Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:04 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Not sure about the rotation angle but the fuel use was done in metric, I find It’s much harder calculating with numbers derived by a drunk lobster.
Fred


Agreed.... I have 10 fingers and 10 toes so I do much better in metric as well. Good, then I'll let my calculations stand. Amazed the theoretical A352k appears to be soo much more efficient than the 779... of course there was the assumption the Luftansa # of 2.9l/100km per pax for 779 applies to a load of 426 pax too.. so perhaps my calcs are a bit pessimistic...

WayexTDI wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

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


He did say he wanted more A380s. Multiple times. He was trying hard to get Airbus to commit to an A380neo, but they wouldn't.
Contrary to some A Net wisdom, he also wanted an A380-900. A bigger aircraft, not a smaller one. The A380-800 was designed to be lengthened, and would likely be way more efficient.
All in all, with all the A380s heading to the desert, Emirates could run an A380 fleet for 15 more years if they wanted to.


He obviously wasn't trying hard enough: had his put his wallet where his mouth was, Airbus would have been happy to sell him an A380-900 and/or A380neo. He never put the money on the table, Airbus said no.


Yeah but he's a Knight... so there's that....

He'll retire soon to hunt the Rabbit of Caerbannog...
 
aerohottie
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 am

I had always figured Airbus is waiting on B777-9 certification and entry into service before launching an A350-2000 type stretch.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:17 am

77west wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
Could there be a 3-4-3 A350 to cover the capacity or is that not an option? I thought Airbus was thinning walls to make that happen with no reduction in seat width?

BF and TX already fly their A350s 10 abreast. The 777X was able to thin the walls and fuselage frames to accommodate 10 abreast 18" wide seats but the A350 gets below 17" when 10 abreast.


I think the A350 was explicitly designed to prevent 10-abreast in anything other than a ULCC holiday type config.

It may also work for regional Asia ops but we haven't seen it yet.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:33 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Not sure about the rotation angle but the fuel use was done in metric, I find It’s much harder calculating with numbers derived by a drunk lobster.
Fred


Agreed.... I have 10 fingers and 10 toes so I do much better in metric as well. Good, then I'll let my calculations stand. Amazed the theoretical A352k appears to be soo much more efficient than the 779... of course there was the assumption the Luftansa # of 2.9l/100km per pax for 779 applies to a load of 426 pax too.. so perhaps my calcs are a bit pessimistic...



We had a similar discussion at the launch of the 777xf, it was surprising, almost unbelievable, how big the delta was in efficiency when comparing the 777x vs the A350. It seems that weight is really hampering the 777x in the efficiency department...
 
FatCat
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:20 am

Is there still a route that can pack up an A388?
I mean - on a daily base. How many people do travel between, let's say, LHR and DXB? Enough to have 8 Emirates A388 and 2 British B777W flights per day? Or are those planes flying half empty?
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:01 am

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-drag-out

Now I can say that the 350 is being considered to fill capacity gap of the 777X

But STC says the XWB-97 is yet to prove its reliability and needs more cycle guarantees before he’ll consider ordering it.

How does RR improve that?

So the 900 I think they might order more, the jury is still out on the 1000
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:28 am

Opus99 wrote:
Now I can say that the 350 is being considered to fill capacity gap of the 777X


I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:33 am

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Now I can say that the 350 is being considered to fill capacity gap of the 777X


I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.

the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:36 am

Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Now I can say that the 350 is being considered to fill capacity gap of the 777X


I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.

the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court


Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.

He said Rolls needs to get the biggest A350, for which it’s the sole engine supplier, into the air with “much higher cycle guarantees” before he’ll consider ordering the type.


Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pm

Well, Farnborough is one month away. Will he walk on the 787s? If he does then the only option is more A350s. But, Airbus has their own bugbears on supply issues. Not guaranteed.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:12 pm

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.

the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court


Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.

He said Rolls needs to get the biggest A350, for which it’s the sole engine supplier, into the air with “much higher cycle guarantees” before he’ll consider ordering the type.


Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

RR is yet to clearly fix it since Akbar complained back in 2018.
 
tvh
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:41 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:29 pm

I do not understand why they did not move there A350 order up a little. Airbus must have had capacity aviable for that.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5657
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:29 pm

Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court


Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.

He said Rolls needs to get the biggest A350, for which it’s the sole engine supplier, into the air with “much higher cycle guarantees” before he’ll consider ordering the type.


Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

RR is yet to clearly fix it since Akbar complained back in 2018.

Wait. Akbar complained about something? :rotfl:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:35 pm

I guess a lot has changed since Tim Clark cancelled his A350-1000s and RR contract in 2014.

We are all learning and boldly moving forward meeting new challenges in an ever changing world.

:biggrin:
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:00 pm

PM wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.



Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

RR is yet to clearly fix it since Akbar complained back in 2018.

Wait. Akbar complained about something? :rotfl:

which STC has voiced as well, so I mean, you can add it to the other reasons the 1000 is not selling
 
JonesNL
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:28 pm

It is mostly known that the A35k is one of the most efficient birds out there, but that capex is killing its proposition vs the 777ER. I wonder if the increased fuel prices has finally skewed the calculus in favour of the A35k...
 
JonesNL
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:19 pm

Did a small calculation based on current fuel prices compared to last year. If we assume a $1400,- price to a price of $600 per ton of last year. And a 777ER using 8.86 kg/km fuel per km more on a stage of 10,199 km and a A35k using 7.58 kg/km on a stage of 10,243 (source), which we can round of to 10,000 for ease of comparison. The fuel costs is as follows at a stage of 10,000km (~5400nm):

777ER 06-2022: $124,040
777ER 06-2021: $ 53,160

A35k 06-2022: $106,120
A35k 06-2021: $ 45,480

Delta 06-2022: $ 17,920
Delta 06-2021: $ 7,680

Not sure what effect this on the total calculus when capex is included, but the fuel burn cost of the previous generation must hurt the airline CFO's around the world...
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4541
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:43 pm

Clark's comment about Boeing needing to have the 777X is spot on. They pretty much can't kill the program and be left with the 787-10 as their largest offering, not to mention a successor to the 777-LRF.
He is, however, howling at the moon about the OEMs needing something larger than the 350-1000 or 779. If neither builds it, what's he going to do?
 
JohanTally
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:12 pm

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.

the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court


Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.

He said Rolls needs to get the biggest A350, for which it’s the sole engine supplier, into the air with “much higher cycle guarantees” before he’ll consider ordering the type.


Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

EY just started operating the RR XWB less than 3 months ago and I believe all of their 787s are GE powered.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5460
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:33 pm

Tim Clark seems to be angling as usual. A Larger 777 or A350 might only be good for HIM! Especially if the length and the wing span are no larger than the A380 footprint. He'd like a 1:1 repacement but we all Know? It ain't gonna' Happen! Forget about it!
 
smartplane
Posts: 1926
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:20 pm

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I told you a few days ago it was written on the wall, 1+1=.. but maybe you were unwilling to read. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1473981&start=50#p23351275) ;) The ball is I think in Boeings court, many 777x customers have dual source policies and demonstrated a lot of patience, but slots have to be filled in the end.

the jury is still out on the 1000. relax, we know this man says everything, lets see what he will do. if he orders the 1000 I'll give you credit for that
but till now 1+1=777-9

a350-900 I would expect, the ball is really in RRs court


Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.

He said Rolls needs to get the biggest A350, for which it’s the sole engine supplier, into the air with “much higher cycle guarantees” before he’ll consider ordering the type.


Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

EK wants a variable price PBH contract, underpinned by performance. As performance erodes, PBH payments reduce, until the point is reached where RR wants to switch engines.

EK had a hybrid version of this with the Trent 900 but the compensation process lacked structure.

EK needs this for good business reasons. And for leverage over GE who probably have too little 'on wing time' to write in the sort of guarantees EK will require.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:14 pm

Airbus 380 with folding wings ... anyone ? :bigthumbsup:
 
744SPX
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:18 am

PM wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

Reading closely, I think Clarks remarks can be seen as part of negotiating a PBH agreement with RR, via the media again.



Dubai is a sandy place & RR has lots of data from Etihad & Qatar. And perfectly understands the situation EK is in.

RR is yet to clearly fix it since Akbar complained back in 2018.

Wait. Akbar complained about something? :rotfl:



It's a trap!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:15 am

Tim Clark says he has some drawings of a three engine A380 has hasn't shown Airbus.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7UIN5NlCc
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:47 am

The A380 works for Emirates, but it doesn't work for any other airline, except for maybe BA, when LHR is at full capacity. The era of VLA is largely over and I just don't see Airbus or Boeing coming up with a plane that will help EK replace its A380s one day on a capacity for capacity basis. High fuel prices are likely here to stay and the operational disadvantages of an A380 (or a 747 for that matter) are glaring. The A380s may come back in the interim across some carriers (a small number, probably) due to the surge in demand but that's probably short lived.
 
jetlaggedAF
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:34 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:11 am

My 2c is the A35K is going to have a real uptick here with fuel prices where they are. Its the perfect blend of capacity, range and economics for most airlines. Only EK and maybe BA have a genuine case for something bigger. My guess is he’s either angling for a 10ab A35K or a neo for existing A380s that maybe manages to go twin engine for everything after the takeoff.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:13 pm

JonesNL wrote:
It is mostly known that the A35k is one of the most efficient birds out there, but that capex is killing its proposition vs the 777ER. I wonder if the increased fuel prices has finally skewed the calculus in favour of the A35k...

Well the thing apparently is that the A359 is just about as efficient per passenger compared to the A35K... Possibly the high fuel prices of today might favor the A35K somewhat vs the A359, not sure. I still believe the A359 is the biggest competitor to the -1000, not the 777-9.

Will be interesting what types Air India will order, the A350-900 seems a certainty, if they add the -1000 too this could be meaningful.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:26 pm

frigatebird wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
It is mostly known that the A35k is one of the most efficient birds out there, but that capex is killing its proposition vs the 777ER. I wonder if the increased fuel prices has finally skewed the calculus in favour of the A35k...

Well the thing apparently is that the A359 is just about as efficient per passenger compared to the A35K... Possibly the high fuel prices of today might favor the A35K somewhat vs the A359, not sure. I still believe the A359 is the biggest competitor to the -1000, not the 777-9.

Will be interesting what types Air India will order, the A350-900 seems a certainty, if they add the -1000 too this could be meaningful.

The 900 is happening. The 1000 if added seem to me as thought it will be QR NTUs at best but let’s see.

I agree with your analysis. Boeing seems more worried about the 359 than the 35K especially when it comes the HGW 78X. I still think the 777-300ER market will sit mainly with those two frames
 
JonesNL
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:47 pm

frigatebird wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
It is mostly known that the A35k is one of the most efficient birds out there, but that capex is killing its proposition vs the 777ER. I wonder if the increased fuel prices has finally skewed the calculus in favour of the A35k...

Well the thing apparently is that the A359 is just about as efficient per passenger compared to the A35K... Possibly the high fuel prices of today might favor the A35K somewhat vs the A359, not sure. I still believe the A359 is the biggest competitor to the -1000, not the 777-9.

Will be interesting what types Air India will order, the A350-900 seems a certainty, if they add the -1000 too this could be meaningful.

I only compared to the 777ER. According to the source in my second comment the consumption difference between the two is quite small if you compare the per seat consumption:
A359 - 2.56 L/100 km (92 mpg‑US)
A35k - 2.58 L/100 km (91 mpg‑US)
It is quite negligible and I would guess that the A35k has higher RASM opportunities due to higher non-economy seats.
But market clearly shows that A359 has higher preference despite RASM opportunities. Based on most comments from market probably due to Capital cost of the A35k…
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 884
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:49 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
The A380 works for Emirates, but it doesn't work for any other airline, except for maybe BA, when LHR is at full capacity. The era of VLA is largely over and I just don't see Airbus or Boeing coming up with a plane that will help EK replace its A380s one day on a capacity for capacity basis. High fuel prices are likely here to stay and the operational disadvantages of an A380 (or a 747 for that matter) are glaring. The A380s may come back in the interim across some carriers (a small number, probably) due to the surge in demand but that's probably short lived.


In general, what you say seems to have been the trend, which the covid-induced groundings especially of large airplanes seems to have underlined.
That said, EK is now trying to bring their whole A380 fleet back into the air as quickly as they can, as is BA, ans SQ are also bringing theirs back. And even LH - who have already traded six A380s back to Airbus - are looking at reactivating part or all of their 8-strong A380 fleet for the next summer season.

High fuel prices may actually play to their advantage, as they still do well on a seat-mile basis *if* you can fill them.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:36 pm

A350 total order will probably pass 1000 this year and many (most?) A350 agreements have -900/-1000 conversion rights.

Looking at 777-300ER / 777-9 versus A350-1000 CASM differences and program risks, nobody should be surprised by substantial A350-1000 orders & conversions soon.

-> Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Air India, Emirates, Air France, Korean Air, pick a few.
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:50 pm

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

Is it too late to order the 747-8i?
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 3200
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:51 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
The A380 works for Emirates, but it doesn't work for any other airline, except for maybe BA, when LHR is at full capacity. The era of VLA is largely over and I just don't see Airbus or Boeing coming up with a plane that will help EK replace its A380s one day on a capacity for capacity basis. High fuel prices are likely here to stay and the operational disadvantages of an A380 (or a 747 for that matter) are glaring. The A380s may come back in the interim across some carriers (a small number, probably) due to the surge in demand but that's probably short lived.


But if the A380 works for BA, why don't they buy up other RR powered A380's like the LH A380's sent back to Airbus?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21229
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:52 pm

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

Is it too late to order the 747-8i?


That ship has sailed and disappeared over the horizon. It's too late to order any model of 747.
 
ObadiahPlainman
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:43 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:58 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
The A380 works for Emirates, but it doesn't work for any other airline, except for maybe BA, when LHR is at full capacity. The era of VLA is largely over and I just don't see Airbus or Boeing coming up with a plane that will help EK replace its A380s one day on a capacity for capacity basis. High fuel prices are likely here to stay and the operational disadvantages of an A380 (or a 747 for that matter) are glaring. The A380s may come back in the interim across some carriers (a small number, probably) due to the surge in demand but that's probably short lived.


it's getting the proverbial "dead cat bounce" right now, but yeah, 12 year old A380s are being parked. If Tim Clark wants a bigger airplane, make yours work given the constraints of network economics.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:20 pm

Or Sir Tim can pay Boeing or Airbus to design a VLA for Emirates but that will cost a pretty penny. Whining and complaining about a niche part of the market isn’t going to get him very far.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:53 pm

I believe this thread has missed the most important factor in this whole discussion. Market forces will correct and are correcting any issues of size of planes vs frequency and capacity / slot restrictions at airports. The answer of what to do with all of the pax wanting to go to LHR or SFO ect is simple. Raise ticket prices until the number of pax willing to pay for the privilege of traveling to slot / capacity controlled airports equals the supply of seats.. Everyone wins. Very few people actually "need" to go to LHR or SFO as examples. There are may alternatives for every slot / capacity controlled airport in the world. Proper load / revenue management calculations are the simplest and most effective solutions. Charge a premium for flights to LHR and SFO (oh ya airlines been doing that for decades...) and alternative airports will have lower costs an ticket prices. Never has a discount airline been successful long term using VLAs with huge numbers of cheap seats into a premium airport. Anyone remember Tower Air?

Sir Tim wants his cake and to eat it too. The solutions are simple and in the end everyone wins and the airlines make more money. Fun fact Pan Am was flying fully loaded 747s across the pond and loosing money---poor yield management.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 11582
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:15 pm

JohanTally wrote:
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.


I think the issue with the MD90s was the engines, not anything else per se.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:25 pm

wjcandee wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
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.


I think the issue with the MD90s was the engines, not anything else per se.

That's what I meant by support network because I believe there was only one remaining outfit capable of overhauling the engines on the MD90. Also DLs MRO business is an important revenue generating aspect of the overall company.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:26 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
But if the A380 works for BA, why don't they buy up other RR powered A380's like the LH A380's sent back to Airbus?

They looked at the MH birds. But the refit costs were too much for BA to make work.

Only one A380 has been taken on second had, that was by HiFly and even that has been retired now. HiFly did absolutely zero to the internals of that aircraft. I think Airbus, Boeing and airlines would be very cautious about another “EK special”. The 777x is arguably too tailored as it is.

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/reviews/doub ... -a380/amp/
 
randomdude83
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:52 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:01 am

I guess i'm not understanding why the 787-10 does not work for EK. if i understand it correctly, the 787-10 Can carry its maximum load for 4100nm.

Basically thats all of europe and India easy.

KLM and Singapore have theres configured around 345 pax.

345 pax +50T cargo for 4000nm? or am i way off here.
 
edealinfo
Posts: 3014
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:11 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:36 am

keesje wrote:
I guess a lot has changed since Tim Clark cancelled his A350-1000s and RR contract in 2014.


why did he cancel it?
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:30 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
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.


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....


I brought up the 787-10 because it's a "stunted" airplane compared to the 787-9. It's almost a straight trade payload/capacity for range. Sure, that works fine for some airlines, but now you see Boeing coming out with the 787-10ER to rectify the problem...because they want more than 61 orders. I believe a straight stretch of the 777-9X might face a similar problem.

flipdewaf wrote:
The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred


High-capacity slot-limited routes where premium carriers need the floor space for high-J and F configurations.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:48 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
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.


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....


I brought up the 787-10 because it's a "stunted" airplane compared to the 787-9. It's almost a straight trade payload/capacity for range. Sure, that works fine for some airlines, but now you see Boeing coming out with the 787-10ER to rectify the problem...because they want more than 61 orders. I believe a straight stretch of the 777-9X might face a similar problem.

flipdewaf wrote:
The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred


High-capacity slot-limited routes where premium carriers need the floor space for high-J and F configurations.

787-10 has 182 orders before covid was over 200
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4524
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:43 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
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.


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....


I brought up the 787-10 because it's a "stunted" airplane compared to the 787-9. It's almost a straight trade payload/capacity for range. Sure, that works fine for some airlines, but now you see Boeing coming out with the 787-10ER to rectify the problem...because they want more than 61 orders. I believe a straight stretch of the 777-9X might face a similar problem.


Right, the 779X is already stunted on spec range compared to the 789 prior to a simple stretch. If the 77-10x was similarly hampered it would barely be TATL capable at full payload.

Pellegrine wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred


High-capacity slot-limited routes where premium carriers need the floor space for high-J and F configurations.


A’la A380.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2794
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:18 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....


I brought up the 787-10 because it's a "stunted" airplane compared to the 787-9. It's almost a straight trade payload/capacity for range. Sure, that works fine for some airlines, but now you see Boeing coming out with the 787-10ER to rectify the problem...because they want more than 61 orders. I believe a straight stretch of the 777-9X might face a similar problem.

flipdewaf wrote:
The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred


High-capacity slot-limited routes where premium carriers need the floor space for high-J and F configurations.

787-10 has 182 orders before covid was over 200


Correct, me typing too fast.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5782
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:16 pm

The A3510 may be too small for Tim Clark but he seems to be in a minority of 1. It has not exactly been burning up the sales charts. Nor has the 779. With both of them languishing and after the utter sales disaster of the A-380 I doubt that we will see a new VLA for a long, long, LONG time.
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:55 pm

scbriml wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
Tim Clark missed his chance. He could have ordered the 747-8i but he did not.

Is it too late to order the 747-8i?


That ship has sailed and disappeared over the horizon. It's too late to order any model of 747.

I guess I ask because the line is still technically open as the last freighter will be delivered in October, right? If an airline wanted to order a handful of 747-8is, I'd imagine it would not be terribly difficult to start that line back up if need be. Unless I'm wrong because all of the supply chains have been ended.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:17 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
Is it too late to order the 747-8i?


That ship has sailed and disappeared over the horizon. It's too late to order any model of 747.

I guess I ask because the line is still technically open as the last freighter will be delivered in October, right? If an airline wanted to order a handful of 747-8is, I'd imagine it would not be terribly difficult to start that line back up if need be. Unless I'm wrong because all of the supply chains have been ended.


AIUI, you are - the suppliers of fuselage panels, for example, have gone.
 
AAIRLINERS
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:37 pm

Its not build it they will come, rather if there is a need they will build it. Qatar's potential need isn't all that apparently. Get Emirates and Ethihad together you might have something otherwise...what you see is what you get!

Who is online

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