Updated: Reuters: Airbus launches A350 freighter

Daysleeper · Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
Hurrah, it only took four months after "launch" to be able to give some numbers for the plane and produce a photoshop drawing of it and put together a web page.

I agree it would have been better for us enthusiasts to have known the specifications when Airbus disclosed that they would be offering the A350F to potential customers, but I suspect the people who needed to know its details have done so for a long time and it’s just now hitting the press as there could be some orders placed.

It could be worse, we have known the specifications of the 777X since what 2013? And it seems plausible that it will not enter service until late 2024 or even 2025 at this rate, taking just 12 years from being announced until entering service. In fact, earlier in this thread I said jokingly that it would not surprise me if we see the A350F enter service before the 779X. Well if Airbus get some orders for the A350F this week, then I really could see it happening.

Revelation wrote:
This has been mentioned several times over the 30+ pages of this thread.

Also, on page 1 of this thread it was mentioned that the program would need 50 orders to be viable, yet here we are months later, with maybe an order from one leasing firm, presumably not for 50 airframes.

It would surprise me to see any single customer order 50 frames at this time, especially with the 77W conversations still somewhat of an unknown as well as what if any future regulation may restrict operations of older frames. I suspect Airbus is playing the long game here, this is a new market segment for them and has been discussed countless times a relatively cheap, low risk endeavour.

The A350 is already a highly successful, profitable project, should they manage to sell and only sell 50 frames within the next decade, whist disappointing It will not sink the program. However, for its competitor 50 frames accounts for almost a quarter, perhaps a fifth or its entire order book and without a monopoly on the large freighter market allowing them to charge exorbitant rates for a possible 77XF then there is a serious risk that the entire project will fail to ever make a profit.

Revelation wrote:
Funny we don't mention that potential EY and KE orders are said to involve conversions of orders of other Airbus models (EY converting A320neo, KE converting A350), yet this gets mentioned early and often for 77XF potential orders.

Perhaps that’s because the A350 is certified and able to be delivered? It would also follow that said customer would not have as much room to negotiate with Airbus as they would with Boeing due to the significant delays with the 777X program. Well with the obvious exception of AAB, but even then I don’t think he has as much of a strangle hold on Airbus as STC does on Boeing – So who knows? got to wait and see I guess.

As a side note and a bit of fun: You quoted the Bruce Springsteen song Local Hero a few pages ago specifically the lyric “I can't tell my courage from my desperation” when discussing why Airbus would release a freighter variant. Well, now that they have, and it both seems like it will be much more capable than we thought and it has customers. Then I’d like to suggest the Monroe song “What to you want from me” as the Boeing anthem. It seems to fit their current predicament with the 77XF well. As they watch the last market segment they had a monopoly over end, and the chances of ever making money on the 77X become increasingly slim. the lines:

It's not how it used to be
You've taken my life away
Ruining everything

Seem quite poignant. Boeing is certainly not how it used to be

Revelation · Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:41 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
I suspect Airbus is playing the long game here, this is a new market segment for them and has been discussed countless times a relatively cheap, low risk endeavour.

The A350 is already a highly successful, profitable project, should they manage to sell and only sell 50 frames within the next decade, whist disappointing It will not sink the program. However, for its competitor 50 frames accounts for almost a quarter, perhaps a fifth or its entire order book and without a monopoly on the large freighter market allowing them to charge exorbitant rates for a possible 77XF then there is a serious risk that the entire project will fail to ever make a profit.

Some flawed logic here, IMO.

If it's a cheap derivative for Team A, it's also a cheap derivative for Team B, they are both doing similar amounts of work, and in a way Team B has the advantage of a team up to speed on 779 ready to roll over to 77XF. I presume some already are.

Positing the current order book for 77X as if it can't/won't grow is also flawed logic, IMO.

Boeing is now charging 'end of the line' prices on 772F, that will set a bound on whatever "exorbitant rate" either team can charge on their new freighters.

Daysleeper wrote:
[i]As a side note and a bit of fun: You quoted the Bruce Springsteen song Local Hero a few pages ago specifically the lyric “I can't tell my courage from my desperation” when discussing why Airbus would release a freighter variant. Well, now that they have, and it both seems like it will be much more capable than we thought and it has customers.

I think A350F is a bit more capable than we thought it might be, and in turn we're hearing 77XF will be a bit more capable than we thought it might be. In turn this means both are spending more on R&D and presumably materials than planned. It makes the orders side of the equation even more important.

As for customers the jury is still out, and a potential order from a leasing firm doesn't settle the issue one way or the other.

In my mind, the first to get to 50 orders is probably going to be the "winner" overall.

Daysleeper · Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Some flawed logic here, IMO.

If it's a cheap derivative for Team A, it's also a cheap derivative for Team B, they are both doing similar amounts of work, and in a way Team B has the advantage of a team up to speed on 779 ready to roll over to 77XF. I presume some already are.

Positing the current order book for 77X as if it can't/won't grow is also flawed logic, IMO.

Boeing is now charging 'end of the line' prices on 772F, that will set a bound on whatever "exorbitant rate" either team can charge on their new freighters.

I have never suggested that it would be any more expensive or difficult for Boeing to develop the 77XF, as you say it was undoubtedly planned from the start. What I suspect wasn’t planned was having competition, and no longer being able to dictate the price of large freighters. This I believe is where one of the key differences lies; risk. Airbus can afford to only sell a few dozen freighters, this is a new market for them and they just want to get a “foot in the door” so to speak. Not to mention the development of such a variant may prove to be useful in allowing larger passenger variants to be developed at a later date to compete directly with the 779X. As I have said before I really don’t see what they have to lose?

I also don’t believe the 77X orderbook to be static, STC has made no secret of his problems with Boeing and the 77X program and has already cancelled 30 of the type. So yes, perhaps I was being presumptuous calling 50 frames a fifth of the order book, should EK cancel it would be half.

And no I don’t think EK will cancel, but I also don’t see who else is going to order it either.

Revelation wrote:
I think A350F is a bit more capable than we thought it might be, and in turn we're hearing 77XF will be a bit more capable than we thought it might be. In turn this means both are spending more on R&D and presumably materials than planned. It makes the orders side of the equation even more important.

As for customers the jury is still out, and a potential order from a leasing firm doesn't settle the issue one way or the other.

In my mind, the first to get to 50 orders is probably going to be the "winner" overall.

Now this is the flawed logic you speak of. Airbus doesn’t need the A350F in order for the program to make money, it already does. Developing the freighter is allowing them into a new market previously dominated by Boeing. If Airbus only do ever sell 50 A350F’s it will be 50 less 77XF’s Boeing will have been able to sell, thus quite possibly crippling the program.

2175301 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:47 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Now this is the flawed logic you speak of. Airbus doesn’t need the A350F in order for the program to make money, it already does. Developing the freighter is allowing them into a new market previously dominated by Boeing. If Airbus only do ever sell 50 A350F’s it will be 50 less 77XF’s Boeing will have been able to sell, thus quite possibly crippling the program.

Talking about flawed logic: While the A350 is not cash positive on assembly & selling price.... It will be many years before they even approach paying off the development cost. The A350 has a huge development cost in part because they had to reboot the development. Thus they are not actually making money on the A350 yet.

Just like the B787 is cash positive; but has not yet paid off the development cost - the A350 is in the same boat... except that Airbus does not tell us the details like Boeing does on the B787.

Spending a $billion or two developing a A350F will not even come close to breaking even on a couple dozen sales.

I believe it will take in the range of 75 (+/-) freighter sales to potentially break even - for both Airbus and Boeing for the A350F and the B77XF

Daysleeper · Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:15 pm

2175301 wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
Now this is the flawed logic you speak of. Airbus doesn’t need the A350F in order for the program to make money, it already does. Developing the freighter is allowing them into a new market previously dominated by Boeing. If Airbus only do ever sell 50 A350F’s it will be 50 less 77XF’s Boeing will have been able to sell, thus quite possibly crippling the program.

Talking about flawed logic: While the A350 is not cash positive on assembly & selling price.... It will be many years before they even approach paying off the development cost. The A350 has a huge development cost in part because they had to reboot the development. Thus they are not actually making money on the A350 yet.

Just like the B787 is cash positive; but has not yet paid off the development cost - the A350 is in the same boat... except that Airbus does not tell us the details like Boeing does on the B787.

Spending a $billion or two developing a A350F will not even come close to breaking even on a couple dozen sales.

I believe it will take in the range of 75 (+/-) freighter sales to potentially break even - for both Airbus and Boeing for the A350F and the B77XF

The Airbus 2019 financial statement clearly states "The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019" How this breaks down in terms of development costs etc, is anyone’s guess, but I think it is safe to assume that they are at least making money on every frame they deliver.

I agree, that a few dozen orders for a freighter would not recoup its development costs, however it would open up a new market for them and said development may directly aid a future stretch of the A350 allowing it to directly compete with the 779X in passenger service.

As I seem to keep on saying, I genuinely do not see what Airbus have to lose by developing the A350F.

zeke · Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:28 pm

2175301 wrote:
Just like the B787 is cash positive; but has not yet paid off the development cost - the A350 is in the same boat... except that Airbus does not tell us the details like Boeing does on the B787.

No idea what you are talking about here. Airbus does not use program accounting, the A350 costs have been accounted for and published in the years they were incurred.

The reason Boeing does that on the 787 is program accounting, that is not an international standard method of accounting, something more unique to the US.

That is why Boeing publish their accounts two ways, the international standard and program accounting.

2175301 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:40 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
The Airbus 2019 financial statement clearly states "The breakeven target for the A350 was achieved in 2019" How this breaks down in terms of development costs etc, is anyone’s guess, but I think it is safe to assume that they are at least making money on every frame they deliver.

I agree, that a few dozen orders for a freighter would not recoup its development costs, however it would open up a new market for them and said development may directly aid a future stretch of the A350 allowing it to directly compete with the 779X in passenger service.

As I seem to keep on saying, I genuinely do not see what Airbus have to lose by developing the A350F.

That "Breakeven in 2019" indicated that they had just started to make a "Unit Assembly Profit" on A350's after that point. That "Unit Assembly Profit" could now be used to start paying off the multi-$Billion development cost; which is going to take a long time.

Once the A350 development cost is paid off - they they can claim that the A350 program is profitable. Which is going to be at least many years in the future; and depending on how the market goes the A350 program may reach overall profitability, or it may not.

The risk with the A350F - is that you don't make enough to pay off its development cost... and you loose more money.

People will of course say that development money is "sunk cost" - which is true. But, too much sunk cost in unprofitable programs has sunk many a company (I believe its the leading cause of bankruptcy).

Thus, while you can look at it as an incremental investment with moderate risk - you cannot just ignore the sunk cost with an overall unprofitable program at this point. You have to balance things.

An A350F that does not pay off its development cost might be the very thing that changes the A350 program from a future overall profitable program to one that never makes a profit. If the A350F fails badly then it goes to show that Airbus has not learned the lessons from programs like the A400M and A380, or even the 1st go around of the A350 that was scuttled.

Daysleeper · Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:12 pm

2175301 wrote:
That "Breakeven in 2019" indicated that they had just started to make a "Unit Assembly Profit" on A350's after that point. That "Unit Assembly Profit" could now be used to start paying off the multi-$Billion development cost; which is going to take a long time.

I must have missed that part of the report, please could you link me where that is stated? I will openly admit that accounting is far from my area of expertise, but I am inclined to agree with Zeke who posted above that the development costs of the A350 program have already been absorbed and accounted for. So even if it’s is only a per “Unit Assembly” profit its still means that the program is profitable.

2175301 wrote:
Once the A350 development cost is paid off - they they can claim that the A350 program is profitable. Which is going to be at least many years in the future; and depending on how the market goes the A350 program may reach overall profitability, or it may not.

The risk with the A350F - is that you don't make enough to pay off its development cost... and you loose more money.

Indeed, there is a chance that Airbus could lose money in developing the A350F, however it would be peanuts compared to what Boeing stand to lose with the 77XF. Hence the risk is much lower for them and it has chance of opening up a whole new market segment.

2175301 wrote:
An A350F that does not pay off its development cost might be the very thing that changes the A350 program from a future overall profitable program to one that never makes a profit. If the A350F fails badly then it goes to show that Airbus has not learned the lessons from programs like the A400M and A380, or even the 1st go around of the A350 that was scuttled.

I would counter by saying the almost flawless development and introduction of the A350 is a prime example of Airbus learning lessons from the A380 project. Compare that to Boeing who have not introduced an aircraft since the 777 which has not been either been grounded or both grounded and killed hundreds of people, costing them billions in compensation. Not to mention that it seems highly unlikely that the 787 will ever recoup its development costs and the 77X? 5 years late and loosing orders rather than gaining them? It doesn’t look good.

The time is right for Airbus to launch a large freighter, they have little to lose and everything to gain.

A330freak · Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:40 pm

Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

Revelation · Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:54 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Now this is the flawed logic you speak of. Airbus doesn’t need the A350F in order for the program to make money, it already does. Developing the freighter is allowing them into a new market previously dominated by Boeing. If Airbus only do ever sell 50 A350F’s it will be 50 less 77XF’s Boeing will have been able to sell, thus quite possibly crippling the program.

By that logic, Boeing has already lost $6.5B on 777X so they should just stop development, after all it's a money losing program. Nope, that's not how it works. Boeing even spent the money to buy enough fuel to get the 779 to the Dubai Air Show this weekend, go figure. The $6.5B is written off, it was money Boeing owed Boeing, and Boeing decided to take the hit along with other bad news in the recent year. Now it has room to maneuver going forward.

A350 has some advantages, but so does Boeing. CFRP is lighter, but it's costlier. A350 hit production break-even just before covid at rate 9.5/month, presumably it's slipped back in to the red now due to rate cuts to 5/month. The whole reason they are doing a freighter now is to try to fill idle production slots, same as Boeing, yet of course Boeing is already producing profitable 77Fs. Airbus will have to win over a lot of legacy 777F customers to have a chance of making money, but they'll have to help pay for new simulators and for hundreds of pilots to get new type certificates if they want to close business. GE9X is designed for the required thrust range, TXWB-97 is a throttle push of TXWB-84. Airbus is laying its cards on the table now, Boeing can optimize all kinds of things (cost, payload, range) to get to the best product offering.

tomcat · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:03 pm

A330freak wrote:
Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

The cargo will thus be compatible with 10-foot-high pallets like the 777 and the 747. Amen to that.

I also noted the following:

A position over the center wingbox will be able to hold a 30-ton pallet. Airbus also designed the door and the main cargo deck to be able to hold all large aircraft engines including the General Electric GE-9X powering the 777X.

Are the 777F and the 747F capable of holding a 30-ton pallet or is this a unique feature of the A350F?

According to Hamilton, the aircraft will have the same volume as the 747-400F and -ERF and somewhat more range, but around 6-7 tons less payload. Replacing aging 747s is a key part of the A350F market, Airbus believes.

Let's see for example if Cargolux and SQ Cargo will be convinced to replace their 744F with the A350F.

JonesNL · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:07 pm

A330freak wrote:
Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

That is strange, the consensus was MTOW of 319T. Is there mistake somewhere?

2175301 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:08 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
I would counter by saying the almost flawless development and introduction of the A350 is a prime example of Airbus learning lessons from the A380 project. Compare that to Boeing who have not introduced an aircraft since the 777 which has not been either been grounded or both grounded and killed hundreds of people, costing them billions in compensation. Not to mention that it seems highly unlikely that the 787 will ever recoup its development costs and the 77X? 5 years late and loosing orders rather than gaining them? It doesn’t look good.

I believe that you really need to look at the history of the A350. Airbus botched it so bad they had to fold their initial concept (which had orders) and start over. The timetable for the A350 from initial start to EIS does not make Airbus look very good. Including that they missed their final EIS by about a year after they relaunched the revised A350 - with lots of built in time for leaning and publicly stated that someone at Airbus would need to be shot (killed) if they missed their new EIS. I never heard of anyone getting shot though despite the miss.

If you consider the overall execution of the A350 from concept to EIS as "almost flawless"... then in my opinion you have no reasonable basis to criticize Boeing for any of their miscues.

Also, why is it that you accept that the A350 development cost is somehow written off and accounted for, and that the B787 development cost is similarly not somehow written off and accounted for. The only difference is that due to different accounting rules that Boeing publishes where they are at in regards to recouping development cost. Airbus does not. I assure you that there are people who question if Airbus will ever recoup their A350 development cost.

It sure seems one sided that Airbus is not apparently held responsible for development cost for a project and Boeing is when looking at when a program is profitable.

SteinarN · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:08 pm

@Revelation
Where on earth do you have the information from that the TXWB-97 is a throttle push of the TXWB-84?
One of the complaints about these engines is that the comonality got so low on them. They are substantially different engines.

Time to modify the ignore list... Am tired reading sore ass posts...

Revelation · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:11 pm

JonesNL wrote:
A330freak wrote:
Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

That is strange, the consensus was MTOW of 319T. Is there mistake somewhere?

TFA says:

According to Crawford Hamilton, head of freighter marketing at Airbus, the A350F will feature a maximum take-off weight of 317 tons, compared to 319 tons for the A350-1000.

Seems consensus was based on the pax model, and it's wrong, but I'm not sure why it'd be lower.

Revelation · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:12 pm

SteinarN wrote:
@Revelation
Where on earth do you have the information from that the TXWB-97 is a throttle push of the TXWB-84?
One of the complaints about these engines is that the comonality got so low on them. They are substantially different engines.

Time to modify the ignore list... Am tired reading sore ass posts...

The feeling is mutual. Thanks for the fish, bye bye!

JonesNL · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
A330freak wrote:
Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

That is strange, the consensus was MTOW of 319T. Is there mistake somewhere?

TFA says:

According to Crawford Hamilton, head of freighter marketing at Airbus, the A350F will feature a maximum take-off weight of 317 tons, compared to 319 tons for the A350-1000.

Seems consensus was based on the pax model, and it's wrong, but I'm not sure why it'd be lower.

Maybe a build in PiP that can be unlocked cheaply? Although that feels a bit counterintuitive…

Hamlet69 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:24 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
I will openly admit that accounting is far from my area of expertise, but I am inclined to agree with Zeke who posted above that the development costs of the A350 program have already been absorbed and accounted for.

'Accounted for' - yes. That's the difference between Boeing and Airbus. Airbus accounts the money spent in the year it's spent. Boeing accounts for it over time (Program Accounting).

But 'accounted for' is not 'paid back.' Whether it is through loans, cash flow or other mechanisms, for the Program to be profitable, that money has to be paid back

Daysleeper wrote:
So even if it’s is only a per “Unit Assembly” profit its still means that the program is profitable.

By that definition, so has the 787 for the last several years. :wink2:

Daysleeper wrote:
the 777X? 5 years late

Original plan was Certified Q4 2019, first deliveries early 2020. Current plan is certified mid to late 2023, first delivery late 2023 in to 2024. That's 4 years, unless I'm much worse with math than I thought.

- Hamlet69

tomcat · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
A330freak wrote:
Some further specs in the below article
-MTOW of 317T
-range at full 109T payload; 4700nm
-range at 92T;6000nm
-length, approximately 70.62m
-cargo door, 3.14x3.7m

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... load-a350f

That is strange, the consensus was MTOW of 319T. Is there mistake somewhere?

TFA says:

According to Crawford Hamilton, head of freighter marketing at Airbus, the A350F will feature a maximum take-off weight of 317 tons, compared to 319 tons for the A350-1000.

Seems consensus was based on the pax model, and it's wrong, but I'm not sure why it'd be lower.

Maybe after they fill the aircraft with its max payload, they can only fill the center tank with this much fuel before hitting the max wing root bending capability. And after they fill the outer tanks, the TOW would be 317t.

StTim · Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:12 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
I will openly admit that accounting is far from my area of expertise, but I am inclined to agree with Zeke who posted above that the development costs of the A350 program have already been absorbed and accounted for.

'Accounted for' - yes. That's the difference between Boeing and Airbus. Airbus accounts the money spent in the year it's spent. Boeing accounts for it over time (Program Accounting).

But 'accounted for' is not 'paid back.' Whether it is through loans, cash flow or other mechanisms, for the Program to be profitable, that money has to be paid back

Daysleeper wrote:
So even if it’s is only a per “Unit Assembly” profit its still means that the program is profitable.

By that definition, so has the 787 for the last several years.

Daysleeper wrote:
the 777X? 5 years late

Original plan was Certified Q4 2019, first deliveries early 2020. Current plan is certified mid to late 2023, first delivery late 2023 in to 2024. That's 4 years, unless I'm much worse with math than I thought.

- Hamlet69

We are still having this accounting debate :banghead:

Both companies write off pure development costs in the year they are incurred. Both will use every trick their highly paid accountants can come up with to move what they can from pure development to something that can be amortized. This is common in all industries.

What Program Accounting allows is for the higher costs of building the initial frames to be spread out across all frames in the accounting block. So they can report a profit on early frames when in reality they are incurring cash losses. Given how poorly the implementation of production for the 787 was this led to the eye watering amounts of "asset" on their books.

Airbus used (from what I have read) to use a accounting process where each frame was accounted for individually. Thus early frames were all produced at a major loss. For the A350 I believe they now average the costs over all the frames in the contract.

When it comes to defining when a programme becomes profitable there are so many ways to define this that comparing apples with apples across companies is never possoble.

Hamlet69 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:16 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
In fact, earlier in this thread I said jokingly that it would not surprise me if we see the A350F enter service before the 779X. Well if Airbus get some orders for the A350F this week, then I really could see it happening.

Only if you think the A350F will actually EIS in 2025. While Boeing has a very well-earned reputation for missing their target timelines, let's not pretend Airbus has been much better on the wide body front. . .

A380 - well documented. 2 years late.
A380F - launched, subsequently cancelled.

A330-900NEO - 1 year late
A330-800NEO - I'm actually uncertain. I couldn't find an original EIS target, so if someone finds it, it'd be helpful.

A350mk1 - launched, then cancelled.

A350-900 - 18 months late
A350-800 - launched, subsequently cancelled.
A350-1000 - 30 months late

So if one were to use the same line of thinking you're using on the 777X on the A350F, there's a 50/50 chance of:

A) EIS is @ late 2026 or early 2027.
B) it gets a few orders, but is subsequently cancelled altogether.

- Hamlet69

2175301 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:01 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
In fact, earlier in this thread I said jokingly that it would not surprise me if we see the A350F enter service before the 779X. Well if Airbus get some orders for the A350F this week, then I really could see it happening.

Only if you think the A350F will actually EIS in 2025. While Boeing has a very well-earned reputation for missing their target timelines, let's not pretend Airbus has been much better on the wide body front. . .

A350mk1 - launched, then cancelled.

A350-900 - 18 months late
A350-800 - launched, subsequently cancelled.
A350-1000 - 30 months late

- Hamlet69

A bit more information: The A350 was officially launched Oct 2005, with I believe an EIS of 2010 (The Dec 2004 authorization to offer was for a 2010 EIS). Airbus had an Qatar order in hand for 60 A350's from June 2005 at the time of the official launch.

This version of the A350 was then canceled by Airbus and the current version proposed officially launched Dec 2006, and I thought that it had a 2011/2012 EIS (I cannot quickly find a reference on the original EIS for the relaunch). My memory is that was subsequently pushed to 2013 due to the A380 delays; and as Hamlet69 says even that was missed by 18 months.

Overall, I put the EIS delay for the A350 at 5 years.

Dates of the program launches, initial EIS and Qatar order from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... 0061201-27

Further reading of the Wiki articles says that it is estimated that the A350 cost Airbus in the range of $15 Billion to develop.

They are going to have to sell a lot of A350's to pay back the development cost. How much do you think they earn as "net profit" for each aircraft sold at this point?

zeke · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:15 pm

tomcat wrote:
According to Hamilton, the aircraft will have the same volume as the 747-400F and -ERF and somewhat more range, but around 6-7 tons less payload. Replacing aging 747s is a key part of the A350F market, Airbus believes.

Let's see for example if Cargolux and SQ Cargo will be convinced to replace their 744F with the A350F.

I had predicted the volume would be the same/similar to the 744F and payload of 109 tonnes 3 months ago, reply 1061 earlier in this thread I said

“Has anyone speculated on possible cargo volume ?

I was thinking if they used the -900 forward section and -1000 rear section (symmetrical with 6 pallets in each hold) , the on the main deck 29 96x125x118 pallets

Forward Hold 6PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Rear Hold 6 PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Main deck 29 AP/PMC (557 m^3) (A350 upper lobe, i.e above floor is taller than lower lobe)

That would make it around the same volume as the 744F, and if they had a cargo density of around 9 lb/ft^3 would need a payload of around 109 tonnes.

Thoughts ?”

Seems logical to me

Daysleeper · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:26 pm

2175301 wrote:

I believe that you really need to look at the history of the A350. Airbus botched it so bad they had to fold their initial concept (which had orders) and start over. The timetable for the A350 from initial start to EIS does not make Airbus look very good. Including that they missed their final EIS by about a year after they relaunched the revised A350 - with lots of built in time for leaning and publicly stated that someone at Airbus would need to be shot (killed) if they missed their new EIS. I never heard of anyone getting shot though despite the miss.

I am well aware of the A350’s history, and indeed back in 2004 they proposed a revamped A330 to respond to the 787, but in 2006 they started again with a clean sheet design. Yet despite wasting almost 2 years before committing to what is now the A350 they still managed to get the aircraft both certified and delivered by the end of 2014. Although it was not until January 2015 when it first flew commercially. It’s also worth remembering that this was a completely clean sheet, new design with new CFRP construction, new avionics and yet it still only took Airbus 8 years to deliver, and it has not been grounded, nor has it killed hundreds of its passengers, but yes it was indeed late into service.

2175301 wrote:
If you consider the overall execution of the A350 from concept to EIS as "almost flawless"... then in my opinion you have no reasonable basis to criticize Boeing for any of their miscues.

I agree, I am in no position to critique anyone within the aviation industry, as it is not what I do. I am just an enthusiast as I assume you are also. But I can make observations, although a little late the A350 entered service within a few months of when planned, and it has remained in service from then on. It has not had fires within it’s avionics bay causing a fleet wide grounding, it has not had multiple QA issues forcing a stop in production and delivery’s.

So, no, perhaps not flawless. But it was months late not years (or decades) and no one died. Id call that a win.

2175301 wrote:
Also, why is it that you accept that the A350 development cost is somehow written off and accounted for, and that the B787 development cost is similarly not somehow written off and accounted for. The only difference is that due to different accounting rules that Boeing publishes where they are at in regards to recouping development cost. Airbus does not. I assure you that there are people who question if Airbus will ever recoup their A350 development cost.

I don’t, all I said was that according to Airbus the A350 program is profitable. You were the one bringing up sunk costs, development, and the likes. Every time Airbus delivers an A350 they make money. If the same is true for Boeing with the 787 – good for them. It will help them pay for the almost year long stop in production due to them not being able to put them together properly

Hamlet69 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:30 pm

zeke wrote:
tomcat wrote:
According to Hamilton, the aircraft will have the same volume as the 747-400F and -ERF and somewhat more range, but around 6-7 tons less payload. Replacing aging 747s is a key part of the A350F market, Airbus believes.

Let's see for example if Cargolux and SQ Cargo will be convinced to replace their 744F with the A350F.

I had predicted the volume would be the same/similar to the 744F and payload of 109 tonnes 3 months ago, reply 1061 earlier in this thread I said

“Has anyone speculated on possible cargo volume ?

I was thinking if they used the -900 forward section and -1000 rear section (symmetrical with 6 pallets in each hold) , the on the main deck 29 96x125x118 pallets

Forward Hold 6PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Rear Hold 6 PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Main deck 29 AP/PMC (557 m^3) (A350 upper lobe, i.e above floor is taller than lower lobe)

That would make it around the same volume as the 744F, and if they had a cargo density of around 9 lb/ft^3 would need a payload of around 109 tonnes.

Thoughts ?”

Seems logical to me

Nice call! :thumbsup:

As you are much more familiar with the A350 than I am, can you enlighten me a bit on something tho?

Based on the Leeham diagram from the previous page, it seems like there is much more space behind the wing box than in front of it. Perhaps it's just an optical illusion, but I am struggling to picture in my mind how the holds would then be symmetrical. . . Maybe you have a hold diagram that would show it? (obviously not A350F specific, but -900 vs -1000 perhaps?)

Just curious.

- Hamlet69

zeke · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:42 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:

Based on the Leeham diagram from the previous page, it seems like there is much more space behind the wing box than in front of it. Perhaps it's just an optical illusion, but I am struggling to picture in my mind how the holds would then be symmetrical. . . Maybe you have a hold diagram that would show it? (obviously not A350F specific, but -900 vs -1000 perhaps?)

It’s all in the acaps, just look at the forward section of the -900 and rear section of the -1000.

tomcat · Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:43 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:
zeke wrote:
tomcat wrote:

Let's see for example if Cargolux and SQ Cargo will be convinced to replace their 744F with the A350F.

I had predicted the volume would be the same/similar to the 744F and payload of 109 tonnes 3 months ago, reply 1061 earlier in this thread I said

“Has anyone speculated on possible cargo volume ?

I was thinking if they used the -900 forward section and -1000 rear section (symmetrical with 6 pallets in each hold) , the on the main deck 29 96x125x118 pallets

Forward Hold 6PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Rear Hold 6 PAP/PMC or 18LD3(102m^3)
Main deck 29 AP/PMC (557 m^3) (A350 upper lobe, i.e above floor is taller than lower lobe)

That would make it around the same volume as the 744F, and if they had a cargo density of around 9 lb/ft^3 would need a payload of around 109 tonnes.

Thoughts ?”

Seems logical to me

Nice call!

As you are much more familiar with the A350 than I am, can you enlighten me a bit on something tho?

Based on the Leeham diagram from the previous page, it seems like there is much more space behind the wing box than in front of it. Perhaps it's just an optical illusion, but I am struggling to picture in my mind how the holds would then be symmetrical. . . Maybe you have a hold diagram that would show it? (obviously not A350F specific, but -900 vs -1000 perhaps?)

Just curious.

- Hamlet69

There is the main landing bay that occupies some space behind the center wing box. The A350-1000 can hold 8 pallets in its forward bay and 6 pallets in the aft bay (20.03m long vs 16.12m long).

By the way, it looks like the A350F will be 5 frames shorter than the A351 while the A351 forward fuselage is 6 frames longer than the A359 fwd fuse. If these figures are correct then the fwd fuselage of the A350F would be specific to that version.

zeke · Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:21 pm

tomcat wrote:
By the way, it looks like the A350F will be 5 frames shorter than the A351 while the A351 forward fuselage is 6 frames longer than the A359 fwd fuse. If these figures are correct then the fwd fuselage of the A350F would be specific to that version.

If you put the A359 front section ahead of the A35K wing the overall length is around 70 meters as Airbus has in the graphic.

AngMoh · Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:06 am

2175301 wrote:
That "Breakeven in 2019" indicated that they had just started to make a "Unit Assembly Profit" on A350's after that point. That "Unit Assembly Profit" could now be used to start paying off the multi-$Billion development cost; which is going to take a long time.

Once the A350 development cost is paid off - they they can claim that the A350 program is profitable. Which is going to be at least many years in the future; and depending on how the market goes the A350 program may reach overall profitability, or it may not.

The risk with the A350F - is that you don't make enough to pay off its development cost... and you loose more money.

Most likely, majority of the development costs have been paid off. European accounting rules do not allow Airbus to accumulate development costs and then recover them over the lifetime sales. This is a big difference between US and EU. Europe requires most R&D to be booked in the year of expenditure. Also, with the European tax structure, that is probably better in regards to tax payable over the long run. Even if R&D is booked as an asset, it still needs to be depreciated over a fixed period of max 20 years regardless of how many aircraft sold and not per aircraft sold and considering R&D started in 2004, a lot would have been depreciated by now. Program Accounting as used for the 787 is not allowed in Europe.

StTim · Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:22 am

AngMoh wrote:
2175301 wrote:
That "Breakeven in 2019" indicated that they had just started to make a "Unit Assembly Profit" on A350's after that point. That "Unit Assembly Profit" could now be used to start paying off the multi-$Billion development cost; which is going to take a long time.

Once the A350 development cost is paid off - they they can claim that the A350 program is profitable. Which is going to be at least many years in the future; and depending on how the market goes the A350 program may reach overall profitability, or it may not.

The risk with the A350F - is that you don't make enough to pay off its development cost... and you loose more money.

Most likely, majority of the development costs have been paid off. European accounting rules do not allow Airbus to accumulate development costs and then recover them over the lifetime sales. This is a big difference between US and EU. Europe requires most R&D to be booked in the year of expenditure. Also, with the European tax structure, that is probably better in regards to tax payable over the long run. Even if R&D is booked as an asset, it still needs to be depreciated over a fixed period of max 20 years regardless of how many aircraft sold and not per aircraft sold and considering R&D started in 2004, a lot would have been depreciated by now. Program Accounting as used for the 787 is not allowed in Europe.

Certainly that would be incorrect in the UK. You do not start depreciating the asset until it becomes productive - no matter how many years that takes.

Revelation · Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:53 am

AngMoh wrote:
Most likely, majority of the development costs have been paid off. European accounting rules do not allow Airbus to accumulate development costs and then recover them over the lifetime sales.

I think the point of contention is if the A350's development cost has been recovered via profits of the A350 program itself, which is almost certainly not the case. I think they just broke into the black briefly when they were at rate 9.5 pre-covid, but then the rate dropped to 5 which almost certainly is not profitable. Presumably the lower volume with lots of long lead time parts ordered in advance pushes the overall project deeper into the red. Same is true for Team B, but this is an A350 thread.

Cardude2 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:54 am

PM wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Korean would be huge.. I don't think they have any WBs with RR engines..

They will when they complete the take-over of Asiana.

Yes and their phasing out the PW’s, with an exception to the a220

Gremlinzzzz · Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:42 am

2175301 wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
I would counter by saying the almost flawless development and introduction of the A350 is a prime example of Airbus learning lessons from the A380 project. Compare that to Boeing who have not introduced an aircraft since the 777 which has not been either been grounded or both grounded and killed hundreds of people, costing them billions in compensation. Not to mention that it seems highly unlikely that the 787 will ever recoup its development costs and the 77X? 5 years late and loosing orders rather than gaining them? It doesn’t look good.

I believe that you really need to look at the history of the A350. Airbus botched it so bad they had to fold their initial concept (which had orders) and start over. The timetable for the A350 from initial start to EIS does not make Airbus look very good. Including that they missed their final EIS by about a year after they relaunched the revised A350 - with lots of built in time for leaning and publicly stated that someone at Airbus would need to be shot (killed) if they missed their new EIS. I never heard of anyone getting shot though despite the miss.

If you consider the overall execution of the A350 from concept to EIS as "almost flawless"... then in my opinion you have no reasonable basis to criticize Boeing for any of their miscues.

Also, why is it that you accept that the A350 development cost is somehow written off and accounted for, and that the B787 development cost is similarly not somehow written off and accounted for. The only difference is that due to different accounting rules that Boeing publishes where they are at in regards to recouping development cost. Airbus does not. I assure you that there are people who question if Airbus will ever recoup their A350 development cost.

It sure seems one sided that Airbus is not apparently held responsible for development cost for a project and Boeing is when looking at when a program is profitable.

They were working on the A330Neo. They still released the A330Neo.

2175301 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:17 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
They were working on the A330Neo. They still released the A330Neo.

No they were not. While they were going to use and modify the A330 fuselage, there were other substantial changes and it was called the A350.

The A330Neo that was eventually released was substantially different from their A350 "model 1" that was canceled.

Gremlinzzzz · Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:19 am

2175301 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
They were working on the A330Neo. They still released the A330Neo.

No they were not. While they were going to use and modify the A330 fuselage, there were other substantial changes and it was called the A350.

The A330Neo that was eventually released was substantially different from their A350 "model 1" that was canceled.

The research did not disappear. All they did was implement these changes on a new fuselage. Some of the changes that they brought forth in the A350 came back to the A330Neo like the winglet, new cockpit.

It was not waste, and there is also a reason why the A330Neo program only cost $2 billiion.

zeke · Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:50 am

2175301 wrote:
No they were not. While they were going to use and modify the A330 fuselage, there were other substantial changes and it was called the A350.

The A330Neo that was eventually released was substantially different from their A350 "model 1" that was canceled.

The original A350 included updated engines, new wing, and AlLI fuselage, turns out the A330-800/900 has better range/payload than the original A350-800/900.

thebunkerparodi · Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:55 am

Finally, airbus considered a freighter variant for a long time before launching it

tomcat · Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:24 am

thebunkerparodi wrote:
Finally, airbus considered a freighter variant for a long time before launching it

Yep and I'm willing to ask what took them so long? The A351 has been certified in November 2017. Is it the attempt of launching the A380+ in June 2017 that distracted them from pursuing the A350F earlier? It's finally in February 2019 that they pulled the plug of the A380. During those years they were also investigating upgrades for the A321 and finally launched the XLR in June 2019. It can be argued that at that time the outlook was that the A350 FAL would be running at full capacity for the years to come so they felt there was no need to launch a new derivative. What was the market demand for new freighters at that time? Was Airbus listening to the market?

Taxi645 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:38 am

Like you say, pre---COVID there was no need to keep production rate up because it was already high enough for economy of scale. Furthermore the 777X program can very well use the 777XF to reach sufficient quantity. Launching the A350F makes it more difficult for that program.

Wildlander · Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:47 am

No real surprise that the A350F has taken so long to get to ATO/Launch. The - lets be polite - lacklustre A332F sales record must have made it much harder to persuade finance that freighters are good business. A couple of years A350-1000 experience and continued development surely must have helped refine what the A350F could/should/will be. As noted elsewhere, the unexpected COVID induced A350 rate reduction probably made it easier to plead for adding a freighter to boost the FAL and spread overheads. Even if/when passenger demand again supports 10/month the FAL should still have the ability to add modest A350F production capacity.

Noshow · Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:08 am

The A350 has a different cabin shape with steeper sidewalls. Making it more interesting to be a main deck freighter for the first time. The circular shape of the A300-A340 didn't work that well in that respect as a factory built freighter however it still worked well for conversions.

Flying-Tiger · Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:14 am

Wildlander wrote:
No real surprise that the A350F has taken so long to get to ATO/Launch. The - lets be polite - lacklustre A332F sales record must have made it much harder to persuade finance that freighters are good business. A couple of years A350-1000 experience and continued development surely must have helped refine what the A350F could/should/will be. As noted elsewhere, the unexpected COVID induced A350 rate reduction probably made it easier to plead for adding a freighter to boost the FAL and spread overheads. Even if/when passenger demand again supports 10/month the FAL should still have the ability to add modest A350F production capacity.

I don´t think that the A330-200F sales have really played a big role in the decision making process. A part of this development has been used in the A330 MRTT market, and paid off there, too (standing at around 60 sales currently). Could it have performed better? Certainly. But it is past, and the history of being able to realize more pax sales of A330 at the expense of the freighter, capitalizing on the B787 problems has its story of its own.

I think the key here is indeed the option to add a third model (or fourth if we consider the -900ULR another model) to the family, allowing further flexibility in the production planning and improving overhead allocation. At the same time it prepares the ground work for an eventual A350 P2F down the line, even if this is still 10-15 years away. And it opens the door for a future A350 MRTT development, if wished. Putting additional pressure on Boeing, even if it only may be on margin level, is an added plus.

It will be interesting to see who will put pen on paper and orders the A350F. If one of the integrators signs up the success is close to be guaranteed, be it FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon or SF.

Opus99 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:25 pm

I’m annoying but I’ll give credit where it’s due.

Congratulations Airbus on the commercial launch of the 350F with 7 initial orders from air lease

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 21248?s=21

tomcat · Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:34 pm

Airbus is not specifically linking its new A350F to single-pilot operations, but it acknowledges that the entry-into-service schedule coincides with the timeline for testing initial concepts – and that it could serve as a platform.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/a350f-timeline-in-right-place-for-single-pilot-operations-faury/146419.article

Revelation · Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:10 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’m annoying but I’ll give credit where it’s due.

Congratulations Airbus on the commercial launch of the 350F with 7 initial orders from air lease

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 21248?s=21

Congratulations, you gotta start somewhere.

TFA says:

BREAKING: Air Lease is first A350 freighter buyer with 7 as part of deal for 111 aircraft. 25 A220-300, 55 A321neo, 20 A321XLR and 4 A330-900.

The cynic in me says "if you want good positions for the A321 and A220, you gotta buy a few A330neo and A350F"....

It's the exact thing Boeing was accused of back in the 747 days, except narrow bodies were used to sell wide bodies.

2175301 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:11 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’m annoying but I’ll give credit where it’s due.

Congratulations Airbus on the commercial launch of the 350F with 7 initial orders from air lease

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 21248?s=21

1) Airbus officially launched the A350F months ago with no orders. Hence the name change to this thread. Why do people keep saying that their announcement was a launch - and now claims that there is another launch?

2) The A350F still has no orders as of yet. Airbus does have a LOI for 7 of them from ALC

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ility-fund

Revelation · Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:20 pm

2175301 wrote:
1) Airbus officially launched the A350F months ago with no orders. Hence the name change to this thread. Why do people keep saying that their announcement was a launch - and now claims that there is another launch?

2) The A350F still has no orders as of yet. Airbus does have a LOI for 7 of them from ALC

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ility-fund

Looks like being cynical was justified.

A LOI from a leasing firm? That is not an order. It isn't even a place holder.

Then tie it in to the launch of a "sustainability fund" and you know that this has been heavily workshopped by the public relations firms.

This is no more firm than British Airways buying MAXes.

ALC wants A321neos and they are more than willing to tack on a few other things to the deal just as long as there is no real commitment.

Basically, this is Amedeo V2, a mirage invented to generate good press.

I think the A350F is a great product concept, but it seems Airbus is really struggling to get any market traction for it, at a time where the freighter market is really hot.

JonesNL · Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
2175301 wrote:
1) Airbus officially launched the A350F months ago with no orders. Hence the name change to this thread. Why do people keep saying that their announcement was a launch - and now claims that there is another launch?

2) The A350F still has no orders as of yet. Airbus does have a LOI for 7 of them from ALC

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ility-fund

Looks like being cynical was justified.

A LOI from a leasing firm? That is not an order. It isn't even a place holder.

Then tie it in to the launch of a "sustainability fund" and you know that this has been heavily workshopped by the public relations firms.

This is no more firm than British Airways buying MAXes.

ALC wants A321neos and they are more than willing to tack on a few other things to the deal just as long as there is no real commitment.

Basically, this is Amedeo V2, a mirage invented to generate good press.

I think the A350F is a great product concept, but it seems Airbus is really struggling to get any market traction for it, at a time where the freighter market is really hot.

I think the cynic in you might be right; launching customer that is a leasing company with a LOI. If this is THE launch order for Airbus, the A350F might be a dud..

trex8 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:44 pm

Has anyone seen anywhere if the A350F will use 8 feet or 10 feet tall pallets on the main deck???
Because a quick calculation based on Cargolux website saying 21347 cuft main deck on 744, so for A350F with 12 under deck pallets at 62in high leaves you either only carrying 22 10 foot cubed pallets or 26 cubed 8 foot pallets on the main deck on the A350F and it supposedly can do 29 main deck pallets, so maybe its even a 8ft contoured pallet on main deck?

oschkosch · Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:27 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Revelation wrote:
2175301 wrote:
1) Airbus officially launched the A350F months ago with no orders. Hence the name change to this thread. Why do people keep saying that their announcement was a launch - and now claims that there is another launch?

2) The A350F still has no orders as of yet. Airbus does have a LOI for 7 of them from ALC

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... ility-fund

Looks like being cynical was justified.

A LOI from a leasing firm? That is not an order. It isn't even a place holder.

Then tie it in to the launch of a "sustainability fund" and you know that this has been heavily workshopped by the public relations firms.

This is no more firm than British Airways buying MAXes.

ALC wants A321neos and they are more than willing to tack on a few other things to the deal just as long as there is no real commitment.

Basically, this is Amedeo V2, a mirage invented to generate good press.

I think the A350F is a great product concept, but it seems Airbus is really struggling to get any market traction for it, at a time where the freighter market is really hot.

I think the cynic in you might be right; launching customer that is a leasing company with a LOI. If this is THE launch order for Airbus, the A350F might be a dud..

Could it be that these 7 A350F are destined to replace SGs old 747-400Fs? 7 out, 7 in?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net