Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:53 am

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 55):
The A350-1000 is probably sized (lengthwise) to be the longest A350 that remains efficient when taking into account the fuselage cross-section. They don't want to make the plane any longer, because any longer will cause the plane to be less efficient.

That makes a lot of sense, Airbus must be weary of repeating the 346's design
mistakes
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
I've said before - Boeing "Let slip the dogs of war" (the innovators) when it went forward with the 787. Airbus have to let their own "dogs of war" have their teeth too.
Success or failure in delivery of the A350X performance will depend on how well they do this.

That's exactly what happened. But remember, it was started with the Sonic Cruiser. Probably one the more astute decisions that Boeing's management and engineers made was to think, "what if the Sonic Cruiser isn't accepted, what's the fall back?" So there was always a "tube and wing" analysis going on with Sonic Cruiser technology. But again, to let the engineers spend money and utilize resources at a time of economic troubles was a very wise decision. The 787 is that airplane and is the result of the "let slip" quote that Astuteman used...great quote btw...

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 87):
For most of the 20th. century received wisdom was that the faster an aeroplane climbed, the quicker it reached thinner air. Thinner air equalled better fuel economy/speed. But Boeing found in designing the Sonic Cruiser that conventional wings (relatively wide, relatively thick) were fine in terms of allowing a fast climb, but generated too MUCH lift and drag at height to allow the sort of speeds they were planning for the Sonic Cruiser.

Very true. A wing can actually have too much lift to be most efficient at cruise for the propulsion system. It really needs "just enough" lift to do the job. Lift, being a pressure differential (and this is not the old theme of the lower air molecule has to travel faster to keep up with the upper molecule) that is spread across the whole of the wing, results in a total force that has to be produced the power source, the engines. That pressure differential results in airflow that has to travel from the high to low, basically curling around and even reversing itself around the edges (hence the vortices that we love to see and discuss) and this flow is expressed in a drag force, which again has to be overcome by the engines...think about this lower pressure region on the upper surface as an object that has to be dragged thru the air to get a visual on it.
The bigger the object the more the drag. Optimizing the current wing to produce a lower pressure region is the name of the game. While just a very simplified description of what the aero guys are doing, its interesting to see how current analytical methods have given us a better understanding of the total flow regimes that a wing surface operates under.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:59 am

On the subject of weight, apart from materials, Airbus were originally proposing to use the A330/40 fuselage, now they're proposing a brand-new one.

Since the new fuselage will be 9-across instead of 8-across, surely for a roughly-comparable number of passengers it will be shorter? And therefore lighter?  Smile
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:17 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 102):
On the subject of weight, apart from materials, Airbus were originally proposing to use the A330/40 fuselage, now they're proposing a brand-new one.

Since the new fuselage will be 9-across instead of 8-across, surely for a roughly-comparable number of passengers it will be shorter? And therefore lighter?  

But there are three more rows, right (going from 253 - 270 passengers)? So, could it be the same length as the old new 358? good point, to going back to the KISS principle, though.

cheers
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:21 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 4):
Yes, the -8 is successful, the -3 is a nightmare in point of sales and the biggest sellers will be the -9 and -10X to reduce the seatmile-costs.

The -3 is a cashcow for domestic US carriers and will see major orders to replace 767-200's and 300's in the next 5 years.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 13):
The shorthaul-market is becoming more and more a narrowbody-market with higher frequencies.

Medium range CONUS routes, Hawaii from the west coast and high density "large market to hub" routes are not adding frequencies. The hubbing is optimized. A new narrowbody will permit market development, step ups from RJ's and new domestic point to point where viable. There is demand in the US alone for at least 500 787-3's from the major carriers.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
Such a wing generates less lift for climbout, necessitating 'cruise-climb' in the early stages of a flight, but it produces a lot less drag at height. I think that that is probably one of the main contributing factors to the 787's claimed economy gain, and it makes sense for Airbus to go the same way.

It certainly won't be going full domestic range from 6,000' of runway standard thrust or full intercontinental from 7,600' of runway in a high thrust variant as the 787 will.

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 7):
Airbus made the mistake of writing off the B787 and look at the price they paid. Looks as if Boeing is heading in the same direction making the same mistake by writing off the A350XWB. Boeing has an awesome airplane in the B787. Airbus has another awesome airplane in the A350XWB.

Boeing will replace the 777 on their own schedule, not Airbus'. The 777 is proven and can be modified short term then altered substantially when it makes sense. Airbus is chosing to go after it now. Smaller is smarter right now, and has been going on 5 years.

[Edited 2006-07-20 06:33:56]
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:35 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 104):
The -3 is a cashcow for domestic US carriers and will see major orders to replace 767-200's and 300's in the next 5 years.

Is that really true? As far as i can tell, US carriers are moving to smaller planes and aren't using the 767s as much on domestic runs. Other than gate-size, wouldn't they be better off replacing them with -8s, which would increase the flexibility by allowing them to run them both on domestic runs and trans-atlantic and trans-pacific hops, even though they may be slightly abused on the shorter hops. US carriers seem to be the next big source of -8 sales, and since Airbus doesn't have much of a shot at getting a big share of the sales, they are probably making a good gamble picking the high end 787s and low end 777s with the new 350. I'm not saying that the 350 is definitely going to be a winner, but it seems like the right strategic target. of course Boeing says that it is a weird strategy because it doesn't fit exactly into their defnition.

The interesting plane that gets dropped out of the equation is what to do about the 752s? The 787-3 doesn't meet those same requirements and neither does the 737-900er. Now it is possible that y1 will take care of that, but then that likely means that they are ceding the small end of the market (which may be a wise choice). And even though, you could conceivably run the 787s with lower capacity by moving to 8-abreast, you do lose out in casm that way...  scratchchin  .

cheers
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:48 pm

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 99):
I agree 100% but I stil dont see how they are going to get there. The holy grail is to reduce MTOW with out affecting anything else. Nice if you can pull it off but since we have been trying for a few years now... one would think it wouldn't be as simple as saying... "well, we'll just make it lighter!"

Let us hope ignorance is a help here. Losing weight has to be more of a goal for Airbus than it is for the general population - and there is plenty of stress on personal weight loss.

So what might they be doing? First, they seem to have changed the length to fatness ratio, which should alter stiffness requirements compared with all their history of the 300 tube. Then they look like going for Al-Li which Airbus seem to think they can use to produce a fuse about as light as any other method THEY know, and perhaps that anybody knows - jury out on that one. Then they will try all the things that Astuteman has told us about in various posts such as not having overlaps and revising the structure completely from what was a good idea in about 1970 - anyone know when the fuse design of the 300 was last improved? Seems good, but the data so far dont even tell us the targets let alone what they will actually achieve.

And if all those fail, then they will just go to that tried and true solution, faith-based initiatives.

Good luck Airbus!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:51 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 105):
Is that really true? As far as i can tell, US carriers are moving to smaller planes and aren't using the 767s as much on domestic runs.

In large saturated markets over 1,500 miles to the hubs, they have shifted to widebodies. Only in very short haul markets have they downshifted to 757's/737's with more frequency and moved the 767's to medium haul international. This is where the 787-3 will find it's home when the airlines are able to take them. They can't afford not to take them.

The 752 will be addressed by Y1. The 753 is addressed by the 787-3.

[Edited 2006-07-20 07:02:58]
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:02 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 107):
Quoting Dank (Reply 105):Is that really true? As far as i can tell, US carriers are moving to smaller planes and aren't using the 767s as much on domestic runs.
In large saturated markets over 1,500 miles to the hubs, they have shifted to widebodies. Only in very short haul markets have they downshifted to 757's/737's with more frequency and moved the 767's to medium haul international. This is where the 787-3 will find it's home when the airlines are able to take them. They can't afford not to take them.

While I see this is true in some cases (Delta and Continental spring to mind), I still have trouble seeing why the extra hassle of adding the -3 to a fleet of -8s and ups really benefits them. And if this is the case, why haven't Continental ordered any when they've already ordered -8s?

i'm not saying that the -3 is a waste on Boeing's part because it did a good job selling the Japanese carriers on the 7E7 and probably is going to add relatively little to the development costs of the bird. Just not sure that I buy a large market for the -3.

cheers
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:17 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 108):
While I see this is true in some cases (Delta and Continental spring to mind), I still have trouble seeing why the extra hassle of adding the -3 to a fleet of -8s and ups really benefits them. And if this is the case, why haven't Continental ordered any when they've already ordered -8s?

They haven't ordered any because they don't need them "yet" and they can't afford them "yet". The -8 will start feeding from hubs to the Atlantic markets now developing with the 763's. The 787-3 comes into play domestically for CO, DL, AA and UA for longer hub timed routes where 762/763 and 764's are being used, or non-hub times markets such as LAX or SFO to JFK. The -3 and -8 are the same plane and using a -8 doesn't make sense domestically because the capacity constraints at major US airports dictates such an aircraft in terms of runway performance and gate space. The -3 is the first 300 seater that can do Orange County to New York. You can't look at the totallity of the declining domestic average capacity model and ignore the ignorance of local citizens in terms of dealing with capacity constrained airport facilities. With very few exceptions, not one large market airport in the US is capable of sustainling high frequency service going forward because of local ignorance. Domestic US capacity shortfalls at the larger airports are persistant and will remain that way. This is why the 787-8 is key to opening new international markets reducing this demand to the hub and why the -3 is key to sustaining domestic major market schedules where the -8 is not viable for opening up a new international route.

For example: San Diego can accomodate the 787-8 full range with the high thrust option, and Europe is viable with any engine variant. The airlines would have a choice. Upguage the hub flight (i.e Atlanta) to a -3 and continue to connect passengers or serve an international hub via an alliance (i.e. Amsterdam) with the -8 and reduce demand on the hub flight. Or both can occur by adding new destinations/capacity from the hub and the international point to alliance hub.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:58 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 81):
if you have a plane that's filled to the brim with passengers, could you have made more profit by flying a slightly larger plane and taking even more passengers?

Depends on the shape of the demand curve. It also depends on the relative CASM of the two aircraft.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 95):
My simple assumption (and it is that) is that (specifically for A358X) same thrust=same MTOW.
Both old and new model also share same range (8500Nm)
However, the new model carries IIRC 20 more pax = c 4500lb extra weight
Bigger fuse = fractionally more drag = fractionally more fuel consumed.

Therefore, higher weight of fuel, plus higher weight of pax MUST be offset by lower OEW in order to achieve same MTOW.

Assuming SFC doesn't change, then that's an excellent analysis. We should keep an eye on the OEW and SFC for the A350. If they are not inline with your model, then we should be deeply suspicious of Airbus' cost claims.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 96):
# Are airlines willing to move to larger frames to get better CASM?

Sometimes. It depends on the how much larger, how much of a difference in CASM, and the shape of the demand curves. However, airlines virtually always prefer a smaller airframe with lower CASM.
 
Danny
Posts: 3752
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:10 pm

Randy's comments are embarrassment for Boeing. Basically he says that 787 technology plane in 777 size class does not make any sense. But he seems quite alone in his comments. Even Udvar Hazy, recent harsh critic of Airbus responded in positive comments about XWB.
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:29 pm

Randy's comments are not an embarassment for Boeing. That's what they have him for. It owuld be embarassing if he would go out and tell that the competition is better again...

Point is, Baseler does what he is paid for, so does Leahy (who, BTW, is being titled a 'crackhead' in a different thread for exactly the same class of drivel Randy is giving here)... Interesting though that some people love to discredit Leahy and praise Baseler, as if they both were independent analysts, I mean really independent, not like that Aboulafia-dude.

Why does anyone even consider quoting Baseler or Leahy as a source???
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
Danny
Posts: 3752
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:50 pm

Quoting Nudelhirsch (Reply 112):
Randy's comments are not an embarassment for Boeing. That's what they have him for. It owuld be embarrassing if he would go out and tell that the competition is better again...

He is supposed to say that 777 is still competitive, highlight its advantages, say it is available now not in 6 years etc. But saying that 25% more efficient version of 777 does not make sense is laughable.
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:16 pm

He is not a bit different from that guy trying to sell you a used car. If the 350 would make sense to Baseler, there would be only one single job left for him - the one Leahy does right now...

And of course vice versa...

Baseler and Leahy are both jokes, as a source, but both are aggressive and successful salesmen.
That's their mission.
Certainly not being independent and neutral analysts...

So, why even bother quoting them on the competitor's products??? Unless you want to plant a certain biased opinion...
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:40 pm

Quoting TP313 (Reply 100):

That makes a lot of sense, Airbus must be weary of repeating the 346's design
mistakes

Are there design mistakes in the 346?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 110):
if you have a plane that's filled to the brim with passengers, could you have made more profit by flying a slightly larger plane and taking even more passengers?

Depends on the shape of the demand curve. It also depends on the relative CASM of the two aircraft.

Relative CASM being similar, of course - even a child can say that selling more product brings in more profit.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7151
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:26 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 110):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 95):
My simple assumption (and it is that) is that (specifically for A358X) same thrust=same MTOW.
Both old and new model also share same range (8500Nm)
However, the new model carries IIRC 20 more pax = c 4500lb extra weight
Bigger fuse = fractionally more drag = fractionally more fuel consumed.

Therefore, higher weight of fuel, plus higher weight of pax MUST be offset by lower OEW in order to achieve same MTOW.

Assuming SFC doesn't change, then that's an excellent analysis. We should keep an eye on the OEW and SFC for the A350. If they are not inline with your model, then we should be deeply suspicious of Airbus' cost claims.

The only other major variable I can think of is that the "presumed" low-drag, faster, thinner wing results in substantially less "cruise" drag than its precedessor.
I couldn't even begin to guess at this.

Regards
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:49 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 111):
Randy's comments are embarrassment for Boeing. Basically he says that 787 technology plane in 777 size class does not make any sense. But he seems quite alone in his comments. Even Udvar Hazy, recent harsh critic of Airbus responded in positive comments about XWB.

The 350 is not a 787 technology plane, but Y3 will be. It's a nice attempt, but it's too soon and introduces a capacity gap for Airbus.

Quoting Danny (Reply 113):
But saying that 25% more efficient version of 777 does not make sense is laughable.

You're right. Trying to say one can produce a plane that is 25% more efficient than the 777 at this point in time is laughable. It just doesn't add up. 10-15% I might buy, 25% not even maybe.

[Edited 2006-07-20 14:53:48]
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 115):
Are there design mistakes in the 346?

Structural inefficiency of the very long fuselage.

It is a "design mistake" in the same sense as the 767 "non side by side LD3
capable" cross-section is a "design mistake": a handicap when facing
the competition.
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:53 pm

Just a sidenote one the "25%" figure: as is apparent e.g. on this slide Airbus does not claim that the A350XFB+Xtra has a 25% lower CASM than the B777ER.

They claim that the B777ER has a 25% higher one.

i.e. that the A350 has a 20% lower CASM.

I am sure they were confident most people (journalists in particular) would screw up these basic maths.

On a personal note that exactly the kind of things I would have expected Zvezda to point out - don't tell me you missed this one?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:41 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 119):
i.e. that the A350 has a 20% lower CASM.

Thanks for the link, Glacote - you're right about the percentage.

However, just to join in the fun, the comparison is stated to be based on 'Cash Operating Cost', which may or may not correspond to the normal basis of calculation of CASM.

Worth pointing out, too, that as far as I know the airlines increasingly use 'RASM' (Revenue per Available Seat Mile) because that takes into acount the increasingly-important question of freight capacity.

Full marks to Airbus for choosing the best possible way to state the figures, and waking the journalists up.  Smile That's perfectly permissible in what was, after all, a publicity event. But I suspect that, when we start seeing the real figures from the re-design exercise (some time after October), the gaps between the A350 and both Boeing models will have narrowed considerably.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:48 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 106):
And if all those fail, then they will just go to that tried and true solution, faith-based initiatives

 laughing   laughing   laughing   laughing   rotfl 
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:53 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 119):

Is the full presentation available somewhere? I couldn't find it on the Airbus website.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 119):
I am sure they were confident most people (journalists in particular) would screw up these basic maths.

It is possible that a small minority here on a.net still won't get it, even after your explanation  dopey 

Looking at that slide you posted, I am amused that Airbus adopted three visual cues from the 787 computer rendering playbook: 1) unconventional cockpit windows, 2) totally insane wing flex, and 3) a "birdstrike" view from the front!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:21 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 115):
of course - even a child can say that selling more product brings in more profit.

Products are typically sold at uniform prices, which means the marginal profit from selling another unit is almost always higher than the average profit per unit. Airline tickets are more a service than a product, are sold at highly varied prices, and the marginal profit (even if positive) for selling another seat is lower than the average profit per seat.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 119):
On a personal note that exactly the kind of things I would have expected Zvezda to point out - don't tell me you missed this one?

I did miss that one. I've had very little time for keeping up with the news lately. I'll buy that the A350 could have 20% lower fuel burn than the B777, but I don't buy 20% lower CASM. I'll be terribly busy for the next month.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:17 pm

Well the A350WBX just made sense to SQ.

But cheer up, I think an SQ order/lease for 777-200LRs is imminent, to completely replace the A345s, just as the A330 lease announced today will replace some older 777s that are being flown over inappropriately shorter stages on the SQ network.

Antares
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:38 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 124):
Well the A350WBX just made sense to SQ.

:D I was thinking the same thing. For salesmen from both sides, better watch what you say so it doesn't bite you in the a...

Quoting Antares (Reply 124):
But cheer up, I think an SQ order/lease for 777-200LRs is imminent, to completely replace the A345s, just as the A330 lease announced today will replace some older 777s that are being flown over inappropriately shorter stages on the SQ network.

It makes sense unless SQ decides that extra long flights aren't goign to be profitable no matter which plane they use. But it's hard to imagine them not wanting to switch (if they were satisifed with the 345, this would have been a time to lease more).

cheers.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:16 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 116):
The only other major variable I can think of is that the "presumed" low-drag, faster, thinner wing results in substantially less "cruise" drag than its precedessor.

The other way round: Increase profile thickness a little and the wing gets lighter (drag divergence and buffet limits permitting).
 
User avatar
distanthorizon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:48 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:50 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 117):
Quoting Danny (Reply 113):
But saying that 25% more efficient version of 777 does not make sense is laughable.

You're right. Trying to say one can produce a plane that is 25% more efficient than the 777 at this point in time is laughable. It just doesn't add up. 10-15% I might buy, 25% not even maybe.

Well, SQ bought. Big grin
Regards
Nelson SE
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:52 am

Quoting DistantHorizon (Reply 127):

Well, SQ bought. Big grin

Though, that fact in no way means that Airbus promised 20 or 25% over the 777  Wink.

Quoting Antares (Reply 124):
I think an SQ order/lease for 777-200LRs is imminent, to completely replace the A345s, just as the A330 lease announced today will replace some older 777s that are being flown over inappropriately shorter stages on the SQ network.

 checkmark 
 
User avatar
distanthorizon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:48 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:33 am

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 128):
Quoting DistantHorizon (Reply 127):

Well, SQ bought. Big grin

Though, that fact in no way means that Airbus promised 20 or 25% over the 777

Do you really believe Airbus promised one thing to the media and another to SQ?
Regards
Nelson SE
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:11 am

Actually let me change my 777-200LR prediction. It's now Boeing's to win or lose on price. SQ is doing so much damage to the premium market out of LAX and New York with its A345s it probably doesn't care to much.

Even if it only makes $100 per seat on those routes, it costs its competitors up to $X thousands for every passenger they loose, multipled by the frequency with which they loose them over a year.

So it has been a pretty good investment. On the other hand the Worldliner would fit well on those routes, may carry just over 200 passengers instead of 181 and bridge the years until central fuel tanks and higher rated engines and structure achieve a similar range in the A380.

Or a better answer comes from Boeing. It's a long call, and other things in this world can totally stuff up the industry well before then anyhow, like oil, war, depression and the usual mechanisms of large scale adjustment that afflict the human story.

Antares
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:28 am

Quoting Glacote (Reply 119):
They claim that the B777ER has a 25% higher one.

i.e. that the A350 has a 20% lower CASM.

Actually, the comment is made relative to the 772ER, not the 773ER.

Is there a similar chart for the A350XWB-1000 vs the 773ER? Since the 773ER carries more people, I doubt the same CASM percentage will apply. At least some of the difference shown is due to the higher -900 seat count.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 131):
Actually, the comment is made relative to the 772ER, not the 773ER.

Is there a similar chart for the A350XWB-1000 vs the 773ER? Since the 773ER carries more people, I doubt the same CASM percentage will apply.

They do the very same claim against the 773ER too - see here.

Now 20% smaller CASM without any PAX configuration "massaging" looks just too good to be true. My view is that the A350 should reach the levels of the B787 both in terms of weight (structural efficiency yes, without a composite fuselage) and fuel burn within a couple of percent at best. Now that ought not be enough to provide such a huge overall improvement over the B777.

Three more claims:
1) it is Airbus best interest to put forwards huge developments cost so as to convince the airlines that they are really committed a lot. Shareholders won't care given the current situation.
2) This market is a duopoly. My belief is that Airbus was sure they would get 35% of the market how crappy their "improved A330" was (not saying it was btw). Now they invested a lot and will enter fierce competition against the B7879-10. For the best interest of airlines - but definitely not of Airbus nor Boeing.
3) Corrollary is that both Airbus and Boeing may be very satisfied of not having direct competition - monopoly market for the B787-3/8 against monopoly for the A350-0/1000. Not saying this will last. But it's just like retailers coupons. Consumers believe it's good for them whereas it's only good to credibly deter against competition. My point being that I am not sure that Boeing necessarily wants to disagree on the market split and rush on Y3. It's a bluffing game - but it looks like B and A are more and more avoiding competition. Good for their shareholders...
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15743
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:58 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 9):
Read my posts better next time - Thanks!

Write better posts next time, then. Thanks.  duck 
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 132):
They do the very same claim against the 773ER too

The Airbus table refers not to CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) but to 'Cash Operating Cost Per Seat.' The latter is not, as far as I know, an orthodox basis for calculating financial performance.

Also worth mentioning that the figures refer only to the passenger side. Cargo capacity increasingly figures in airline economics. Possibly the A350 can beat the 777's fuel burn per passenger but this would be at the expense of carrying a lot less freight?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Baseler: A350XWB...It Doesn't Make Any Sense

Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:18 pm

@ EO CO AS

It sometimes helps to read a complete post, not only the first part...

 Smile

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