At the sidelines of IATA Annual Meeting taking place in Doha, Qatar, Sir Tim Clark has acknowledged that Airbus have a great aircraft in stock. He has expressed his concerns on how will airlines be copping with the increasing demand with A380 sized jets.

Talking about the delays of the B7779 delivery, Sir Tim has stated that the next alternative (if the B7779 doesn’t get delivered by Boeing) is the B787-10. But this does not work for EK because for every A380, you will need two and a half B787 in order to compensate the A380’s capacity.

Quote: “And how are you going to fit two-and-a-half 787s with all this growth into a restricted field like Heathrow?” he says. “How are you going to do that in Sydney? How are you going to do that in San Francisco?”

Sir Tim Clark has also expressed his opinions on the A350-1000 saying that its a great airplane but lacks range.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... ktIiFPXIEU

He is saying that the A350-1000 is physically too small to act as the top of Airbus’s product range. He is not stating the aircraft’s range is too small

Yeah I also understood it as him saying the size is small, not the range.

The wording of the article is somewhat confusing.

He was referring to the A350 being too small in terms of being the largest aircraft in Airbus’ “product range” as opposed to not having enough range.

Basically he wants a bigger airliner than currently available which he can use to replace A380s with in the future, and the current offering is too small for him.

Thread title should be amended.

There has been talk of a A350-2000, how much capacity would that version hypothetically have? I was under the impression it would be trading payload for range.

9252fly wrote:

There has been talk of a A350-2000, how much capacity would that version hypothetically have? I was under the impression it would be trading payload for range.

Around 30 additional seats, maybe a bit more when it is stretched towards 79-80m. But it depends on required lavatory, galley rates. Nothing close to the double deck A380s.

https://07185918574543712684.googlegrou ... YeBLFGy-oU

I was going to say, qantas is going to use them for LHR-SYD

The title has been updated accordingly.

✈️ atcsundevil

atcsundevil wrote:

The title has been updated accordingly.

✈️ atcsundevil

Thank you

Hey EK could have kept on ordering 380s to keep the line open at a half dozen frames a year and chose not to.

So that thing would be too small, but the A380--which is being parked everywhere--is too big?

Someone please given Tim Clark some smelling salts.

Pellegrine wrote:

That the A350-1000 has been to small to be Airbus' top offering for EK and other carriers that deal with slot-restricted high-demand prime routes has been known for a while. A350-1100/A350-2000 isn't really viable without having a complementary range to the A350-1000.

Is Airbus going to cede the upper-capacity end of the market to Boeing's 777-9X? I don't see anyone making a new VLA for a ~250 aircraft market. Is Airbus going 10-abreast in Y with the A350 via thinner sidewalls & new floor placement à la the rumored EY study? That wouldn't even help capacity much, and would do nothing for J/W capacity...you need a longer fuselage.

Is Boeing going to come out with a 777-10X eventually? Again, similarly to the Airbus situation, it would have to have comparable range to the 777-9X to be given the best chance at being successful. Guess we will see.

Not many airlines are looking for aircraft with the A35K 8700nm range. A stretched A35K that still has a 7500nm brochure range would check most of the boxes.

JohanTally wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

That the A350-1000 has been to small to be Airbus' top offering for EK and other carriers that deal with slot-restricted high-demand prime routes has been known for a while. A350-1100/A350-2000 isn't really viable without having a complementary range to the A350-1000.

Is Airbus going to cede the upper-capacity end of the market to Boeing's 777-9X? I don't see anyone making a new VLA for a ~250 aircraft market. Is Airbus going 10-abreast in Y with the A350 via thinner sidewalls & new floor placement à la the rumored EY study? That wouldn't even help capacity much, and would do nothing for J/W capacity...you need a longer fuselage.

Is Boeing going to come out with a 777-10X eventually? Again, similarly to the Airbus situation, it would have to have comparable range to the 777-9X to be given the best chance at being successful. Guess we will see.

Not many airlines are looking for aircraft with the A35K 8700nm range. A stretched A35K that still has a 7500nm brochure range would check most of the boxes.

It looks like Tim will need to keep flying the A380 fleet for years to come.

If only Boeing hadn't completely blown it with. . . everything, they would have been in prime position to execute the "relatively straightforward" 777-10 variant as soon as a favorable business case could be made -- but that's pretty much moot now. The 777X program already has its hands full with the B779's five-year cert program, and with the -8 freighter set to follow some years after that.

But why worry about VLAs anyway, when conventional wisdom holds that they're a thing of the past? I still contend: This foregone conclusion that the point-to-point model will totally replace the hub-and-spoke model is premature. Over the long run, after some semblance of a post-COVID norm has been established, a hybridized air transportation model is likelier to take shape. If this eventually proves to be the case, VLAs will continue to have a mainstream role to play in future global carrier networks, and being well-positioned to capitalize on such a business opportunity would make sense for Airbus and Boeing.

But the latter has taken too much damage over recent years, and lost too much credibility, to achieve any such market positioning. Their 777-9 offering, from its initial announcement to its 2025 service entry, will have taken 12 years to bring to fruition -- and it's an iterative design! Clearly, there is no more "relatively straightforward" for Boeing, least of all with any legit VLA (which the B779 is not).

Pellegrine wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

That the A350-1000 has been to small to be Airbus' top offering for EK and other carriers that deal with slot-restricted high-demand prime routes has been known for a while. A350-1100/A350-2000 isn't really viable without having a complementary range to the A350-1000.

Is Airbus going to cede the upper-capacity end of the market to Boeing's 777-9X? I don't see anyone making a new VLA for a ~250 aircraft market. Is Airbus going 10-abreast in Y with the A350 via thinner sidewalls & new floor placement à la the rumored EY study? That wouldn't even help capacity much, and would do nothing for J/W capacity...you need a longer fuselage.

Is Boeing going to come out with a 777-10X eventually? Again, similarly to the Airbus situation, it would have to have comparable range to the 777-9X to be given the best chance at being successful. Guess we will see.

Not many airlines are looking for aircraft with the A35K 8700nm range. A stretched A35K that still has a 7500nm brochure range would check most of the boxes.

Quoting range without mentioning payload is a simplistic argument and one I see way too often on this forum. A35K can carry 26-27t max 8700nm. And that's at max fuel.

That really doesn’t change the point of his comment much. Most airlines have little need to carry 26-27t 8700nm.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

So that thing would be too small, but the A380--which is being parked everywhere--is too big?

Someone please given Tim Clark some smelling salts.

I'm pretty sure Clark has never said the A380 is too big.

EK is probably the only airline where the A380 is actually an appropriate size. They’ve built their business on carrying volume, so a potential future where they’ll have to fragment flights across smaller aircraft, competing for slots with other airlines doing the same will require some readjustments to their business model.

Tim Clark is wrong.

Pellegrine wrote:

Polot wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

Quoting range without mentioning payload is a simplistic argument and one I see way too often on this forum. A35K can carry 26-27t max 8700nm. And that's at max fuel.

That really doesn’t change the point of his comment much. Most airlines have little need to carry 26-27t 8700nm.

Point taken. EK might see a need to send 50-60t 6500nm though (DXB-SYD). Extrapolate those numbers to a heavier aircraft (OEW) with more payload capacity (seats and cargo) and you'll see that more needs to be done than "lengthen the aircraft, keep MTOW the same, and you're golden". Do that and you get the 787-10.

That then becomes a question of how much should OEMs cater to the ME3. I think the golden age of OEMs going out of their way to woo them has come to end, as it has resulted in tons of headaches.

Big issue with 787-10 hasn’t been range (it’s not that much different than the A333), it’s price. Boeing wheels and deals much more with the 789 while holding firmer with the -10.

Pellegrine wrote:

Polot wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

Quoting range without mentioning payload is a simplistic argument and one I see way too often on this forum. A35K can carry 26-27t max 8700nm. And that's at max fuel.

That really doesn’t change the point of his comment much. Most airlines have little need to carry 26-27t 8700nm.

Point taken. EK might see a need to send 50-60t 6500nm though (DXB-SYD). Extrapolate those numbers to a heavier aircraft (OEW) with more payload capacity (seats and cargo) and you'll see that more needs to be done than "lengthen the aircraft, keep MTOW the same, and you're golden". Do that and you get the 787-10.

I thought EK had dedicated freighters?

I see the chances of Clark ordering 50-60x A350-1000s growing. It provides good capacity-range across EK's network, commonality with the A350-900s on order and provides risk reduction and efficiency improvement replacing some of the aging 777-300ER's/ LR's moving forward. Saying it is too small really, might be part of negotiations.

Well, apart from Emirates, how many airlines actually needed aircraft larger than A350-1000 and B777-300ER?
I don't think other airlines would order significant amount of them anyway. We've seen some airlines including Emirates reducing their order for B777X in the last few years.

There's just not enough demand for the larger A350-2000 and B777-9X.

Clark could keep pushing for it, but at the end of the day, unless he would commit to order huge number of A350-2000, then airbus won't bulge.

Well he is right, but the larger space is already occupied by the 777-9 and two aircraft this size make no sense, the market in that segment is not big enough.

Polot wrote:

That then becomes a question of how much should OEMs cater to the ME3. I think the golden age of OEMs going out of their way to woo them has come to end, as it has resulted in tons of headaches.

I agree.

Well he can prolly order a spec built aircraft and pay for all the R and D

DLHAM wrote:

Well he is right, but the larger space is already occupied by the 777-9 and two aircraft this size make no sense, the market in that segment is not big enough.

I'm sure he would like to have Airbus offer a directly comparable aircraft capacity wise to the B779, it would then allow him to negotiate a lower price.

Tim Clark missed his chance. He could have ordered the 747-8i but he did not. He wants an aircraft that has two power plants that has the diameter of the aircraft fuselage. Can't be done unlees the landing gear is extended longer and if one power goes out or fails the pilots will need to fight like hell to keep the aircraft flying straight much less turn in the direction of the only operating power plant. I do not know what he is smoking but he better quit and be realistc by either operating his A380s, settle for something else realistic or start manufacturing the aircraft that he thinks he needs.

The A380 could fly for years to come. There is no law that says you must retire them at 10yrs of age. For example DL have shown that if you maintain them properly, aircraft can fly a long long time and still deliver a quality product.
The other point (noted above) is EK basically killed the A380 program. They knew there was no replacement, but declined to purchase any more. Surely the math that suggested 777/787/350 are enough still holds true. So its a bit rich to complain that there are no VLA to buy now

32andBelow wrote:

Well he can prolly order a spec built aircraft and pay for all the R and D

He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380

Maybe for EK Mr. Clark but not for 99.9% of the airlines out there who have either retired the A380, getting ready to retire them in the near future, or never ordered them to begin with. Not to mention all the airports that were off limits to the A380 because of it's size.

S0Y wrote:

The A380 could fly for years to come. There is no law that says you must retire them at 10yrs of age. For example DL have shown that if you maintain them properly, aircraft can fly a long long time and still deliver a quality product.
The other point (noted above) is EK basically killed the A380 program. They knew there was no replacement, but declined to purchase any more. Surely the math that suggested 777/787/350 are enough still holds true. So its a bit rich to complain that there are no VLA to buy now

DL keeps aircraft that maintain a global network of parts and maintenance. They were retiring newer more fuel efficient MD 90s before MD 88s because they were the only operator and there was no support network.

S0Y wrote:

He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380

I think he was right on that, especially with high fuel costs (A380 not blindingly efficient). If they could have re-engined it, and built it to its current size rather than a ton of extra weight for future stretches I think story changes totally. The business case is hard for A380 for these reasons but in theory could have been amazing (if you have the right weight and updated engines in future you have a good result).

"Too much weight was built into the airplane, which was a design-philosophic mistake that is, thinking we would do a stretched A380-900. We should have put in a structure that was needed now. They also put in extra weight because they wanted a freighter. But the optimal freighters are the ones that don’t have any extra weight. That was clearly a design-mistake that we have made" - Leahy

Also, things like the forward stairs, crew rest and more where just on the luxury end of things so the design target just was off in terms of not paying attention to cost / efficiency.

New engines, take out all the extra weight, slim down the luxury features (A380plus program type ideas), wingtips?? Of course just fantasy.

Seems like he is still sore about not having his A380-900.

A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future. 10 abreast 77W has worked out wonderfully for everyone who has implemented it so why would they down size to an aircraft with a capacity of 9 abreast 77W instead of just ordering a negligible 773 stretch that's optimized well for 10 abreast?

Aseem747 wrote:

A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future. 10 abreast 77W has worked out wonderfully for everyone who has implemented it so why would they down size to an aircraft with a capacity of 9 abreast 77W instead of just ordering a negligible 773 stretch that's optimized well for 10 abreast?

Not everyone needs the size, the trend has been for smaller widebodies becoming more popular as time goes on. As the A359 is popular, adding the A35K is an option for many if it is wanted.

Also: availability.

xwb777 wrote:

Sir Tim Clark has also expressed his opinions on the A350-1000 saying that its a great airplane but lacks range.

It should give you pause to write this, considering that the A35K is the currently-produced airliner with the longest standard (and extended) range.

Aseem747 wrote:

A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future.

Nonsense.

The primary thing "limiting" the A35K's sales is timing: it came too late to finish off the last of the passenger 747s, and is "early" in that the 77W replacement cycle has not begun in earnest-- a process which likely won't be in full swing for another half decade, seeing as the eldest among them is only 18-yrs-old.

LAX772LR wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

Sir Tim Clark has also expressed his opinions on the A350-1000 saying that its a great airplane but lacks range.

It should give you pause to write this, considering that the A35K is the currently-produced airliner with the longest standard (and extended) range.

Aseem747 wrote:

A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future.

Nonsense.

The primary thing "limiting" the A35K's sales is timing: it came too late to finish off the last of the passenger 747s, and is "early" in that the 77W replacement cycle has not begun in earnest-- a process which likely won't be in full swing for another half decade, seeing as the eldest among them is only 18-yrs-old.

I don’t see either of them really making massive headway in that market. There are too many other options now. 350-900, 787-10IGW etc

Sir Tim must have very specific wants if 350 is too small and the 380 is too big. Obviously the very delayed 779 is what he is looking at but Airbus can’t just whip that out in 3 years… he is in a pickle

I just took it as a gentle nudge to Airbus to think about what they are going to do at the large aircraft end. It was never Airbus's plan for the 35K to be the biggest aircraft they offer, they saw the Widebody market being a mix of 350s and 380s, hence their mix offer to BA on the widebody order. Obviously, the 380 is gone, so Tim was just nudging Airbus what is your new plan? Whatever people try to say, Pax demand is always going to grow faster than airport infrastructure, so as Sir Tim says, how are you going to accommodate them? Whether its a modified 380Neo or a further stretched 350 can be debated, but Airbus know the present set up of its Widebody offering doesn't fully accommodate the future of the market.

Plenty of used A380's.

No manufacturer will be burning trough budgets again with very big aircraft soon. It will be the middle of the market and slightly below where new things happen.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Tim Clark missed his chance. He could have ordered the 747-8i but he did not.

Once Emirates had ordered the A380, the 748i was never going to happen for them. Let's be honest, the list of customers for it is very short.

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Sir Tim must have very specific wants if 350 is too small and the 380 is too big.

When did Clark say the A380 is too big?

Airbus has close to 50 A350 customers, a proven efficient aircraft (~6.4t/hr) and a well filled orderbook (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... zxq1n1.png). They are ramping up to 6 a month next year, carefully marketing the -1000's to Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Delta, Lufthansa and other legacy's. But also to e.g. Korean Air and ANA as potential new customers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... y_customer

The competition is a metal, severely delayed, much heavier (+25t) aircraft. Market logic would suggest Airbus can be conservative with discounts.

Under those conditions we can expect airlines/lessors negotiating A350s via the media, questioning the aircrafts suitability, raising concerns about the paint, praising alternatives, it's too small/ big, boasting how much live is left in their 77W's, market uncertainty etc., creating negotiation space.


https://www.airlive.net/virgin-atlantic ... of-the-us/

“What it will do is put the cost of air travel up through the roof, if you’re not careful,” Clark suggests. “So you’ve got to find a way, and I fret with this one. “Somebody’s got to do something, honestly.” Clark jokes that he has a new – three-engined – A380 “on the drawing board” but that he has not shown it to Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury yet.

https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article