023 and kept the pressure on Boeing and Airbus to make a real next-gen product for 300 people by 2025/6/7. The modified 788 could have had the modified central tank taken out and replaced with the stock unit for Jet Star and it would have been essentially seamless delivery of a prestige project.


Sunrise theoreticals aside, even with a $10M margin, they cannot match the 787's price. The difference is further apart than that according to Leeham. Sunrise isn't a strategically significant market niche at any rate. It'd be cool to see a jet with 10000nm range in the real world but not that many would sell. The 77L sold zero 3-ACT variants and only one or two airlines took even a 1-ACT version.


Can you contact LH and advise them that they are "insane"...seeing as they ordered the T1000 for 20x787-9s they ordered??
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:03 pm

majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

For comparison, the Trent XWB reached 99.9% dispatch reliability in 2018. Is it a record to achieve this figure within 3 years of service?

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 10-446074/

The GEnx-1B had achieved the same in 3 years.
https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... enx-engine

How do you get to thee years from EIS based on that press release? If the 747-8 was delivered in October 2011 and that press release is October 2011, and you are basing your three years claim on the date of the press release, then 4 years is your answer? Or am I missing something?

In addition, this press release was issued a few moths before the Genx icing problems became apparent. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the Trent Xwb will not develop issues later, or even tomorrow, but I think you could have been ore generous with your facts.


The 747 engine was the 2b, not 1b. The 1b was mid 2012.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Might be true if all are full, but this isn't the case.

A380s are 1/3rd bigger than 777W and worse at cargo.

Getting rid of A380s lets you retain frequency as you add 777Xs.

Adding A350/789 is an even better idea, but hands may be tied.

We saw this in the post-9/11 downsizing: big inefficient 747s were sent to the breakers, A330/767/777 were kept, most flying till this very day.

Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.

I think we're mostly in agreement.

I think it's important to retain the level of frequency to be able to offer three banks of connections but as you say there's no reason to increase it.

I realize EK has nothing smaller than 77W now, that's why I wrote that going to A350/789 was an even better idea.

I think flying A380s to some of the marginal destinations is what is causing poor load factors and poor yields.

I think EK over invested in A380s, and so do they, because they're (still) in the process of cancelling their A380 orders.

Unfortunately for them the procedure that led them to commit to 138 or so A380s means they've got large numbers of owned and leased Whales for many years to come.

These aircraft have engines that are a generation older than 787/A350, two generations older than GE9X, three generations older than upcoming UltraFan.

Running those engines out till the 2030s is going to be eye wateringly expensive, and will only make sense for trunk routes where all seats fill with good yields.

So many of those routes would do much better with people bombers such as 787-10, A35X and 777-9.

Just to add:
A380 out of date engines and less than optimal wing (oversized=heavy) and less than optimal aspect ratio which limits underside laminar flow (Airbus calls it wing twist).

I believe there will be more profit per flight with the 779. Personally a mixed fleet of 779, A359, and 787-10 would be optimal (plus FlyDubai).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:53 pm

h1fl1er wrote:
the 339 would have lower fees for lower MTOW than the 359. Cheaper to operate. It's a cheaper plane on nearly any metric.

Other than cost per passenger-seat-mile, and Emirates is a BIG freight & hybrid load carrier, so up front capital is probably a low secondary priority, unless Emirates sees their freight needs decreasing long-term. Can't speak authoritatively on that other than I know that 30cm (1 foot, not trivial) difference in the cargo hold on the 77W vs. the A350 is the difference between a Ferrari fitting through the cargo door without a scratch. There was a Discovery Channel show a few years back with an episode that highlighted a close-up shoot on Emirates' ground crew very carefully driving cars into the holds, and the clearance is only a couple inches on some of the bigger ones. Rich, ridiculous people are still some of Emirates' bread&butter.

not following here...ANZ chose the best plane at the best price. Nobody sane would take a 787 with RR at this point. Airlines don't let engines dictate the frames they take. The 339 did not have the route capability ANZ needed either.


What I'm saying is, if I were ANZ, I'd be very wary of the latest Trent engines because they're built on the same core architecture as the T1000. And if the 7000 and XWB are problem-free, I'd be up in arms asking RR how they can be so incompetent/unlucky with the eldest brother after all this time. The loss of ETOPS 330 on their 787s has destroyed ANZ's competitiveness in trans-pacific travel.

And, instead of complicating their engine maintenance contracts by adding GE to the mix, they could have ordered A330Ns a few months ago rather than GE-based 787s, because "at least the A330N and A350 have proven their reliability."

As badly as RR's engines are performing ex-XWB, they have big problems getting said ultrafan out in that timeframe. It's far too optimistic. Expect multi year slippage, giving the 9x an exclusive and a tailwind to boeing.

The 7000 is doing fine too, which is suspicious.

Airlines are replacing 777-200s with 787s and A330Ns, no doubt. The 777-300s are as yet to be replaced. For the really big trunk players like BA, LH, AF, QR, and KA, we're seeing a lot of A350 action to get rid of 777s.

no, we aren't. See, this is my problem with this line of conversation- we aren't seeING anything of the sort. What we *saw* 10 years ago may have been what you describe. What we are seeING now in the present tense is not the same sales trend as we saw 10 years ago.

So, the 777-300ER flown by LH between EWR and Munich WASN'T swapped for an A350? BA HASN'T swapped 3 of their JFK 777s for A350s? AF HASN'T swapped their LAX 777 for an A350? Qatar ISN'T in the process of retiring the 777 for the A350? I don't see A350 orders getting cancelled or converted or having options expire...

Things have changed. It happened whenever Boeing apparently cut production costs markedly for the 789 model and it had sufficient in service track record for the fence-sitting airlines to see. Likewise with competing models which didn't get a cost cut. We're not seeing any kind of trend toward the bigger jets. The 787 and 330N are #1 and #2 over the past 6 years.

I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is we're entering a new trend arc. The 777-200s had to go first. We haven't yet entered the main phase of the 777W retirement, and it's probably another 3 years before we do because so many flying are still relatively young.

I'm not aware of any routes they have subbed 359s for the 77L. Can you specify them? DL's an interesting case because they took more 339s, converted to 339s from 359 and even grabbed another 77L last year. They're a really price conscious airline and focused on profits and so their purchasing behavior is very illustrative. They clearly see the 339 for their routes as a better fit...yeah it's an "old" plane and all that but they're in the business of profits not ego. Why pick up another 77L if the 359 is so exceptional? Cost, efficiency, payload...range...I mean, whatever it was, it made sense to them in lieu of a 359.

DL's not that price-conscious in the last two years. Lots of refurbishment and improvements to service suggests otherwise. Now, purchase-conscious, sure, but in terms of all the other costs, they're definitely spending more to get more vs. their competitors in the U.S..

They've flown LAX-SYD on the A350 half the time for the last few months. They'll be looking to ax the other 777-200LR on that route in the next year. I believe DTW-NRT was also a 200LR until just recently.

Mind you, that's Delta, one of only a small handful of 200LR operators. I don't think the A350 standard has the legs for DOH-AKL, so QR can't quite do that swap until the NEO, and Air Canada no longer flies routes long enough to necessitate the 200LRs in their fleet, so those will naturally be replaced by 787s.

Sure. What is true is true. What's not up is down. It's really a matter of how many will sell and the current trend isn't favorable.

And my central argument on that is we haven't entered the main arc of the 777-300ER retirements. Currently it's the 200s departing the AM3 and CN3, but we ARE seeing the A350s move in for BA, QR, DL, SQ, and LH for their 777-300ERs. Now, I'll grant you we're not seeing a lot of new orders in the last two years, but I think that has more to do with Brexit and the trade wars than it does airline strategy. If capacity requirements are expected to fall or stay steady while new route options open, then there's downward pressure, but it's not big enough to knock the A380 and 747 off of these carriers, so it can't really knock the 777-300ER off either, which means natural replacements with same capacity+range, more efficient frames (A350s).

Sunrise isn't a strategically significant market niche at any rate. It'd be cool to see a jet with 10000nm range in the real world but not that many would sell. The 77L sold zero 3-ACT variants and only one or two airlines took even a 1-ACT version.

PS is not a strategic market. It's a strategic prestige feather in the cap to drive sales of either the A350 or 777X (8). Whoever wins will get a big boost, which may be the other main driver of baited breath for the industry in waiting to replace the 777-300ERs. If Boeing pulls it off, it proves they'll bend over backwards to meet customer spec, and the talks for the 797 designs will heat up anew as well. If Airbus wins, it'll win new orders and solidify their A350 order book for the next 5 years, which lets them pivot to the NEO much more relaxedly while they start work on their clean sheet single aisle craft and attend to the looming A380 retirement logistics nightmare.

Sunrise theoreticals aside, even with a $10M margin, they cannot match the 787's price. The difference is further apart than that according to Leeham.

Part of me refuses to believe price matching is the big deal here. Sure everyone likes a low price tag, but you don't buy planes on tactical reasons like sticker price when the delta is only 40 million USD. You buy them on strategic reasons which are capacity, range, and ticket prices for target markets.

The A350 NEO is only 6-7 years away, so airlines may simply wait out of the storm of moderately high fuel prices for now to get a much more efficient frame than the CEO to replace their 77Ws. The 787-10 NG with ~10% more range on it can't handle ALL of the 77W routes, and most airlines have learned the virtues of streamlined fleets, so they'll avoid mixing 787s and A350s if they can. The only exceptions to this seem to be SQ, who uses the 787-10 exclusively for trunk SE Asian "regional" travel, EK who is politically stuck between a rock and a hard place and thus couldn't avoid it, Qatar who seems to be taking a scorched earth approach on capturing every route they can to put the screws to EK & ETH, and LH who never seems to have a streamlined fleet because everyone in every city in the world does business with Germany.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:00 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Can you contact LH and advise them that they are "insane"...seeing as they ordered the T1000 for 20x787-9s they ordered??


Given they'll only be flying them over land in Eurasia or on the northern Atlantic routes, it's not insane for them. As long as they take the routes over Iceland and Greenland, they can stay within their ETOPS (70 or 90?) just fine going into Canada and the northern U.S..
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8423
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:22 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Frequency does not help them all that much. They already run 3 major hub waves and any additional traffic outside the waves just means longer connecting times and therefore lower ticket prices and lower yields. And regardless of plane size, you can expect that the percentage of passengers connecting to a certain destination should remain constant. So many 777W into Asia and Africa would most likely see falling load factors. 9/11 does not work as a comparison as below the 747 airlines had sizeable fleets of smaller widebodies and the large single aisle fleets, with the single aisles doing much of the hub feeding.At EK they have nothing smaller than a 777W at the moment, it is their 737 in some way. Their option is to either fly a 777W or do not serve the route at all. Therefore imho they need a 787/A330 fleet quickly, realistically a A321NEO fleet would benefit them hugely as they could open plenty new destination in Asia and Africa.

I think we're mostly in agreement.

I think it's important to retain the level of frequency to be able to offer three banks of connections but as you say there's no reason to increase it.

I realize EK has nothing smaller than 77W now, that's why I wrote that going to A350/789 was an even better idea.

I think flying A380s to some of the marginal destinations is what is causing poor load factors and poor yields.

I think EK over invested in A380s, and so do they, because they're (still) in the process of cancelling their A380 orders.

Unfortunately for them the procedure that led them to commit to 138 or so A380s means they've got large numbers of owned and leased Whales for many years to come.

These aircraft have engines that are a generation older than 787/A350, two generations older than GE9X, three generations older than upcoming UltraFan.

Running those engines out till the 2030s is going to be eye wateringly expensive, and will only make sense for trunk routes where all seats fill with good yields.

So many of those routes would do much better with people bombers such as 787-10, A35X and 777-9.

Just to add:
A380 out of date engines and less than optimal wing (oversized=heavy) and less than optimal aspect ratio which limits underside laminar flow (Airbus calls it wing twist).

I believe there will be more profit per flight with the 779. Personally a mixed fleet of 779, A359, and 787-10 would be optimal (plus FlyDubai).

Lightsaber


Wing twist distributes the the lift along the wing, by changing the angle of attack along the wing. It helps for example also with not all the wing going into stall at exactly the same time.You can define where the wing stalls first.

Yes wing twist can have an influence on the laminar flow, but that is not its primary aim.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:42 pm

Lots of crazy airline purchasing dudes out there. For me, the proof of the engine is in the ordering - airlines are more than aware of the Trent 1000 problems and, in my view, if they thought there was a remote possiblity of Trent 1000 package B and package C problems, they wouldn't order RR, even if they were being given away - the cost of disruption likely far exceeds any discount vs the competition.

Of the 199 WB orders I've counted so far this year:
103 (51%) have gone to RR, including
30 787s (includes the 10 Air Premia, which I'm not sure are confirmed)
10 A330s
63 A350s

79 (40%) to GE, including:
34 787s (includes the 10 ANZ, which I'm not sure are confirmed)
17 777 (2 300ERs, rest 200LRFs)
18 777X
10 CF6 (all 767F)

17 Unannounced

So, RR has won 52% of the announced orders overall, 47% of announced 787 orders and 40 orders for aircraft powered by the Trent 1000-TEN and the 7000 (90% commonality)

Given the undoubted disruption and general irritation that the Trent 1000 has managed to produce, I'd argue that this isn't too bad.

WRT to reliability, I don't believe there have been any IFSDs on the Trent 1000-TEN or the 7000 (but they are both pretty new and small fleets) and only 2 on the XWB since EIS - the engines that are available for Sir Tim to purchase are, so far, really performing well. That said, the age of the fleets mean that really only the XWB can have any conclusions drawn as yet.

On the other hand, the Package B and Package Cs have been fair less reliable than the GEnx.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:50 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:

The A350 NEO is only 6-7 years away, so airlines may simply wait out of the storm of moderately high fuel prices for now to get a much more efficient frame than the CEO to replace their 77Ws.

RR has been in detailed design for a year?!? Wow, I thought they were going to do a demonstrator and then launch an engine for no earlier than 2030 EIS. Did they really pull the A team off the T1000?

Hint, RR dropped the 797 as they aren't ready for 2025 EIS on a lower risk engine. Only on a.net do people seriously think a platform with great sales and an opportunity for a PiP has a business case for an engine replacement early. This is RR commiting to invest $7 to $9 billion USD to develop a new engine and nacelle.

To launch the A350 NEO for that timeframe vmeana:
1. Abandoning the high end business jet market, other than the one model of the pearl, to GE and Pratt. Is RR really going to abandon that market?
2. Is RR really going to abandon major PiPs on the current product lines?

Engines typically make break even 15 years after EIS. For example, the JT9D was announced break even when I worked at Pratt, IIRC in 1998. Now a very profitable engine, since retired, EIS 1970. The more related engines, the better the margins. For decades, only GE had the economy of scale to sell engines out the door at a profit, but it still takes them 10 to 12 years to acheive break even. (My best estimate.)

RR doesn't need to replace the engine yet. Heck, CMC PiPs of turbine blades will extend the sales life another 7 to 8 years and the current version has at least six or seven more sales years. So the current TXWB should sell well until 2033 to 2035 (with PiPs).

How is Airbus incentivising RR to fund the effort that early. Oh, upon a NEO, due process allows GE and Pratt to bid.

Normally for a NEO engine makers demand a step improvement in the airframe. For the 77W is was structural and wing aerodynamics. For the 779 CFRP wing and folding wingtips.

This isn't the A320NEO where I was working on what became in PW1100G back in 1995 (it evolved dramatically, so not the same concept) with Pratt building multiple simulator engines to prove and sell the technology as without getting on the NEO, Pratt was done. RR isn't there. No moonshot required.

This isn't the Passport to crack into a fortress market. RR will launch their GTF, err... Ultrafan, but they are not ready. They are certainly not a year into the process skipping a demonstrator as the technology proving step.

GE was full throttle on the GE-9x in 2013. By that I mean 3 years into development after doing demonstrator engines. So a start in 2010 for EIS in 2020. RR is good, but 5 to 7 years faster than GE?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Spetsnaz55
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:53 pm

Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:01 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


They have on order 35 B778 and 115 B779, total 150, if they change about half for B787 combo its a significant it for the total B77X order book
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:

RR has been in detailed design for a year?!? Wow, I thought they were going to do a demonstrator and then launch an engine for no earlier than 2030 EIS. Did they really pull the A team off the T1000?


The A-Team isn't on the T 1000. That's been obvious for 3 years now.

The high-level design was frozen last year. They ARE in detailed design and still targeting EIS for 2025/26. They've taken the variable pitch fan off the table for 1.0, but that's a blip and wouldn't REALLY do anything for fuel consumption. The main benefit would be roughly 1 tonne of cargo weight by removing the thrust reversers.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ign-frozen

Hint, RR dropped the 797 as they aren't ready for 2025 EIS on a lower risk engine. Only on a.net do people seriously think a platform with great sales and an opportunity for a PiP has a business case for an engine replacement early. This is RR commiting to invest $7 to $9 billion USD to develop a new engine and nacelle.

That's what RR SAID they dropped it for. Many analysts around the industry agree that's because that lines up with when the A350 NEO would need to launch. Now, in my opinion that's to deal wit the 787 NG bolstering a GE9X derivative.

To launch the A350 NEO for that timeframe vmeana:
1. Abandoning the high end business jet market, other than the one model of the pearl, to GE and Pratt. Is RR really going to abandon that market?
2. Is RR really going to abandon major PiPs on the current product lines?
They already did on the T 1000. The TEN is the last of them. Can't say for the 7000 and XWB, but RR knows it's not going to sell a new T 1000 order other than replacements. GE has wiped the floor with them. ANZ proves that.

Engines typically make break even 15 years after EIS. For example, the JT9D was announced break even when I worked at Pratt, IIRC in 1998. Now a very profitable engine, since retired, EIS 1970. The more related engines, the better the margins. For decades, only GE had the economy of scale to sell engines out the door at a profit, but it still takes them 10 to 12 years to acheive break even. (My best estimate.)

Good thing RR has the 7000 and XWB to make that happen, but the 1000 is fried and done.

RR doesn't need to replace the engine yet. Heck, CMC PiPs of turbine blades will extend the sales life another 7 to 8 years and the current version has at least six or seven more sales years. So the current TXWB should sell well until 2033 to 2035 (with PiPs).

How is Airbus incentivising RR to fund the effort that early. Oh, upon a NEO, due process allows GE and Pratt to bid.


Wrong. By the discussion above the A350 is underselling relative to where it should because of the 787's outstanding performance on medium-duty long haul and because the 77Ws are still young to be replaced. Airbus needs a more compelling product. The A350 order books are not very well packed. If they don't pounce ahead of the 787 NG announcement, they're going to be staring down the barrel of an additional -11 stretch which wipes out their Transatlantic economics and an improved -10 which Singapore will happily gobble up. If they miss their window to regain the footing, the A350 NEO's own prospects will be in tatters.

Also wrong. Airbus is not obligated to let other OEMs bid. While Brexit may have the EU force Airbus to do so, it's immediately clear they have no intention to given the XWB's reliability and their very close relationship with RR on 2 highly successful planes in operation (sales being Airbus' fault).

Normally for a NEO engine makers demand a step improvement in the airframe. For the 77W is was structural and wing aerodynamics. For the 779 CFRP wing and folding wingtips.

This isn't the Passport to crack into a fortress market. RR will launch their GTF, err... Ultrafan, but they are not ready. They are certainly not a year into the process skipping a demonstrator as the technology proving step.

GE was full throttle on the GE-9x in 2013. By that I mean 3 years into development after doing demonstrator engines. So a start in 2010 for EIS in 2020. RR is good, but 5 to 7 years faster than GE?

Lightsaber

For the NEO it could very well be folding wingtips and a derivative of the laminar paint coating coming from BLADE, but 7-8% of the uplift is in the engine alone, with 3000lbs. of thrust higher ceiling, making the 1100 stretch a much better product too.

The Advance demonstrator already has the geared fan onboard and has tested at iirc 50,000lbs of thrust. It's already the strongest gearbox in aviation.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:25 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


Eh, I can see the 777-8s going away in place of GE-powered 789s, but the 40 existing 787-10s on order will cover a lot of EK's "regional" traffic. The 777-9s are mostly there to stay. Underperforming A380 routes have to get dumped onto the biggest hardware EK has, which is the 777-9.
 
Spetsnaz55
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:34 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


Eh, I can see the 777-8s going away in place of GE-powered 789s, but the 40 existing 787-10s on order will cover a lot of EK's "regional" traffic. The 777-9s are mostly there to stay. Underperforming A380 routes have to get dumped onto the biggest hardware EK has, which is the 777-9.



We will find out shortly. Rumor mill also says papers are ready to go
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:36 pm

Meanwhile, STC has one more thing to throw in RR's face:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ea-460762/
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
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, STC has one more thing to throw in RR's face:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ea-460762/


I'm kinda surprised Boeing hasn't just worked with the FAA to remove the Trent 1000 from its engine options at this point. Now that ANZ has converted, it wouldn't shock me to find ANA and others aren't far behind.

This is the single greatest long-running train wreck of an engine in my memory. The Conchorde's Olympus engines were guzzlers and expensive to maintain, but I think it's time everyone just come to Jesus and let RR put the engine to bed.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17920
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

RR has been in detailed design for a year?!? Wow, I thought they were going to do a demonstrator and then launch an engine for no earlier than 2030 EIS. Did they really pull the A team off the T1000?


The A-Team isn't on the T 1000. That's been obvious for 3 years now.

The high-level design was frozen last year. They ARE in detailed design and still targeting EIS for 2025/26. They've taken the variable pitch fan off the table for 1.0, but that's a blip and wouldn't REALLY do anything for fuel consumption. The main benefit would be roughly 1 tonne of cargo weight by removing the thrust reversers.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ign-frozen

Hint, RR dropped the 797 as they aren't ready for 2025 EIS on a lower risk engine. Only on a.net do people seriously think a platform with great sales and an opportunity for a PiP has a business case for an engine replacement early. This is RR commiting to invest $7 to $9 billion USD to develop a new engine and nacelle.

That's what RR SAID they dropped it for. Many analysts around the industry agree that's because that lines up with when the A350 NEO would need to launch. Now, in my opinion that's to deal wit the 787 NG bolstering a GE9X derivative.

To launch the A350 NEO for that timeframe vmeana:
1. Abandoning the high end business jet market, other than the one model of the pearl, to GE and Pratt. Is RR really going to abandon that market?
2. Is RR really going to abandon major PiPs on the current product lines?
They already did on the T 1000. The TEN is the last of them. Can't say for the 7000 and XWB, but RR knows it's not going to sell a new T 1000 order other than replacements. GE has wiped the floor with them. ANZ proves that.

Engines typically make break even 15 years after EIS. For example, the JT9D was announced break even when I worked at Pratt, IIRC in 1998. Now a very profitable engine, since retired, EIS 1970. The more related engines, the better the margins. For decades, only GE had the economy of scale to sell engines out the door at a profit, but it still takes them 10 to 12 years to acheive break even. (My best estimate.)

Good thing RR has the 7000 and XWB to make that happen, but the 1000 is fried and done.

RR doesn't need to replace the engine yet. Heck, CMC PiPs of turbine blades will extend the sales life another 7 to 8 years and the current version has at least six or seven more sales years. So the current TXWB should sell well until 2033 to 2035 (with PiPs).

How is Airbus incentivising RR to fund the effort that early. Oh, upon a NEO, due process allows GE and Pratt to bid.


Wrong. By the discussion above the A350 is underselling relative to where it should because of the 787's outstanding performance on medium-duty long haul and because the 77Ws are still young to be replaced. Airbus needs a more compelling product. The A350 order books are not very well packed. If they don't pounce ahead of the 787 NG announcement, they're going to be staring down the barrel of an additional -11 stretch which wipes out their Transatlantic economics and an improved -10 which Singapore will happily gobble up. If they miss their window to regain the footing, the A350 NEO's own prospects will be in tatters.

Also wrong. Airbus is not obligated to let other OEMs bid. While Brexit may have the EU force Airbus to do so, it's immediately clear they have no intention to given the XWB's reliability and their very close relationship with RR on 2 highly successful planes in operation (sales being Airbus' fault).

Normally for a NEO engine makers demand a step improvement in the airframe. For the 77W is was structural and wing aerodynamics. For the 779 CFRP wing and folding wingtips.

This isn't the Passport to crack into a fortress market. RR will launch their GTF, err... Ultrafan, but they are not ready. They are certainly not a year into the process skipping a demonstrator as the technology proving step.

GE was full throttle on the GE-9x in 2013. By that I mean 3 years into development after doing demonstrator engines. So a start in 2010 for EIS in 2020. RR is good, but 5 to 7 years faster than GE?

Lightsaber

For the NEO it could very well be folding wingtips and a derivative of the laminar paint coating coming from BLADE, but 7-8% of the uplift is in the engine alone, with 3000lbs. of thrust higher ceiling, making the 1100 stretch a much better product too.

The Advance demonstrator already has the geared fan onboard and has tested at iirc 50,000lbs of thrust. It's already the strongest gearbox in aviation.

Your link has a ground test demonstrator in 2021. That aligns with EIS maybe in 2028. I see the quite for 2025. When that article was stated, they were preparing for the 797 which requires being ready by 2025 or automatic expulsion from the bid. RR bowed out as they could not meet the 2025 timeline:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1027992089

So we have RR contradicting itself (normal in large organizations).

Even a 2018 EIS is risky for this level of technological change. RR hasn't tested enough on the new turbine, bearing, seal, and compressor issues that a GTF causes. Pratt spent decades and had issues. GE is almost a decade in and us delayed on issues.

If RR announced a new higher thrust pearl tomorrow, I know they worked on that long enough.. well, flight testing could start yesterday... ;)

Ultrafan? RR is starting to learn what they don't know.

On thread, as EK buys on 12 year leases, the re-engined A350 us past any bid they are looking for. EK must quickly downgauge.

I believe the rumors half the 777x will become 787s
I also believe STC isn't happy with the terms on the A339/A359. It isn't like him to negotiate in the press, so he is pushing for change.

These are big orders for already developed engines/airframes. Buy popcorn, I would bet no resolution with Airbus/RR by Dubai airshow. I would also bet the 777x/787 contract is signed by then. Or at least a new MOU. :devil:

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:19 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Your link has a ground test demonstrator in 2021. That aligns with EIS maybe in 2028. I see the quite for 2025. When that article was stated, they were preparing for the 797 which requires being ready by 2025 or automatic expulsion from the bid. RR bowed out as they could not meet the 2025 timeline:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1027992089

No, the ground test demonstrator already exists and is in testing. Last we knew of the gearbox, it hit 70,000 horsepower or 70,000lb of thrust equivalent.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight ... ft-engine/
The composite components of the front fan have been on a demonstrator since April.
https://l-lint.com/blog/successful-ultr ... t-engines/
https://www.americanmachinist.com/news/ ... al-testing

Next step is the 70,000lb thrust HPC. They'll have those parts by early next year for a full demonstrator.

That's perfectly fine for late 2025/6 EIS if things stay on track. Late 2025 is optimistic, yes, but 2028 is cynical.

Even a 2028 EIS is risky for this level of technological change. RR hasn't tested enough on the new turbine, bearing, seal, and compressor issues that a GTF causes. Pratt spent decades and had issues. GE is almost a decade in and us delayed on issues.

Pratt decided it would chase GE's ultra hot core without the CMCs behind it. RR knows better. GE is having very specific early corrosion issues in salty air. That's a simple issue to solve compared to improving the alloy of Pratt's steal for higher temperatures or re-tuning the cooling holes over the entire blade design.

If RR announced a new higher thrust pearl tomorrow, I know they worked on that long enough.. well, flight testing could start yesterday... ;)

Can you explain what a pearl is?

On thread, as EK buys on 12 year leases, the re-engined A350 us past any bid they are looking for. EK must quickly downgauge.

I believe the rumors half the 777x will become 787s

Why half? We don't have any hard information on underperforming 777 routes. The 777X fills in for underperforming A380s, and EK already has 40 787-10s on order which handle medium-range underperforming 777 routes.

I can see the 789 covering what the 777-8 would have where the route is already underperforming, but I'm not seeing data going this direction right now.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:21 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


Disagreed. I'm hereing that only the 35 for 778 will the swap in 787-10 with the geNCX.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:24 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


Disagreed. I'm hereing that only the 35 for 778 will the swap in 787-10 with the geNCX.


It would be the 787-9. EK wouldn't use the 777-8 except on their longest 777 routes 13,500km+ long (777-8 only hits 17,220km range in low-density config, standard range I think is 15,600km). The 787-10 can't fly them.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:26 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Rumor mill is Emirates will defer about half their 777x orders for 787 planes


Disagreed. I'm hereing that only the 35 for 778 will the swap in 787-10 with the geNCX.


It would be the 787-9. EK wouldn't use the 777-8 except on their longest 777 routes 13,500km+ long (777-8 only hits 17,220km range in low-density config, standard range I think is 15,600km). The 787-10 can't fly them.


Range of 789 not yet needed as 77LR have new cabins and will service for ten + years.

787-10 needed for regional services.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, STC has one more thing to throw in RR's face:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ea-460762/


I'm kinda surprised Boeing hasn't just worked with the FAA to remove the Trent 1000 from its engine options at this point. Now that ANZ has converted, it wouldn't shock me to find ANA and others aren't far behind.

This is the single greatest long-running train wreck of an engine in my memory. The Conchorde's Olympus engines were guzzlers and expensive to maintain, but I think it's time everyone just come to Jesus and let RR put the engine to bed.

How exactly would the FAA do that, something new and drastic would have to occur for the FAA to attempt to permanently ground the engine, and they could only do so if it enters the USA, Brexit has not happened so I am sure EASA would not follow suit.
Imagine if Boeing and GE announced they would try to mitigate the time and or cost for existing operators to switch from RR to GE, how fast would RR go to court?
The airlines who bought RR have been suffering for a couple years, how much they have lost and RR compensated is for the birds, but so far, we have not heard any of them even hint of investigating what it would cost to switch engines. Now we can see why the OEM's were not interested in the common pylon or other initial 787 initiatives to make engine swaps easy, if that was done the T1000 would have been toast a long time ago.
 
majano
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:58 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
majano wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The GEnx-1B had achieved the same in 3 years.
https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... enx-engine

How do you get to thee years from EIS based on that press release? If the 747-8 was delivered in October 2011 and that press release is October 2011, and you are basing your three years claim on the date of the press release, then 4 years is your answer? Or am I missing something?

In addition, this press release was issued a few moths before the Genx icing problems became apparent. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the Trent Xwb will not develop issues later, or even tomorrow, but I think you could have been ore generous with your facts.


The 747 engine was the 2b, not 1b. The 1b was mid 2012.

It is so disappointing that you keep providing misleading information when you seem to know better. The EIS of the 787 was October 2011 and not mid 2012 as you claim. This makes reading any of your posts a chore.
 
h1fl1er
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:04 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Can you contact LH and advise them that they are "insane"...seeing as they ordered the T1000 for 20x787-9s they ordered??


Given the in-service problems that this engine has had, I think a pretty clear case can be made for it. The airline of EK is trying to bail on an entire AB order bc of RR, ANZ flipped to GE; the performance of this motor has been really dismal. RR has good engines on the 339 and 350 but elsewhere...phew

If *you* were the purchasing decider for LH, given what's happened so far and with your bonus and even job on the line, who would you go with? The market rests its case.

So, the 777-300ER flown by LH between EWR and Munich WASN'T swapped for an A350? BA HASN'T swapped 3 of their JFK 777s for A350s? AF HASN'T swapped their LAX 777 for an A350? Qatar ISN'T in the process of retiring the 777 for the A350? I don't see A350 orders getting cancelled or converted or having options expire...


this is a good reasonable discussion and I see your point, however, I'm speaking not of long past orders for frames that *have* to be deployed somewhere, I'm talking about the more recent trends.

There are a *ton* of Ws out there and totally insufficient 359s ordered or delivered to really replace them. The momentum will shift to the 78X as the limit range of the W isn't needed. Only for serious payload would a 359 be used over most routes. Sure there's a business case for it but (and especially if) as you point out, if the 78X "NG" hits prior to a 350N, the latter program is going to be wiped out.

Also, nepotism in airlines in terms of purchasing has shaped euro carriers' fleet decisions. The 350 is inarguably cheaper to operate on an ongoing basis than a 77W. If an airline has them, they have really no choice but to swap. Are those swapped out 77Ws retiring? Most aren't. They're being repurposed. The 77W offers too much capability for most airlines, who are doing people hauling. Given the dearth of routes beyond 78X's range full-pax, there's no real need for extra capability for most airlines.

As for AKL-DOH, it's refreshing to see someone admitting that QR's 359s probably don't have the legs for this route. We'll see where DL uses their L's going forward as they have to find a use for 359s. Many posters here have been "surprised" that the 359s aren't being used on some of the longest routes, aren't doing JNB-ATL or AKL-DOH and that ANZ went both with 787s and GE.

When the actual retirement en masse of 77Ws begins to happen, the 78X will get the lion's share of the orders because neither range nor payload was the reason that those planes were deployed- they were simply the only frames capable of flying the routes economically, as the 747 used to be before the 777 on its routes. Expecting a like-kind swap of frames isn't realistic. By all accounts, it looks like UAL is printing money with their 78Xs; STC may see this too and it may be why we're hearing order swaps and he's still fussing about the Airbus deposits.
Last edited by h1fl1er on Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Reuters: Tim Clark: won't take new planes unless engines are truly ready

Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:06 pm

par13del wrote:
How exactly would the FAA do that, something new and drastic would have to occur for the FAA to attempt to permanently ground the engine, and they could only do so if it enters the USA, Brexit has not happened so I am sure EASA would not follow suit.
Imagine if Boeing and GE announced they would try to mitigate the time and or cost for existing operators to switch from RR to GE, how fast would RR go to court?
The airlines who bought RR have been suffering for a couple years, how much they have lost and RR compensated is for the birds, but so far, we have not heard any of them even hint of investigating what it would cost to switch engines. Now we can see why the OEM's were not interested in the common pylon or other initial 787 initiatives to make engine swaps easy, if that was done the T1000 would have been toast a long time ago.

The FAA can issue an airworthiness directive on any new craft with the engine (grandfathered craft can stay).

Not going to drag the thread off-topic, but Brexit is happening. Nothing Parliament can do will stop it.

I thought the mounting pylon WAS common. When did that change course?

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