Unfortunately since Trump the concept of disqualifying media or reports as fake or biased if what being said is not to one's liking, has become quite mainstream.
As has the opposite - if what is being said IS to one's liking, then never question it.
Very true. Just to make clear, I very much appreciate people being critical of statements without much foundation. I'm not criticizing people questioning the notion that a freighter version will be difficult for the 787. Actually I very much welcome it because it could be of critical strategic importance if a freighter version of the 787 is economically feasible. Even more so if things go a certain way in the future let's say. So to dive deeper into that subject is very interesting and useful. I feel it's more useful to reply to the article and ask critical questions about that statement than to just call them biased on here.
My remark is more pointed to people who can't differentiate between caring for and being critical of. Boeing gets more criticism at Leehamnews lately because it has done a poor job the last 10 years in many critical areas. Many observers and stakeholders agree on that (see the interview with one of the largest lease corporation for instance). If Airbus does a poor job, they'll hear it too. See the A380plus piece for example or the piece where they as one of the first stated that the days of the A380 (and VLA success in general) are over.
Perhaps, some of there vocal criticism of Boeing might be due to:
1 An anger about what multiple management choices have done to a wonderful aircraft company that many aviation enthusiasts hold close to their harts.
2 An agenda for change to make many of those choices and/or their effects undone.
I don't know.
I have no reason to question what the authors state about the potential A350F, with one exception.* If what the Airbus heads say in the interview actually comes to pass, it will be a tremendous aircraft, just like the pax aircraft it's based on.
I think the specs of the aircraft are indeed extremely strong. I think the two main issues with it would be:
1 Limited engine choice
2 Aircraft price till 2027 (also in relation to conversions).
I DO take what they say about the Boeing products with a HUGE grain of salt:
Saying that the 787 doesn't lend itself well to a freighter, despite ample reports over the last decade plus that they did design work with a freighter in mind. Note that, beyond a not-subtle reference to barrel vs. panel approach, the article does nothing to suggest WHY. Hmmm. . .
Well, I think they indeed would do well to dive a bit deeper into that subject. Personally I'm inclined to trust someone who does a 30 article piece on aircraft design more than someone who just dismisses an article because it's a "biased website" . On the other hand, when I was a soccer defender as a kid I soon learned to watch the ball (the reasoning) in stead of the attackers moves (the statement). So I try to keep an open mind on it.
Even more beyond the pale is the talk of the 777XF. First they state that Boeing's plan was always to do a freighter. Then they imply that the only reason Boeing is moving ahead with a freighter is a knee-jerk reaction to the 'launch' of the A350F. But wait, it gets better. They finally state 'market intelligence' tells them that Boeing won't have the freighter EIS until 2029. In other words, what is going to take Airbus 3-4 years to do, Boeing is going to need 7+. Yeah right.
I actually get Boeing delaying EIS for as long as they financially can. They have (or I should say, HAD until ~2 years ago) the single most profitable per-unit airframe on the market. Why upset the apple cart if you don't need to. But by 2025, they WILL need to. Hence pushing the XF forward. But 2029? That's stretching it by anyone's imagination. (now watch, Boeing will announce the launch of the XF with EIS in 2029 and make me eat my words, along with my shoes and hat! LOL!)
Well the A350 is a certified and well known in service aircraft. That does tend to make a difference. They claim to be forwarding "market intelligence" regarding the 2029 date. Now they could be lying or their sources are lying or it's true. I have no idea.
* - here's my exception: In the interview, Airbus talks about how they launched the A350F because, basically, the 'market' DEMANDED it! Sounds great! Yet months on, that same market hasn't actually been willing to order the thing. If they had left that quote out, I'd have no problem buying what they said. With it and some critical thinking, it comes across as an Airbus PR marketing piece.
In the next few days, weeks, months we will know how much real demand there is for the A350F, I don't really see the need to now declare that statement true or false when the evidence will be available within a reasonably short time. Personally I think cornering the 777-X program even more is also a strategic consideration for Airbus.
Last edited by Taxi645
on Fri Nov 12, 2021 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.