Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:57 am

Boeing to announce a voluntary buyout to all 161000 employees today. No details as yet.

Widebody production could fall 60% over the next 3 years.

Guess the RTS on the 737MAX and the 777X will be set back???


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -employees
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6979
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:29 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Unless the higher MTOW means a higher OEW, surely it is up to the airlines on the range they operate the aircraft at? If the higher MTOW is "free" from the A339 MTOW, why not have airlines have the option to use it if they want to?

Unfortunately, as with many other things in this world, nothing is really "free". Amortizations, leases, landing and navigation fees, maintenance and handling stay the same.


Antaras wrote:
The "cutting capacity but to keep the frequency" can makes sense with the A319 (as comparison to A320 or A321) and 73G (as comparison to 738 or 739), but not the A338 (nor the B778)
The Cash Operating Cost (COC) of the A388 is not remarkably cheaper than the A339 (~$500 cheaper), that's why carriers are skipping the A338.
Even if there is a real demand in the A332-A338-size market, you still have another perfect choice: Boeing 787-8.
Remember that, even the launch B788 order from ANA (36) can even outsold the total number of A388's order 2.6 to 1.

I wonder over what distance or time that ~$500 cheaper cost is at. And given how carriers are now shunning the 788, I doubt it's the perfect choice either. Speaking of launch orders, the 788 only managed that due to the absence of a better competition and the hype which accompanied its launch. Granted it brought new technology to the fore.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:44 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Vladex wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]

I think you're confusing stretches with large aircraft. Yes, stretches of aircraft tend to do better, but the largest aircraft are not selling quickly... at all, whereas smaller and medium-sized aircraft had been enjoying a lot of success.



Think again? Stretches tend to have mixed success with big failures like 767-400, 757-300, 747-8 and 777X which will come nowhere close to original 777 in terms of sales because of competition. A321 is also a stretch but was selling so poorly in its infancy that it only had over 50 deliveries in its thirteenth year (2007) and Airbus went shrinking it to the absurd level (A318). Of course now A321 is the hottest airplane because it's the biggest narrow body so why wouldn't the biggest wide body be just as good?:


A321, 767-300, 787-9, 777-300ER were all successes, I would say the stretches were generally more successful than the shrinks. Being a success later on is still a success.

Why wouldn't the biggest widebody be a success? The biggest widebody was a failure, as was the 2nd biggest. Filling up a 240 seat aircraft in ULCC configuration, or around 200 with some premium seats is not all that difficult, whereas filling an 800+ seat aircraft ULCC, 500+ with premium seats. I said that smaller aircraft tended to be more successful, I'll take it back and start anew: the sweet spots for the market are where the A321neo is, and where the 789, 78X and A359 are. Those are the hottest sellers now, the largest aircraft are not selling in huge numbers, you can't just overlook the A380 and 747-8. With smaller alternatives available, the 744 was replaced largely by the smaller 77W (some by the larger A380), and I think this will play out in many cases with the 777X. Not all, but I'm claiming that the market is a fair bit weaker for the 777X than for the 77W, or indeed the current 789 and A359.

A321- Took 19 years to deliver 100 per year
767-300- followed by a bust -400
787-9 - base model
777-300ER - followed by a bust by my prediction.

Who are you to say what the sweet spot is for everybody? Do you mean Emirates , Delta and Easy Jet have the same sweet spot? Even if you have 100 daily takeoffs and landings of A380 with 600 passengers, that is roughly 43 million passengers annually and there were 50 airports last year with at least that many passengers.
You don't take into account that airports get busier producing delays or the fact that people want to travel in the morning and afternoon? What if everyone wants to travel in the morning? You seem to be biased toward american style hubs that have a monopoly in a region as opposed to competing for out of region passengers.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:44 pm

Vladex wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Vladex wrote:


Think again? Stretches tend to have mixed success with big failures like 767-400, 757-300, 747-8 and 777X which will come nowhere close to original 777 in terms of sales because of competition. A321 is also a stretch but was selling so poorly in its infancy that it only had over 50 deliveries in its thirteenth year (2007) and Airbus went shrinking it to the absurd level (A318). Of course now A321 is the hottest airplane because it's the biggest narrow body so why wouldn't the biggest wide body be just as good?:


A321, 767-300, 787-9, 777-300ER were all successes, I would say the stretches were generally more successful than the shrinks. Being a success later on is still a success.

Why wouldn't the biggest widebody be a success? The biggest widebody was a failure, as was the 2nd biggest. Filling up a 240 seat aircraft in ULCC configuration, or around 200 with some premium seats is not all that difficult, whereas filling an 800+ seat aircraft ULCC, 500+ with premium seats. I said that smaller aircraft tended to be more successful, I'll take it back and start anew: the sweet spots for the market are where the A321neo is, and where the 789, 78X and A359 are. Those are the hottest sellers now, the largest aircraft are not selling in huge numbers, you can't just overlook the A380 and 747-8. With smaller alternatives available, the 744 was replaced largely by the smaller 77W (some by the larger A380), and I think this will play out in many cases with the 777X. Not all, but I'm claiming that the market is a fair bit weaker for the 777X than for the 77W, or indeed the current 789 and A359.

A321- Took 19 years to deliver 100 per year
767-300- followed by a bust -400
787-9 - base model
777-300ER - followed by a bust by my prediction.

Who are you to say what the sweet spot is for everybody? Do you mean Emirates , Delta and Easy Jet have the same sweet spot? Even if you have 100 daily takeoffs and landings of A380 with 600 passengers, that is roughly 43 million passengers annually and there were 50 airports last year with at least that many passengers.
You don't take into account that airports get busier producing delays or the fact that people want to travel in the morning and afternoon? What if everyone wants to travel in the morning? You seem to be biased toward american style hubs that have a monopoly in a region as opposed to competing for out of region passengers.


Being a late success is still a success.
The 767-300 is still a stretch.
The 787-8 is the base model.
Can't just ignore the most successful widebody of recent times just because its successor may not replicate that.

Who am I to say what the sweet spot is? I'm not the arbiter, but a quick glance at sales figures should give some hint. The 789 and A359 are the very clear frontrunners with the 78X quite well-placed, the A380 and 747-8 are no longer on offer (as passenger aircraft), the 777X is unlikely to see the same success, and even the A35K may be outshone by its smaller sibling.

You seem to be completely ignoring that the aircraft which would have been perfect for busier airports has been cancelled, having failed to capture a meaningful market, on top of being a big financial loss. The trend in recent years has been for smaller aircraft to open up more routes (helping the congestion problem by requiring fewer passengers to connect in big hubs), and in most cases extra capacity is better served by flying more flights with smaller aircraft. Yes, some airports/airlines will need the heavy lifting, but not a huge number, most of the 777X customers are A380 operators anyway. If everyone wanted to travel at one time then airlines would have bought aircraft that facilitate that easier. They haven't.

For narrowbodies there has been a shift upwards towards the A321neo, but the market is still centred around the MAX 8 and A320neo.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:26 am

I still wonder on the freighter side. Suppose an airline uses B777-300ER for a certain city pair. Suppose they desire a few more seats and replace the plane with B777-9.
Suppose another airline has growth on a city pair on which it uses A330-300 so far. Should it replace the A330-300 with a new A350 or with a second hand B777-300ER?

Earlier planes at maximum payload were range limited. By now most planes full with passengers and with the cargo hold full can do most missions.
What planes can be expected to be rather converted to freighters and which planes will rather remain in passenger service?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:02 am

Devilfish wrote:
Unfortunately, as with many other things in this world, nothing is really "free". Amortizations, leases, landing and navigation fees, maintenance and handling stay the same.



Sure, but the A350 has multiple MTOW that the airline can use to reduce the landing and navigation fees, if an airline decides not to use the full MTOW of the frame. Surely the same can be true of the A338? It is just a number on a paper when filling in the paperwork and if an airline doesn't intend on using the extra weight available they wouldn't fill the aircraft up to that weight and wouldn't need to pay for it either. Then you can at least reduce the landing and navigation fees if you decide to operate the A338 at MTOW of 242T. Or I am totally off my rocker after a week of lockdown... :crackup:
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:25 am

Ah, the A330 will get a nice boost when the USAF is forced to order 100 or so of them, when they finally realize the never-ending nightmare of the KC-46 :stirthepot:
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:08 pm

I just got a thought about the disruption through Covid 19. Anybody remembers the story of the chess board and the rice corn which has to be doubled every field? I estimate in three months live will go back to normal. Therefore I believe there won't be a long term disruption in demand for planes.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 2:01 pm

Sokes wrote:
I just got a thought about the disruption through Covid 19. Anybody remembers the story of the chess board and the rice corn which has to be doubled every field? I estimate in three months live will go back to normal. Therefore I believe there won't be a long term disruption in demand for planes.

Unfortunately, it is faster to destroy jobs than create them. In the USA, 10 million jobs lost in two weeks. Small business will go bankrupt.

The only possible positive for aviation is we need the mother of a all infrastructure programs and expanding airports will be part of that.

Widebody demand will drop, the question is, how much?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 2:04 pm

Avalon cancelled 4 A330NEOs:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1444007

I'm sure only the start.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6979
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:29 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Sure, but the A350 has multiple MTOW that the airline can use to reduce the landing and navigation fees, if an airline decides not to use the full MTOW of the frame. Surely the same can be true of the A338?

It also has a ~$50M list price delta from the A338, which would be hard to recoup from the fees alone were airlines not to operate it to its full capability. Fine if the carrier already has the A359 or A339 in its fleet. As of now, the A338 only has the 242T version, while the 251T option is envisioned for 2023(?) at the earliest, which given the current state of the market, will likely not happen anymore to protect potential A350 sales.

enzo011 wrote:
It is just a number on a paper when filling in the paperwork and if an airline doesn't intend on using the extra weight available they wouldn't fill the aircraft up to that weight and wouldn't need to pay for it either. Then you can at least reduce the landing and navigation fees if you decide to operate the A338 at MTOW of 242T.

It is logical to surmise that an airline would buy the A338 for its payload/range capability...purposely handicapping it to serve a lower requirement is not very sound. One either gets the A321XLR for reduced capacity...or picks the A339 (four lessor frames just got cancelled for which slots might be available now at much better terms, if an airline feels bold enough).
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
trex8
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:41 pm

Devilfish wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Sure, but the A350 has multiple MTOW that the airline can use to reduce the landing and navigation fees, if an airline decides not to use the full MTOW of the frame. Surely the same can be true of the A338?

It also has a ~$50M list price delta from the A338, which would be hard to recoup from the fees alone were airlines not to operate it to its full capability. Fine if the carrier already has the A359 or A339 in its fleet. As of now, the A338 only has the 242T version, while the 251T option is envisioned for 2023(?) at the earliest, which given the current state of the market, will likely not happen anymore to protect potential A350 sales.

enzo011 wrote:
It is just a number on a paper when filling in the paperwork and if an airline doesn't intend on using the extra weight available they wouldn't fill the aircraft up to that weight and wouldn't need to pay for it either. Then you can at least reduce the landing and navigation fees if you decide to operate the A338 at MTOW of 242T.

It is logical to surmise that an airline would buy the A338 for its payload/range capability...purposely handicapping it to serve a lower requirement is not very sound. One either gets the A321XLR for reduced capacity...or picks the A339 (four lessor frames just got cancelled for which slots might be available now at much better terms, if an airline feels bold enough).

You could also argue since traffic may take some time, maybe years, to get back to what it was at the beginning of the year, having a smaller plane which costs less (2018 Airbus price list shows A338 costing 36 million less than A339 and 57 million less than A359 - 259.9 vs 296.6 vs 317.4) will stay favor a smaller widebody plane, unless you can fly 2 A321XLRs which may be good for most carriers but not all. eg PR, CI may need the transpac range and cargo lift of a A338 (vs A321XLR) but not need the capacity of an A339/A359 and it will also be useful for regional routes.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... t-all_ml_0
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:46 pm

When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:58 pm

lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber


How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

Are carriers that ordered it going to be in any condition to take any?
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:55 am

Scotron12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber


How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

Are carriers that ordered it going to be in any condition to take any?


I'm afraid the B777X may end up selling in B748-like numbers given the current circumstances. The delays caused by static test failure of the fuselage and engines kept the 777X from making its first deliveries in 2019, which would have committed the early-adopting airlines to move forward with integrating the 777X fully into their fleets. Now this crisis opens the "escape hatch" for some of their launch customers.

Lately I see airlines like Lufthansa already getting "cold feet" over introducing yet another widebody type to go with their current diverse fleet of B744's, B748's, A380's, A350's, A340's and A330's, not to mention B77F's & B773ER's operated by subsidiary airlines. And just to make things interesting, Lufthansa recently ordered B789's. Even after the retirement of the B747's, A380's and A340's, they will still have a diverse widebody fleet consisting of B779's, A359's, B789's and A330's (plus the B77F's and B77E's operated by subsidiaries).

British Airways has a similar problem. To focus down on the B777X, I wonder why they need both the A35X and the B777X, which both are designed with similar capacities and have the same long-haul mission profiles.

Emirates could be the savior for the B777X program, but even they are second-guessing their decision to order so many.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:19 am

MrHMSH wrote:
The question is how many extremely busy routes are there, and how many are there where an A350 or 787 doesn't make more sense?


Not very many. Hence the pessimism. If Boeing was more optimistic they would have invested money on using lighter materials for the fuselage

OEW (2 class seats) lb/seat | range
B787-9 284,000 lb (290) 979 lb/seat | 7,635 nmi - $292.5 million (343 unfilled)
B787-10 298,700 lb (330) 905 lb/seat | 6,430 nmi - $338.4 million (147 unfilled)
B777-9 400,000 lb (426) 939 lb/seat | 7,285 nmi - $442.2 million (309 unfilled B777-8/9)


The B777-9 was on track to begin deliveries in early 2021, but who knows what the post COVID-19 schedule will be.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:43 am

FLALEFTY wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber


How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

Are carriers that ordered it going to be in any condition to take any?


I'm afraid the B777X may end up selling in B748-like numbers given the current circumstances. The delays caused by static test failure of the fuselage and engines kept the 777X from making its first deliveries in 2019, which would have committed the early-adopting airlines to move forward with integrating the 777X fully into their fleets. Now this crisis opens the "escape hatch" for some of their launch customers.

Lately I see airlines like Lufthansa already getting "cold feet" over introducing yet another widebody type to go with their current diverse fleet of B744's, B748's, A380's, A350's, A340's and A330's, not to mention B77F's & B773ER's operated by subsidiary airlines. And just to make things interesting, Lufthansa recently ordered B789's. Even after the retirement of the B747's, A380's and A340's, they will still have a diverse widebody fleet consisting of B779's, A359's, B789's and A330's (plus the B77F's and B77E's operated by subsidiaries).

British Airways has a similar problem. To focus down on the B777X, I wonder why they need both the A35X and the B777X, which both are designed with similar capacities and have the same long-haul mission profiles.

Emirates could be the savior for the B777X program, but even they are second-guessing their decision to order so many.

Heathrow is slot restricted to the extreme. The only way that British Airways is going to grow capacity going forward is by having higher capacity aircraft seeing that the expansion of the third runway has been stopped.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:38 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:

How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

Are carriers that ordered it going to be in any condition to take any?


I'm afraid the B777X may end up selling in B748-like numbers given the current circumstances. The delays caused by static test failure of the fuselage and engines kept the 777X from making its first deliveries in 2019, which would have committed the early-adopting airlines to move forward with integrating the 777X fully into their fleets. Now this crisis opens the "escape hatch" for some of their launch customers.

Lately I see airlines like Lufthansa already getting "cold feet" over introducing yet another widebody type to go with their current diverse fleet of B744's, B748's, A380's, A350's, A340's and A330's, not to mention B77F's & B773ER's operated by subsidiary airlines. And just to make things interesting, Lufthansa recently ordered B789's. Even after the retirement of the B747's, A380's and A340's, they will still have a diverse widebody fleet consisting of B779's, A359's, B789's and A330's (plus the B77F's and B77E's operated by subsidiaries).

British Airways has a similar problem. To focus down on the B777X, I wonder why they need both the A35X and the B777X, which both are designed with similar capacities and have the same long-haul mission profiles.

Emirates could be the savior for the B777X program, but even they are second-guessing their decision to order so many.

Heathrow is slot restricted to the extreme. The only way that British Airways is going to grow capacity going forward is by having higher capacity aircraft seeing that the expansion of the third runway has been stopped.


Depending on how much traffic rebounds after this pandemic is over. It will not happen overnight. General consensus is that just to be back to pre Covid-19 levels will not be until 2023/2024, if not longer.

That is the year that BA scheduled their last B744 to leave the fleet. With this current situation, that schedule may accelerate or they may decide to keep a few for longer. But will they be in a state financially to pay for multiple $440M aircraft if no passengers?? Other carriers are also likely to defer/cancel, especially CX and LH.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:07 am

My guess is that Boeing will have relatively few WB cancellations, but lots of differed deliveries, basically stretch the current book over 4 to 5 more years. New orders will be small, few, and far between. For example, EK could stretch their existing fleet of 77W's to last 3 to 4 extra years, so their need for 779's in the next 5 years will be very low. The silver lining for Boeing is that EK is likely to draw down the A380 fleet faster than the 77W.

I would not want to hold the paper on any A380 leased or financed right now, residual values for frames coming off lease will be scary.

Both the A330 and A350, will have similar stretching of the book. Cancellations for both A & B in the widebodies will mostly be from those that fail, it seems that A has more exposure to the Air Asia's of the world, but both will hurt.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 1312
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:17 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
My guess is that Boeing will have relatively few WB cancellations, but lots of differed deliveries, basically stretch the current book over 4 to 5 more years. ...
Both the A330 and A350, will have similar stretching of the book. Cancellations for both A & B in the widebodies will mostly be from those that fail, it seems that A has more exposure to the Air Asia's of the world, but both will hurt.


That makes sense. Both got far too many bookings in an economy overheated by cheap interest and printing money. A little cooling off can be expected now that fear entered the market.

"Airbus’ backlog of aircraft remaining to be delivered as of 29 February stood at 7,670. This total was comprised of 6,209 A320 Family aircraft and 547 A220s, as well as 328 A330s, 577 A350 XWBs and nine A380s."
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

I don't know about Boeing. The link doesn't load with me. According to Wikipedia they also have 6000 planes backlog as of end of Jan 19.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Co ... deliveries

So how many cancellations would be dramatic? 1000, 2000, 3000?
How many can be expected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyBtMPqpNY
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6979
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:18 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

FLALEFTY wrote:
I'm afraid the B777X may end up selling in B748-like numbers given the current circumstances. The delays caused by static test failure of the fuselage and engines kept the 777X from making its first deliveries in 2019, which would have committed the early-adopting airlines to move forward with integrating the 777X fully into their fleets. Now this crisis opens the "escape hatch" for some of their launch customers.

This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the above got me thinking. In view of the downtrend, can we expect Boeing to shift focus to the 778X despite the billions already spent on the bigger model's development :?: They could "incentivise" vacillating customers to opt for the 778X instead when the world finally emerges from this crisis -- to avert mass cancellation of their launch orders.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
2175301
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:52 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
How about the elephant in the room, the B777X?

FLALEFTY wrote:
I'm afraid the B777X may end up selling in B748-like numbers given the current circumstances. The delays caused by static test failure of the fuselage and engines kept the 777X from making its first deliveries in 2019, which would have committed the early-adopting airlines to move forward with integrating the 777X fully into their fleets. Now this crisis opens the "escape hatch" for some of their launch customers.

This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the above got me thinking. In view of the downtrend, can we expect Boeing to shift focus to the 778X despite the billions already spent on the bigger model's development :?: They could "incentivise" vacillating customers to opt for the 778X instead when the world finally emerges from this crisis -- to avert mass cancellation of their launch orders.


I doubt Boeing will cancel the 777X as they have already spent most of the money to develop the aircraft; and it's essentially in the testing and flight certification stage (Less than $1 Billion remaining to enter commercial service). Boeing will bring the 777X to market. How well it actually does?.... I think they know now that perhaps the 777X will not break even on its development cost. But, it will be out there and offered for a long time.

At the other financial extreme - the NMA was Suspended for at least years (and perhaps forever) as it was in what could be called Advanced Study and Initial Design phase. It would likely cost at least $8 Billion to bring to market at this stage, and it could easily be $12 Billion. Boeing has likely sunk at least $1 Billion R&D into it so far over the years.

I think all aircraft manufacturers are facing some difficult times in the next 2-4 years. I think it will all have stabilized 5 years out; and perhaps that will only be 3 years out.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:20 pm

lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber


Longer, with the economy in recession oil will be cheap and with cheap fuel a used A330CEO is just a nice solution if you need another wide body - which not many airlines will need. And due to many airlines not surviving the crisis, the market will be full of available frames. Even 787, A350s and A330NEOs will be easily available.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:25 pm

9/11 hit airlines very hard, but as I recall, by 2003 things had pretty much rebounded. I do not think the Covid-19 episode will be as severe as 9/11. It should mostly be over by the summer, and a vaccine out by late fall or winter.

The wide body market was already somewhat saturated. Currently some older A330, A340, and 777 will need to be replaced along with 744 frames. Increasing capacity is what will suffer and there could be a 2-3 year lag as airlines recover financially.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6979
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:24 pm

2175301 wrote:
I doubt Boeing will cancel the 777X as they have already spent most of the money to develop the aircraft; and it's essentially in the testing and flight certification stage (Less than $1 Billion remaining to enter commercial service). Boeing will bring the 777X to market.

Not cancel outright but perhaps held in abeyance until the world economy has recovered its financial muscle. In the meantime, the 778X could serve as a bridge from retiring 77Ws, 748s and A380s for when the market regains its appetite for VLAs. Boeing can probably transfer most of the R&D already done to the 778X and does not have to spend too much anymore to bring the latter to market?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:00 pm

Devilfish wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I doubt Boeing will cancel the 777X as they have already spent most of the money to develop the aircraft; and it's essentially in the testing and flight certification stage (Less than $1 Billion remaining to enter commercial service). Boeing will bring the 777X to market.

Not cancel outright but perhaps held in abeyance until the world economy has recovered its financial muscle. In the meantime, the 778X could serve as a bridge from retiring 77Ws, 748s and A380s for when the market regains its appetite for VLAs. Boeing can probably transfer most of the R&D already done to the 778X and does not have to spend too much anymore to bring the latter to market?

Can Boeing really afford to wait? I doubt it. The borrowed money to pay for development costs has to be repaid. They need to deliver planes to repay those loans.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:29 pm

Sokes wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
My guess is that Boeing will have relatively few WB cancellations, but lots of differed deliveries, basically stretch the current book over 4 to 5 more years. ...
Both the A330 and A350, will have similar stretching of the book. Cancellations for both A & B in the widebodies will mostly be from those that fail, it seems that A has more exposure to the Air Asia's of the world, but both will hurt.


That makes sense. Both got far too many bookings in an economy overheated by cheap interest and printing money. A little cooling off can be expected now that fear entered the market.

"Airbus’ backlog of aircraft remaining to be delivered as of 29 February stood at 7,670. This total was comprised of 6,209 A320 Family aircraft and 547 A220s, as well as 328 A330s, 577 A350 XWBs and nine A380s."
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

I don't know about Boeing. The link doesn't load with me. According to Wikipedia they also have 6000 planes backlog as of end of Jan 19.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Co ... deliveries

So how many cancellations would be dramatic? 1000, 2000, 3000?
How many can be expected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyBtMPqpNY

As this is a widebody thread, I will limit my discussion to how dramatic the widebody cancellations and deferals will be

Boeing:
747: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
777/777x: With few customers, any cut will be dramatic. Expect a further rate cut. Probably to 25/year. (Economic industry minimum)
787: It is all about production rate. I expect enough to drop production to 100/year or less. Probably diwn to 75-85/year.
767: I expect a freight reduction, but not dramatic

Airbus:
A380: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
A350: Likely a production rate decrease. But probably only 25% cut to 75-85/year.
A330: I expect production being brought down to the minimum. Production down to industry minimum, 25/year.

GE furloughed half their engine people. I do not expect them to be hiring back soon. Same with RR.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:08 am

exFWAOONW wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I doubt Boeing will cancel the 777X as they have already spent most of the money to develop the aircraft; and it's essentially in the testing and flight certification stage (Less than $1 Billion remaining to enter commercial service). Boeing will bring the 777X to market.

Not cancel outright but perhaps held in abeyance until the world economy has recovered its financial muscle. In the meantime, the 778X could serve as a bridge from retiring 77Ws, 748s and A380s for when the market regains its appetite for VLAs. Boeing can probably transfer most of the R&D already done to the 778X and does not have to spend too much anymore to bring the latter to market?

Can Boeing really afford to wait? I doubt it. The borrowed money to pay for development costs has to be repaid. They need to deliver planes to repay those loans.


With production halted in Washington State indefintely, which planes are being delivered and paid for??
 
smartplane
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:33 am

lightsaber wrote:
As this is a widebody thread, I will limit my discussion to how dramatic the widebody cancellations and deferals will be

Boeing:
747: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
777/777x: With few customers, any cut will be dramatic. Expect a further rate cut. Probably to 25/year. (Economic industry minimum)
787: It is all about production rate. I expect enough to drop production to 100/year or less. Probably diwn to 75-85/year.
767: I expect a freight reduction, but not dramatic

Airbus:
A380: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
A350: Likely a production rate decrease. But probably only 25% cut to 75-85/year.
A330: I expect production being brought down to the minimum. Production down to industry minimum, 25/year.

GE furloughed half their engine people. I do not expect them to be hiring back soon. Same with RR.

Lightsaber

Think your numbers are very bullish.

For now, OEM's won't rock the boat over order deferrals and non-settlement for 'ready to deliver' aircraft, because this can trigger bigger financial issues for customers.

There is a log jam, with soft / non-existent demand. Governments making bailout funding conditional on suspending capital acquisitions. Post-shipment financiers not keen / able to take out pre-shipment. And of course most customers, deep pockets or not, don't want any new assets to park.

In past financial downturns OEM's acted as lenders of last resort, and there were always a few canny wheeler dealers willing to take a punt. This time even the air frame and engine OEM's will need support, so the capacity to discount and / or fund built and WIP is close to zero.

Half your numbers or less probably for 787 and A350. 777X development mothballed.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:22 am

smartplane wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
As this is a widebody thread, I will limit my discussion to how dramatic the widebody cancellations and deferals will be

Boeing:
747: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
777/777x: With few customers, any cut will be dramatic. Expect a further rate cut. Probably to 25/year. (Economic industry minimum)
787: It is all about production rate. I expect enough to drop production to 100/year or less. Probably diwn to 75-85/year.
767: I expect a freight reduction, but not dramatic

Airbus:
A380: Already done making major assemblies. Little impact as at end of line already. Deliveries likely to be postponed.
A350: Likely a production rate decrease. But probably only 25% cut to 75-85/year.
A330: I expect production being brought down to the minimum. Production down to industry minimum, 25/year.

GE furloughed half their engine people. I do not expect them to be hiring back soon. Same with RR.

Lightsaber

Think your numbers are very bullish.

For now, OEM's won't rock the boat over order deferrals and non-settlement for 'ready to deliver' aircraft, because this can trigger bigger financial issues for customers.

There is a log jam, with soft / non-existent demand. Governments making bailout funding conditional on suspending capital acquisitions. Post-shipment financiers not keen / able to take out pre-shipment. And of course most customers, deep pockets or not, don't want any new assets to park.

In past financial downturns OEM's acted as lenders of last resort, and there were always a few canny wheeler dealers willing to take a punt. This time even the air frame and engine OEM's will need support, so the capacity to discount and / or fund built and WIP is close to zero.

Half your numbers or less probably for 787 and A350. 777X development mothballed.


Sad, but the new reality. This pandemic will and has upended the aviation industry which will take many months if not yeara to recover.

Quote:

"When the world emerges from the pandemic, the size of the commercial market and the types of products and services our customers want and need will likely be different,” Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun told employees last week in a message.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... irus-worry
 
KFTG
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:39 am

What is the point of completing any A380s currently in production?
Production of these remaining airframes should be halted immediately and all unfinished aircraft scrapped.
 
Aither
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:05 am

KFTG wrote:
What is the point of completing any A380s currently in production?
Production of these remaining airframes should be halted immediately and all unfinished aircraft scrapped.


Less traffic does not necessarily means smaller airplanes.

Less competition, less routes can also concentrate the traffic between the main hubs. And we need to be strong on these key routes to compensate for secondary markets having difficulties.
I actually believe Emirates will come up relatively stronger than ever. I insist on the word "relatively".
Never trust the obvious
 
KFTG
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:09 am

EK does not need any more A380s. Not a single one more.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:15 am

Devilfish wrote:
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the above got me thinking. In view of the downtrend, can we expect Boeing to shift focus to the 778X despite the billions already spent on the bigger model's development :?: They could "incentivise" vacillating customers to opt for the 778X instead when the world finally emerges from this crisis -- to avert mass cancellation of their launch orders.


The problem I see for the 778X is that it is just a heavier A35K and will me much more expensive as well (according to list prices). Why would an airline settle for the 778X if Airbus can provide them with the better A35K (unless you are looking for the outer edges of the performance of the aircraft) at roughly the same delivery time as well?

Airbus would have incentive to keep the production rate up for the A350 if airlines are looking between the 2 models and they could severely damage the 777X program as a bonus as well.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:04 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
9/11 hit airlines very hard, but as I recall, by 2003 things had pretty much rebounded. I do not think the Covid-19 episode will be as severe as 9/11. It should mostly be over by the summer, and a vaccine out by late fall or winter.

The wide body market was already somewhat saturated. Currently some older A330, A340, and 777 will need to be replaced along with 744 frames. Increasing capacity is what will suffer and there could be a 2-3 year lag as airlines recover financially.


9/11 was nothing compared to Corona. Planes were grounded for barely 3 days and then only in the USA. Now we see groundings all around the globe and all lasting far longer than 3 days and as long as there is no vaccine the demand will be very limited any way. We could easily be talking about 12-18 months with traffic down by 50-80%.

And if you look at other industries, nobody did close factories or shops, now they do. This is more like a World War than 9/11.
 
Opus99
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:44 am

enzo011 wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the above got me thinking. In view of the downtrend, can we expect Boeing to shift focus to the 778X despite the billions already spent on the bigger model's development :?: They could "incentivise" vacillating customers to opt for the 778X instead when the world finally emerges from this crisis -- to avert mass cancellation of their launch orders.


The problem I see for the 778X is that it is just a heavier A35K and will me much more expensive as well (according to list prices). Why would an airline settle for the 778X if Airbus can provide them with the better A35K (unless you are looking for the outer edges of the performance of the aircraft) at roughly the same delivery time as well?

Airbus would have incentive to keep the production rate up for the A350 if airlines are looking between the 2 models and they could severely damage the 777X program as a bonus as well.

Why is the -8 so heavy when it’s quite smaller than the 77W and A35K. Seeing as Boeing has not released the OEW for this aircraft. I sometimes get the feeling it should have been the leader between the two seeing as it’s fuel burn should be much lower than the 777-9 seeing as it should definitely weigh a lot less etc
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:48 am

There is basically no traffic in the quarantine period. Soon travel will begin to be allowed on certain city pairs as the contagion clears. But it will be an odd list - some cities are on the tail of their curve, others haven't had an outbreak yet and will need to be isolated if it does, still others will have a 2nd or 3rd wave. In 3 to 4 weeks this could start, but there will be places 'closed' even 6-8 months from now.

Once open, travellers will then decide if and when they fly, airlines will need to test routes to see if viable. With widebodies a huge number of routes are served by 1 to 5 flights per day, so each flight is a 20% increment. Add a plane and the LF's crater and the route is in the red. Coupled with the economic waves that are likely it will be very hard to predict the right number of flights in July, etc. Traffic rising 10% a month is the upper end of what is realistic to assume. It will also start to flatten once past about 60% of previous levels as the discretionary and leisure markets have been hurt badly.
 
Aither
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:14 am

KFTG wrote:
EK does not need any more A380s. Not a single one more.


The markets of EK are not like the US markets.

People will be disappointed if they believe that there will be no longer immigrants Indian workers, China will not care of Africa any longer, Middle East countries will stop going global, everybody will go green, foreign students will disappear, the world population will decline, and middle class people will no longer want to go and visit places in the "new world".

Things are just being pushed to the right, but most of what makes air traffic will happen. The split of nationalities in the airplanes is what could be the most visible change in the long term.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:55 am

Opus99 wrote:
Why is the -8 so heavy when it’s quite smaller than the 77W and A35K. Seeing as Boeing has not released the OEW for this aircraft. I sometimes get the feeling it should have been the leader between the two seeing as it’s fuel burn should be much lower than the 777-9 seeing as it should definitely weigh a lot less etc



I am not sure as we are speculating on the weights here, but I don't know if it will weigh less than the 77W as it has the larger engines and larger wing that eats into the shorter fuselage weight. I wonder if we will ever find out what the weight of the 778 will end up with.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:16 pm

The -9 defined the structure based on MTOW, capacity and range, which makes the -8 a simple shrink, which means it is rather heavy compared to its size.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8288
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:18 pm

Bill Gates in an interview with Trever Noah said it will take five years for international air travel to recover because of increased border controls and quarantine requirements. I would say world has enough widebodies for now. And cutting them up is real stupid, industry should try to preserve already built frames.
All posts are just opinions.
 
mig17
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:19 pm

Opus99 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the above got me thinking. In view of the downtrend, can we expect Boeing to shift focus to the 778X despite the billions already spent on the bigger model's development :?: They could "incentivise" vacillating customers to opt for the 778X instead when the world finally emerges from this crisis -- to avert mass cancellation of their launch orders.


The problem I see for the 778X is that it is just a heavier A35K and will me much more expensive as well (according to list prices). Why would an airline settle for the 778X if Airbus can provide them with the better A35K (unless you are looking for the outer edges of the performance of the aircraft) at roughly the same delivery time as well?

Airbus would have incentive to keep the production rate up for the A350 if airlines are looking between the 2 models and they could severely damage the 777X program as a bonus as well.

Why is the -8 so heavy when it’s quite smaller than the 77W and A35K. Seeing as Boeing has not released the OEW for this aircraft. I sometimes get the feeling it should have been the leader between the two seeing as it’s fuel burn should be much lower than the 777-9 seeing as it should definitely weigh a lot less etc

The 777-8 is a bit shorter than the 77W but it has heavier wings and engine. So it will be in the same weight area with an OEW between 160-170t. The A350 is an entirely new frame like the 787 with a lighter fuselage per meter. The Sunrise decision proves that even as an ULH frame, the A35K is better. The only advantage of the 778 over the A35K would be max payload on shorter trip.
That is why Boeing freezed it's developpement to focus on the 777-9. Because the larger cabin it offers can compensate the heavier structure if you can extract enough extra revenu from it yearlong for all it's service life. This crisis is the perfect exemple that more potential revenue isn't always a good thing.
Truth is the 777-X programm was already strugeling before the COVID and by the way the real competition was even more with A359 and 789 than the "same sized" A35K. And this crisis is going to hurt it even harder.
Airbus is in the same situation with the A330neo. The only "chance" for the neo may be that it is the smallest widebody outthere. That can help in this difficult time, but it doesn't look good either.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:34 pm

FrancisBegbie wrote:
Ah, the A330 will get a nice boost when the USAF is forced to order 100 or so of them, when they finally realize the never-ending nightmare of the KC-46 :stirthepot:


What nightmare are you referring to?

All this speculation is just that, about the widebody market..Let's not forget that scientists are warning about a 2nd wave of this pandemic during October-November and we will still be without a vaccine..On the other hand there might be the right meds to treat this..If we go for a round 2 of this virus,things might be a lot worse for the airlines than we think of, in spite of a potential summer relief..
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15124
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:53 pm

You are still going to need widebodies in the long run for most TPAC and TATL routes, especially for very long routes, airports with limited capacity like LHR and purpose built as freighters. No doubt sales will be fewer for the next several years, production will have to be cut until the financial recovery happens. New planes will still be needed to replace worn, expensive to maintain and less efficient models. I do think there will be a need to limit sub-models, create more efficient engines and some retrofitting of winglets and other improvements in aerodynamic efficiency for current and recent past models.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber

Pre Covid-19 shutdown, Airasia Group were scheduled to receive 11 narrow bodies and Airasia X were due to get about 3-5 A339s. I don't think that there will be any deliveries in 2020 and maybe a small amount in 2021.

I think most airlines have written off 2020. Even after the pandemic is under control, people won't be travelling unless they feel safe. Also most travel will take place for solid reasons. Tourism may take a back seat as people don't have much spare cash left...

I suspect that most airlines will emerge downsized to where they were about 4-5 years ago. This is worse than 9/11 because it is a worldwide stoppage. We may see an end to multiple flight frequencies for the next two years. Airlines' networks will probably start with trunk routes only.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:35 pm

ltbewr wrote:
You are still going to need widebodies in the long run for most TPAC and TATL routes, especially for very long routes, airports with limited capacity like LHR and purpose built as freighters. No doubt sales will be fewer for the next several years, production will have to be cut until the financial recovery happens. New planes will still be needed to replace worn, expensive to maintain and less efficient models. I do think there will be a need to limit sub-models, create more efficient engines and some retrofitting of winglets and other improvements in aerodynamic efficiency for current and recent past models.

Limited production is a given.

As to your comment on more efficient engines, it is now about as expensive to develop engines as the airframe. There is technology to impliment:
1. CMC turbine inlet (fixed) vanes. About 2.5% drop in fuel burn. GE9x first engine going through certification with this technology. Retrifitable fir half fuel efficiency gain, except for LEAP (designed for tech). Major expense is new factories. Need billions in new production equipment.
2. Variable turbine cooling (in LEAP and GE9x). Abiut 2.7% reduction in fuel burn. This needs a new casing for the valves to actuate ($1 million part). Can be adapted to new build PiP.
3. Variable fan nozzle. About 1.25% fuel burn reduction, best for 4+ hour flights Not retrifitable, needs a fan redesign to achieve full efficiency.
4. More precise engine cooling (e.g., multiple turbine clearance vontrol loops). Perhaps 1.5% fuel burn reduction. Due to the complexity, thus can only happen in a major engine model revision (not retrifitable to in service fleet).
5. Improved low and high compressor matching. This requires complete reblading. Not economical to retrofit.

All of the above requires hundreds of millions if usd to make happen and enough sales to create a viable supply chain. Progress in engines is slow due to the expense.

About half if fuel burn reduction is on the airframe side. More CFRP, underside laminar flow (requires a high aspect ratio wing, so why I think folding wingtips are required going forward l), better electrical subsystems.

Due to low oil prices, the push will be for reduced maintenance costs:
1. More electrical subsystems (including engines).
2. Improved predictive maintenance (working well now on 787 and A320 NEO and latest avionics CEO).
3. The 12 year corrosion interval (well proven coatings, started with A340, but much off old Doulas R&D).
4. Increased cycles/hours level of Validity. Not for aircraft life, for extending maintenance intervals.
5. Increased engine cycle/hours to overhaul. The best narrowbody are now at 24,000 cycles. To out in perspective, the B717's BR720s entered service, IIRC, with a 8500 cycle limit between overhauls, very competitive when that entered service.

With oil so cheap, the business case to reduce fuel burn isn't there. It will be back to the 1990s, all about maintenance cost reduction (engines went from 8500 cycles to 20000 between overhauls, new materials pushed to 24000 in about 20 years, CMCs will accelerate again).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:37 pm

flee wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
When is the first AirAsia X A339 delivery scheduled for? Right now, AirAsia is not accepting any aircraft (article states 14 due in 2020, but doesn't note allocation between A320 and A330)

https://www.flightglobal.com/airasias-f ... 92.article

Delta us cutting international flying by 80%, United by 85%. I'm not seeing demand for 2 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-BB11mUvi

Lightsaber

Pre Covid-19 shutdown, Airasia Group were scheduled to receive 11 narrow bodies and Airasia X were due to get about 3-5 A339s. I don't think that there will be any deliveries in 2020 and maybe a small amount in 2021.

I think most airlines have written off 2020. Even after the pandemic is under control, people won't be travelling unless they feel safe. Also most travel will take place for solid reasons. Tourism may take a back seat as people don't have much spare cash left...

I suspect that most airlines will emerge downsized to where they were about 4-5 years ago. This is worse than 9/11 because it is a worldwide stoppage. We may see an end to multiple flight frequencies for the next two years. Airlines' networks will probably start with trunk routes only.

Thank you for the AirAsia update. 2020 will be brutal.

This is far worse than 9/11. Asia and the EU kept to business as usual excluding flights to US. A global shutdown of now just aviation, but the whole supply chain...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1298
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:40 pm

Is it plausible that only the A350 and 787 will be in production widebody pax aircraft in 2 years, at around 8 per month each?
 
mig17
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:01 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Is it plausible that only the A350 and 787 will be in production widebody pax aircraft in 2 years, at around 8 per month each?

It is a possibility, not the most likely tho. The 777 is still a cargo and unless EK drop the X entirely, it will be produced. Same for the A330 as long as Air Asia and Delta supports it. But the -X will likely not sale over 300-350 unit if there are any new sales at all and the neo will have to wait several more years to know if 2019 was a real trend or not ...

But both Airbus and Boeing are going to wish for some times they hadn't kept their last decade bestseller around instead of investing more in their new star ...
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4119
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Future demand for widebodies

Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
You are still going to need widebodies in the long run for most TPAC and TATL routes, especially for very long routes, airports with limited capacity like LHR and purpose built as freighters. No doubt sales will be fewer for the next several years, production will have to be cut until the financial recovery happens. New planes will still be needed to replace worn, expensive to maintain and less efficient models. I do think there will be a need to limit sub-models, create more efficient engines and some retrofitting of winglets and other improvements in aerodynamic efficiency for current and recent past models.

Limited production is a given.

As to your comment on more efficient engines, it is now about as expensive to develop engines as the airframe. There is technology to impliment:
1. CMC turbine inlet (fixed) vanes. About 2.5% drop in fuel burn. GE9x first engine going through certification with this technology. Retrifitable fir half fuel efficiency gain, except for LEAP (designed for tech). Major expense is new factories. Need billions in new production equipment.
2. Variable turbine cooling (in LEAP and GE9x). Abiut 2.7% reduction in fuel burn. This needs a new casing for the valves to actuate ($1 million part). Can be adapted to new build PiP.
3. Variable fan nozzle. About 1.25% fuel burn reduction, best for 4+ hour flights Not retrifitable, needs a fan redesign to achieve full efficiency.
4. More precise engine cooling (e.g., multiple turbine clearance vontrol loops). Perhaps 1.5% fuel burn reduction. Due to the complexity, thus can only happen in a major engine model revision (not retrifitable to in service fleet).
5. Improved low and high compressor matching. This requires complete reblading. Not economical to retrofit.

All of the above requires hundreds of millions if usd to make happen and enough sales to create a viable supply chain. Progress in engines is slow due to the expense.

About half if fuel burn reduction is on the airframe side. More CFRP, underside laminar flow (requires a high aspect ratio wing, so why I think folding wingtips are required going forward l), better electrical subsystems.

Due to low oil prices, the push will be for reduced maintenance costs:
1. More electrical subsystems (including engines).
2. Improved predictive maintenance (working well now on 787 and A320 NEO and latest avionics CEO).
3. The 12 year corrosion interval (well proven coatings, started with A340, but much off old Doulas R&D).
4. Increased cycles/hours level of Validity. Not for aircraft life, for extending maintenance intervals.
5. Increased engine cycle/hours to overhaul. The best narrowbody are now at 24,000 cycles. To out in perspective, the B717's BR720s entered service, IIRC, with a 8500 cycle limit between overhauls, very competitive when that entered service.

With oil so cheap, the business case to reduce fuel burn isn't there. It will be back to the 1990s, all about maintenance cost reduction (engines went from 8500 cycles to 20000 between overhauls, new materials pushed to 24000 in about 20 years, CMCs will accelerate again).

Lightsaber


A perhaps too speculative question from someone 'not in the know' category. Piston engines got dumped because they were just too damn complicated - expense, maintenance, reliability, even theoretical limits etc. This probably is not too much of being over simplified. Jet engines may be reaching the same limit. What if a hybrid long range plane had an engine or two designed largely to produce electricity and run at a very limited rpm range. Hybrid batteries would cover for the more or less needs of thrust. Would such an engine be cheaper to design, build, and maintain. Super capacitors are being designed, which could help with the climb.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

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