Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 45):
The real test IMO will be the production-failure-rate of the components using the barrel technique. A small flaw in any part of the barrel means either a new barrel or a time-costly fix. My gut feel says that it would not take many of these at all to negate any advantage the cylindrical mandrel system might have (if any) in production-time advantage.

Per statements by Boeing principals, the barrels are exceeding quality predictions so it appears that the cylindrical mandrel system works.  thumbsup 
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
Quoting HB88 (Reply 45):
"The real test IMO will be the production-failure-rate of the components using the barrel technique. A small flaw in any part of the barrel means either a new barrel or a time-costly fix. My gut feel says that it would not take many of these at all to negate any advantage the cylindrical mandrel system might have (if any) in production-time advantage."

Per statements by Boeing principals, the barrels are exceeding quality predictions so it appears that the cylindrical mandrel system works

A fair point, but I think I'd want to see the real production-failure rates before drawing any conclusions!  Smile

That the mandrel system works, I have no doubt. It's the shake n' bake part of the process which is slightly less certain.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:30 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs.

From Flug Revue Sept 2005:
Bair goes on to compare the reduction in the amount of work required that comes from using carbon fibre instead of aluminum. “If you imagine a section of the fuselage with stringers, shells and doorframes, an aluminum construction would entail up to 15,000 individual parts. Using CFRP, we can build it as a single unit. With an aluminum component, 85 percent of the production costs relate to wages, whereas with CFRP it is only 10 percent.” Moreover, he adds, with aluminum components only 3% of the quantity of raw material used is actually utilised, whereas with CFRP it is 95%.
It sounds like the higher cost of CFRP will be offset by its lesser wastage, even before the reduced labor costs are factored in.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Customer airlines don't care if Boeing makes a profit. Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs.

You're correct in stating that customers don't care if Boeing makes a profit; however, by lowering manufacturing costs through the use of more efficient production methods provides Boeing with pricing power. Ultimately, the customer will benefit from this by obtaining a more efficient airplane at the same or, in some cases, lower price than the one they are replacing. Have you looked at the list prices for the 767 or even A330 vs. 787? There is not a lot of difference in price and the 787 is touted to be a lot more capable and efficient airplane.

As for composites being 5 - 10 times more expensive than aluminum, "Per pound", yes, composites are a lot more expensive (I don't know if they are "5 - 10 times more expensive", but they are more expensive). However, composites are not, by definition, a "raw material". And when you compare a composite component against an aluminum component then the composite component is in a more "completed" state of the manufacturing process. Whereas an aluminum component will still require considerably more work in both labor, machining, and sub-component materials to achieve the same "completeness" as a composite component.

Composites will be more expensive on the front end (acquisition) but there will be very little increase in manufacturing costs to get it to its "completed" component stage. Aluminum, on the other hand, will be relatively cheaper to acquire, but then will require a huge increase in manufacturing effort and costs to get it to its "completed" component stage. By the time all is said and done, aluminum will not hold an appreciable price advantage, if any, from a manufacturing standpoint. Moreover, there is the hidden costs in aluminum manufacturing that comes from defects. You're going to have a lot higher defect rate with aluminum processes because there are more sub-components in addition to increased labor involved with aluminum manufacturing. That defect rate and the associated QC and oversight requirements adds to the cost of manufacture as well (Six Sigma notwithstanding).
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:43 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 51):
A fair point, but I think I'd want to see the real production-failure rates before drawing any conclusions!  Smile

Well right now it is zero, but admittedly that is eight test barrels and a half-dozen or so production ones.

I discount the ninth, failed, test barrel because that was a test to see if a "known bad" mandrel could in-fact make a "good" barrel, which, turns out, it couldn't.  Smile
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:14 am

I don't know how many posts have been deleted out of this thread, but up to now, it looks like one of the very best (Airbus and) Boeing thread ever, very civil and very instructive.

Thanks, gentlemen, and way to go!
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:22 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Yes and no, but that is not the angle Boeing PR is pushing. Customer airlines don't care if Boeing makes a profit. Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 53):

As for composites being 5 - 10 times more expensive than aluminum, "Per pound", yes, composites are a lot more expensive (I don't know if they are "5 - 10 times more expensive", but they are more expensive). However, composites are not, by definition, a "raw material". And when you compare a composite component against an aluminum component then the composite component is in a more "completed" state of the manufacturing process. Whereas an aluminum component will still require considerably more work in both labor, machining, and sub-component materials to achieve the same "completeness" as a composite component.

Well, if you compare composite and aluminum can, maybe composite is more expensive, but aluminum on an airplane is more than just aluminum. When you start to go to GLARE or Al-Li and their more sophisticated derivatives, I am sure the price will tend to go astronomically high.

It goes to the lifetime cost of an airplane. If it uses cheap Al, the overall weight will be heavy, but fuel consumption is going to go up as well. In the end, CFRP might be the cheaper option after all.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 38):

Where the boundary layer is turbulent it is of little consequence if rivets protrude, in fact it may help keep a turbulent boundary layer attached. 3M actually developed a film at one stage to resemble shark skin to reproduce this effect to reduce drag on aircraft, Airbus flight tested it on a A340.

If I am not mistaken, you need to go to a micro/nano scale to get this reduced drag effect.

Quoting HB88 (Reply 45):

The real test IMO will be the production-failure-rate of the components using the barrel technique. A small flaw in any part of the barrel means either a new barrel or a time-costly fix. My gut feel says that it would not take many of these at all to negate any advantage the cylindrical mandrel system might have (if any) in production-time advantage.

Well, in the 787 update, Bair said that the actual production yield of 787's fuselage is much better than expected. This means that Boeing can achieve lower cost than anticipated, the opposite effect of what you are suggesting.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):

Well right now it is zero, but admittedly that is eight test barrels and a half-dozen or so production ones.

Actually it's not zero. They had one test barrel failed, granted it was an experimental one on a composite mandrel instead of Invar.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 56):
Actually it's not zero. They had one test barrel failed, granted it was an experimental one on a composite mandrel instead of Invar.

And I noted as such.  Wink
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:22 am

I don't think Boeing and EK are too far away from a compromise on the 748I. From my reading of the situation, Boeing thinks the 748I is US WEst Coast capable as it is, but EK's stringent guidelines disagrees with this. To me, that indicates not too much has to be done for this deal to go through.
Additionally, EK, like LH, say there is a market for both the 748I and 388 and if EK see the need to plug the gap between the 773ER and the 388, they will order the 748I. Tim Clark has mentioned this point on numerous occasions. I have EK down as very likely to order 748Is this year.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3740
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 58):
I don't think Boeing and EK are too far away from a compromise on the 748I. From my reading of the situation, Boeing thinks the 748I is US WEst Coast capable as it is, but EK's stringent guidelines disagrees with this. To me, that indicates not too much has to be done for this deal to go through.

One thing I'm unclear on and maybe someone can educate me on this point. Boeing has already sold 20 748i's to LH, so what can they change in order to satisfy EK and not jeapordize the LH sale because of them ending up building a different aircraft than what LH thought they purchased (a la the A350 situation with other airlines)
 
JAM747
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:47 am

Does anyone know if EK or any airline have considered what they will use the 'attic space' of the 747-8 for , if they were to aquire that aircraft? I strongly believe that Boeing will squeeze more range and efficency out of the 747-8 by the time it flies. l will not be surprised if there is another version of the 747-8 launched within another few years due to some more advanced materials becoming available or further tweaks to new engines giving it unbelievable range. Mark my word.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:52 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 56):
aluminum on an airplane is more than just aluminum.

A Flug Revue 8/2004 interview with Walt Gillette supports this:
The experienced designer is surprisingly sceptical about aluminum, the traditional aircraft material. “Aluminum has become a relatively expensive material, for which you have to pay 'boutique prices'. The majority of world production is destined for the consumer goods industry, for example, for drink cans or ladders. The proportion of aluminum accounted for by aerospace consumers is dwindling. If you need special alloys, then for the most part you have to finance these developments from your own pocket. That is becoming expensive. On the other hand, carbon fibre offers far more industrial applications, and this fact is exerting downward pressure on prices.” According to Gillette, Boeing would have needed eight different aluminum alloys for the 7E7, for which precise data was provided to the metal factories. Only one type met the specification.


Quoting ER757 (Reply 59):
so what can they change in order to satisfy EK and not jeapordize the LH sale because of them ending up building a different aircraft than what LH thought they purchased

If they get a more capable and efficient aircraft than they expected for the same price, they won't complain. If Boeing satisfies EK by adding to the OEW, then they will complain.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:50 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
First of all the decision depends on Airbus ability to deliver A380 without further delay. If they get all A380s they ordered plus 100 XWBs or 787s there will be no need for 748.

Uh, no. The 747-8 has no market overlap with the A380. They have over 100 seat difference in capacity. The 747-8 will be used for different routes compared to the A380. Want proof, ask LH.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
The 787-10 IS quite a bit larger than a 777-200, Zeke.

The 787-9 is slightly smaller.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
Yeah sure There you go again.

Cabin floors areas:
777-200ER: 279.0 sq meters
787-10: 291.0 sq meters

First of all, there is absolutely no way to know this, so you people are just making up numbers. Boeing has never mentioned ANY specifications for the 787-10. In fact, only a few times have they even acknowledged its possibility.

The 787-10 first of all would likely have no more seating capacity than the 777-200ER (in 2-4-2), and no more range than the 777-200ER. (the 777-200LR is too new for Boeing to kill)

Also, even if the 787-10 seats exactly the same amount of people as the 777-200ER, it will still have greater floor area. The 787 offers more sq. meters per passenger than the 777-200ER.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
"The 787 Dreamliner was launched with the promise of 20% better fuel efficiency per passenger mile. Most of the world believes the gains will come from Boeing's extensive use of composite materials for the airplane. Wrong!

In the December 6, 2004 issue of Aviation Week, p.62, Walter B. Gillette, V.P. 787 Engineering, was quoted as follows:

The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items"

Just so everyone is clear on something, these efficiency specifications were stated with a seating of 2-4-2, and not 3-3-3. If airlines do 3-3-3, the 787 would be more cost efficient.
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:51 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 61):
If they get a more capable and efficient aircraft than they expected for the same price, they won't complain. If Boeing satisfies EK by adding to the OEW, then they will complain.

 checkmark  I'm guessing that Boeing felt that going the LH way was going to get them more sales than going the EK way, and that's where we ended up.

Quoting JAM747 (Reply 60):
Does anyone know if EK or any airline have considered what they will use the 'attic space' of the 747-8 for , if they were to aquire that aircraft? I strongly believe that Boeing will squeeze more range and efficency out of the 747-8 by the time it flies. l will not be surprised if there is another version of the 747-8 launched within another few years due to some more advanced materials becoming available or further tweaks to new engines giving it unbelievable range. Mark my word.

I doubt that Boeing would invest that much into the 748i and launch another variant in a few years when Y3 would probably give them better bang for the buck. As others have discussed previously in the thread, Boeing has done a great job maximizing a rather modest investment into the 748i. I doubt that there are going to be enough sales (but you never know) to justify multiple variants (of the pax version) for the model. At some point, adding up these smallish investments would have gotten you a better clean sheet design. And with respect to EK, just like with QF and the 772LR weight saving attempts, when you have already worked hard to hone a model down, it starts becoming very expensive to get even modest gains (since you've already taken care of the "easy" things).

cheers.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:54 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 48):
Exactly where is the claim OEW savings came to only 3% from composites?

I have corrected myself in reply 35, a 2% OEW reduction would give a 3% efficiency (range) gain.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 52):
It sounds like the higher cost of CFRP will be offset by its lesser wastage, even before the reduced labor costs are factored in.

Al waste is recycled and sold off, the scrap has some value.

Since the A380 has much higher content of composites in it the the 748-i, you are basically saying the 748-i is doomed as it does hot have a high composite content, I don't agree with that, I think metallic construction can also be efficient.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 53):
As for composites being 5 - 10 times more expensive than aluminum, "Per pound", yes, composites are a lot more expensive (I don't know if they are "5 - 10 times more expensive", but they are more expensive).

Have a look at the numbers in the link in reply 16, they are not my numbers, from that link

"Then there is the issue of costs. Material costs for composites run $25 per pound...aircraft aluminum about $4 to $5 per pound. Aluminum scrap from the manufacturing process can be resold for about $ .75 per pound. Scrap from composite manufacturing if in a solid state goes to a landfill...resins and solvents are hazardous materials and disposed of accordingly."

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 53):
Whereas an aluminum component will still require considerably more work in both labor, machining, and sub-component materials to achieve the same "completeness" as a composite component.

Metallic construction these days is very robotic as well, more and more of the classic construction is looking like its using automotive techniques.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 56):
When you start to go to GLARE or Al-Li and their more sophisticated derivatives, I am sure the price will tend to go astronomically high.

The only consumer product I can put my hands on that uses this style of technology if road bikes frames, I am still seeing road bike made from Al being cheaper than carbon frames, mind you I have seen titanium frames right up there with carbon frames.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 56):
Well, in the 787 update, Bair said that the actual production yield of 787's fuselage is much better than expected. This means that Boeing can achieve lower cost than anticipated, the opposite effect of what you are suggesting.

Last time I looked Boeing does not make any such components, its all subcontracted.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 61):
A Flug Revue 8/2004 interview with Walt Gillette supports this:

Since 2004 we have seen the oil price go from around $40/barrel to over $60, the epoxy used in CFRP is oil based and is sensitive to oil price fluctuations.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 62):
Just so everyone is clear on something, these efficiency specifications were stated with a seating of 2-4-2, and not 3-3-3. If airlines do 3-3-3, the 787 would be more cost efficient.

I was just looking at trip based fuel burns, not per pax.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:07 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Have a look at the numbers in the link in reply 16, they are not my numbers, from that link

A blog with 787skeptic, in the URL is unlikely to be an unbiased source of information.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Last time I looked Boeing does not make any such components, its all subcontracted.

A difference without a distinction. If the suppliers achieve lower cost then Boeing achieves lower cost.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Since 2004 we have seen the oil price go from around $40/barrel to over $60, the epoxy used in CFRP is oil based and is sensitive to oil price fluctuations.

Everything is sensitive to oil price fluctuations.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 pm

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 65):
A difference without a distinction. If the suppliers achieve lower cost then Boeing achieves lower cost.

Not necessarilly. Could mean the suppliers make more profit, no?

cheers.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:13 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Since the A380 has much higher content of composites in it the the 748-i, you are basically saying the 748-i is doomed as it does hot have a high composite content,

I didn't say that. You're trying to put words into my mouth.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
aircraft aluminum about $4 to $5 per pound. Aluminum scrap from the manufacturing process can be resold for about $ .75 per pound.

From your own source! I guess the 747 is doomed after all!  duck 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Since 2004 we have seen the oil price go from around $40/barrel to over $60, the epoxy used in CFRP is oil based and is sensitive to oil price fluctuations.

Nevertheless, CFRP production is climbing to support many industries, and aerospace alloys are still boutique products.
 
SCAT15F
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:28 pm

Quoting ER757 (Reply 59):
One thing I'm unclear on and maybe someone can educate me on this point. Boeing has already sold 20 748i's to LH, so what can they change in order to satisfy EK and not jeapordize the LH sale because of them ending up building a different aircraft than what LH thought they purchased (a la the A350 situation with other airlines)

I would assume that LH would welcome any performance improvement to the 748i as long as it still seats 467.
 
StressGuy
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:34 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:55 pm

Here are some points that I believe should be considered in the composites vs. aluminum debate:

1. Composites have far more potential down the road the reduce airframe weights
2. Boeing is a conservative company, hence they have been conservative with the 787 structure but as they learn more and and develop more allowables the second generation of composites should be fantastic(this includes weight reductions on the 787 down the road).
3. The buy-to-fly ratio of aluminum is much higher than composites. For example aluminum parts are often "hogged" out of billets and sheets are "chem-milled" or machined. So one is taking significant amounts of aluminum and making smaller parts, whereas with composites you build up the structure. Hence composites have a better buy-to-fly ratio.
4. Although the weight advantage and the lower manufacturing costs of CRFP are significant, one of the most important aspects of composites is the great reduction in maintenance due to reduced fatigue cracking and corrosion. This is huge to the airlines.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:57 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Metallic construction these days is very robotic as well, more and more of the classic construction is looking like its using automotive techniques.

That's ignoring the fact that to construct a composite component, the manufacturing process requires just a handful of steps to get the component to 90% of its completed state. With aluminum, to get to the same percentage of a completed state, you have to go through multiple processes, be it automated or otherwise, using multiple sub-components. One other important differentiator is the fact that with aluminum, there is considerably more waste from the machining/milling process, and not just in material but in time expended. With composites, a manufacturer is able to use the exact quantities and form them into the exact shape and density required and, again, with minimal processes, sub-components (if any), and time.

How long do you think it would take to construct an equivalent barrel section for a 787 using traditional aluminum construction techniques? More importantly, how many sub-components would be involved? How many robots? How many software programs (one for each unique task)? How many diagrams (one for each component)? How many components would need to be certified? How many QC processes would have to be implemented to oversee all of the different components? How many vendors would have to be in the supply chain? How many sub-components would have to be stocked (or how far in advance would they have to be ordered within the supply chain?)?

I could go on and on, but I think I'm making the point very clear: although aluminum may be inherently less expensive than composites on a per-pound basis, the nature of aluminum construction is also inherently more time consuming than composite construction. And as the very old and true adage goes, time is money. No where is that more true than in a production environment. And in a production cycle, more time equals more hands (robotic or human) that are touching the item. Robots, just like humans, cost a lot of money. Therefore, more time ALWAYS equals more cost.

Finally, regardless of where the price of composites currently are compared to aluminum, that price is going to slowly diminish over time. Market dynamics have a funny way of doing that to things, especially as supply catches up with demand and especially as an item becomes more and more commoditized.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:02 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
The only consumer product I can put my hands on that uses this style of technology if road bikes frames, I am still seeing road bike made from Al being cheaper than carbon frames, mind you I have seen titanium frames right up there with carbon frames.

I can point out at least two flaws at this argument.

1. Those aluminum road bike does not use high priced aluminum alloys, and the construction does not need thousands of
rivets put in place by expensive labor.

2. Have you considered that maybe it is expensive because of the added value compared to aluminum? in competitive market, cost is not even considered in price determination. It's willingness to pay and willingness to sell. Example: airplane tickets. Airlines do not sell ticket at a price that offsets their costs, rather trying to cut costs to cope with the price.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 52):
Moreover, he adds, with aluminum components only 3% of the quantity of raw material used is actually utilised, whereas with CFRP it is 95%.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Al waste is recycled and sold off, the scrap has some value.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Then there is the issue of costs. Material costs for composites run $25 per pound...aircraft aluminum about $4 to $5 per pound. Aluminum scrap from the manufacturing process can be resold for about $ .75 per pound. Scrap from

yes the waste is recycled at a loss of $3.25 to $4.25 per pound. At only 3% yield compared to 95% yield, I think you can do the math. It's not even close. Add to this special alloys and Glare, I think Boeing made the right bet if they can pull this one off.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Last time I looked Boeing does not make any such components, its all subcontracted.

Well then... I guess Boeing should not care about the CFRP yield or the material costs after all? The fact is that if the yield is better than anticipated, Boeing has the opportunity to sell more, and thus increasing its profit. It has the same effects as lowering the costs anyway.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:46 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 62):
Uh, no. The 747-8 has no market overlap with the A380.

Whilst not commenting myself, there are many people on here who would strongly disagree.
The 787-10 is frequently held up as the A380's nemesis...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
I just don't buy that a contract for 43 x A380's exists just to spare Tim clark's blushes.

That's not what I wrote.

True. You wrote

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
It is very difficult for a CEO to tell a board "At the time, that decision seemed like a good idea. Now, I don't think so anymore." That's how CEOs become ex-CEOs



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
I have no idea whether or not Clark had qualms when he dumped the A340-600s. How do you know?

Fair comment. He may indeed have had qualms.
But he dumped them anyway, which sort of proves the point...........  Smile

Regards
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 62):
Uh, no. The 747-8 has no market overlap with the A380. They have over 100 seat difference in capacity. The 747-8 will be used for different routes compared to the A380. Want proof, ask LH.

Dead wrong. Just ask LH. Among other airlines, LH evaluated the 747-8 against the WhaleJet. Fact is, airlines consider (at least at the preliminary stages) all airliners with sufficient range. The 787-8 and the WhaleJet compete with each other (obviously not on a one to one basis). Dozens of airlines have done modelling to compare the cost and revenue opportunities with operating n WhaleJets vs 2n 787s.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 62):
First of all, there is absolutely no way to know this, so you people are just making up numbers. Boeing has never mentioned ANY specifications for the 787-10.

Boeing may not have mentioned any 787-10 specifications to you but Boeing have been discussing 787-10 specifications with the airlines since 2004. The cabin floor area has been well-known in the industry since 2005. Now that Boeing have released a side-shot of the 787-10, it's easy to verify by calculating from the aspect ratio.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Since the A380 has much higher content of composites in it the the 748-i, you are basically saying the 748-i is doomed as it does hot have a high composite content, I don't agree with that, I think metallic construction can also be efficient.

By that "logic" one could argue that wood and fabric airliners should still be competitive. Obviously, wood and fabric airliners are not still competitive -- and for the same reasons why aluminium airliners are not competitive with CFRP airliners. If you still have delusions that aluminium airliners can compete with CFRP airliners, talk to the A350 development team or to the Airbus sales team. No one knows more about this question than they do. And that's against one of the most inefficient CFRP airliners that will ever be built. CFRP airliners will be improving quickly.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:10 pm

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 67):
boutique products.

Oh boy, did you get that term from President Bush's recent speech?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 72):
Whilst not commenting myself, there are many people on here who would strongly disagree.
The 787-10 is frequently held up as the A380's nemesis...

What? I don't get it.


My point was the following:

The 747-8 and A380 both do fill the roll of the "VLA"
However, the 747-8 seats ~450, and the A380 seats roughly ~550. That is about a 100 seat difference. So, the 747-8 is not a direct market competitor of the A380. (you don't see people saying the 767-200ER competes with the A330-300 do you?)
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:21 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 74):
(you don't see people saying the 767-200ER competes with the A330-300 do you?)

I'll take your bait. The 767-200ER is not a particularly effective competitor to the A330-300, however, most airlines buying A330-300s evaluate both the 767-200ER and 767-300ER as possible substitutes by plugging them into their models and estimating costs and revenues. I have a friend who was a fleet planner at a major airline and his boss would have chided him if he'd written a report on the A330-300 and omitted comparative information for the 767-200ER (despite the notoriously high CASM of the latter).
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:23 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 73):
Now that Boeing have released a side-shot of the 787-10, it's easy to verify by calculating from the aspect ratio.

So you are deducing an aircraft's length based on a loosely put together diagram in one of Randy Baseler's blogs? That is faaaar from being accurate.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 73):
Dead wrong. Just ask LH. Among other airlines, LH evaluated the 747-8 against the WhaleJet. Fact is, airlines consider (at least at the preliminary stages) all airliners with sufficient range. The 787-8 and the WhaleJet compete with each other (obviously not on a one to one basis). Dozens of airlines have done modelling to compare the cost and revenue opportunities with operating n WhaleJets vs 2n 787s.

No. No one ever looks at putting 2 787s vs 1 A380. That can work logically in the mind, but not in the real world. You think it is possible to replace 3 SQ A380s on SIN-LHR by 6 SQ 787s??? That would just add to more slots being needlessly filled up, and a giant clutter of aircraft in the sky.

What if a route requires a daily capacity of around 450 seats??? A380 would be too big, 777 would be too small. 747-8 would be right size.

When the 747 first came out, it was nearly double the size of the 707, and more efficient than the 707. However, airlines did not retire the 707. They still needed an aircraft of that capacity category.



Bottom line:
If your theory worked, there would be no 747s, A380s, or even 777s. The aviation world would be filled with nothing but ultra efficient 737s and A320s.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:46 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 74):
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 67):
boutique products.

Oh boy, did you get that term from President Bush's recent speech?

 Yeah sure No, I got it from Walt Gillette, whom I quoted above:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 61):
“Aluminum has become a relatively expensive material, for which you have to pay 'boutique prices'.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:49 pm

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 77):
Yeah sure No, I got it from Walt Gillette, whom I quoted above:

I sincerely apologize then.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:51 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 76):
So you are deducing an aircraft's length based on a loosely put together diagram in one of Randy Baseler's blogs?

Verifying and deducing are not synonyms.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 76):
No one ever looks at putting 2 787s vs 1 A380. That can work logically in the mind, but not in the real world.

I don't know how fleet planning is done in real high schools, but in real airlines (other than those which are government owned or otherwise corrupt), airlines absolutely compare 2 787s vs 1 WhaleJet. If the 787-8 or 787-9 is compared to the WhaleJet, then the latter will always return lower CASM and lower RASM. Which is predicted to be more profitable depends on the route network and other factors. Real airlines don't rely on guesses; they run the numbers through their models. It's called due diligence. Every once in a while the results are surprising.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 76):
What if a route requires a daily capacity of around 450 seats???

False premise. You are treating demand as a scalar value, which it is not. Demand is a function of several values, the most salient of which is price. It is a common A.net fallacy to think of demand as a scalar value. It may contribute to more murky thinking here than any other misconception.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 76):
When the 747 first came out, it was nearly double the size of the 707, and more efficient than the 707. However, airlines did not retire the 707. They still needed an aircraft of that capacity category.

Because it's smaller, a 707 (even today) will generate greater RASM than a 747. That's true on every route for which both have sufficient range.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 76):
If your theory worked, there would be no 747s, A380s, or even 777s. The aviation world would be filled with nothing but ultra efficient 737s and A320s.

Rubbish. 747s, WhaleJets, and 777s have greater range and lower CASM than 737s and A320s. Which is more profitable depends on the route network and other factors.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:56 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 78):
I sincerely apologize then.

OK, and I will apologize for the eye roll.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:46 pm

When selecting airplanes, seat counts are not as much of a factor as you would think

Trip costs tell an airline how "small" an aircraft is. If you waved a magic wand and got a 747 with the trip cost of a 737, that plane could be used on any 737 route that has a airport that can take its physical size at both ends. Doesn't matter if 300 seats go empty, it cost the same to go from A to B. For highest accuracy you throw into the trip cost, the portion of total lifetime MX, acquisition cost, etc. So a plane that flys for 20 years before being scrapped, costs 182.5 Million, and flys 1 trip a day would have a cost per trip of 182.5/(365*1*20) or .03million a trip. Get 2 trips a day and each trip costs .015million for its "share" of the initial price. (its alot more complex with the time value of money, but we are not actually buying planes, just armchair arguing). So If your total price of plane X per trip in your usage is less than plane Z, you will ah, not care too much if plane X flys around with alot of empty seats. Rarely happens in reality, but it can. The 787 will be one to do this to ALOT of aircraft.

Revenue potential is another metric to look at. Its what is the plane capable of generating cash. This isn't a simple Seats X seat price calculation. You have demand curves, of which vary given a route, time of day, day of week, season, etc. You also have cargo concerns with its own demand curve though with less complexity. You also have interestingly enough the value of the aircraft frame itself. After all if you can make more money leasing it to Jimbob airlines than you can on your available routes, leasing it might be a better option. Ryanair also supposedly makes some cash by taking new build frames and slinging used ones to airlines that can't get a deep discount or need the frame asap.

Risk is also a factor. Operational risk largely boils down to trip cost, though dispatch rates, high insurance rates, uncertainty about lifetime performance, etc are added in for a more complete risk picture. This is one thing that even if you won every lottery on the planet that would stop you from being able to compete with Boeing or Airbus as a new plane maker. The risk of taking one of your unknown aircraft into your fleet is very high compared to the known makers. Even the Russians have an advantage as even if you as the buyer think their planes are puppy poo in airplane form, its a known risk, and can be evaluated.

Opportunity cost. The "cost" in REAL TERMS. Taking a free sample from a vendor has an opportunity cost. It costs you time/effort/whatever to get that sample of said product even if you don't pay any money for it. So when acquiring planes, you have to look at the total cost to your airline to get a certain airframe. Lets say you are WN. Buying A380 has stupid insane opportunity costs since they would have to spend not only the money on the planes, MX training, pilot training, airport improvements, etc. but they would also have to spend the time and money to figure out how to not lose their shirt operating them. Trying to find routes for A380 would cost them dear in time/resources better spend on finding new places to kick 737 flights to. So here is a clear case where even if you could make a case for WN owning A380 based on CASM, RASM, certain routes, whatever... you won't ever see it happen because it costs too damn much in opportunity costs.

So right now the A380 has a couple problems, High trip costs. Means that there is few routes that can take its "weight". the early adopters with their penalty payments and low initial cost will see a big benefit as the per-trip share of the initial price is lower. Revenue potential is also a concern. Its passenger only, with no cargo to back it up. So off seasons, market slumps, competition can all turn a cash cow into a rotting corpse in a hurry as the passenger revenue falls off a cliff and costs remain high.

The 748 has some issues too. Risk is one of them. Do you pay a fairly high price for a 748 when if you wait a year you might pick up a A380 for less per frame due to Airbus potentially having to sell frames a heavy discounts because thats what the economics on their side says is best for them. (variable cost to produce A380 decides the true minimum price)
Risk is also higher than just grabbing a few more 777 frames and seeing what the 787, A350, Y3 bring to the plate.

Opportunity costs for the 748 is mixed. Can't steal A380 some orders even with fairly dramatic price/performance/whatever benefits since the cost to switch to the 748 in opportunity costs is way too high. (aka why the 748 would have to walk on water before some airlines cancel). Also hurting is many airlines that would love a 748, also need 777 or smaller aircraft. With limited resources, the opportunity cost of the 748 may simply be too high over getting the midsized fleets sorted out on the current time/money/manpower budgets available to the airline


Now many people fall into the trap of shopping based on some artificial size constraint because its easy. Its easy to assume that the A380 has no competition because the 748 is 80 seats away in capacity, yet only sloppy CEO's would get that intellectually lazy. A bad CEO instead of a terrible one would today evaluate the 748 and the A380 at a minimum. The good ones would also look at all the mid size aircraft. The best ones look at everything including sitting on their hands and ordering nothing. For true evaluations, everything competes with everything.

(as a side note I will just assume that people will get upset that I made the statement that the A380 might have to be sold at bare minimum prices to get sales. This is in fact my belief, mostly supported by the notion that has a very self-fufilling prophecy aspect to it. That is that if Airlines refuse to buy because they assume that the deepest discounts possible are only a bit of waiting away, then in fact that is what Airbus will be forced to do on their side given no incoming orders with reasonable margins. I've seen it happen in a good many industries this way, Where the customers assume sales failure and thus cheap items to try and just put a little back in the bank, and thus... it is a sales failure because everyone was waiting to buy.)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:28 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 70):
How long do you think it would take to construct an equivalent barrel section for a 787 using traditional aluminum construction techniques? More importantly, how many sub-components would be involved? How many robots? How many software programs (one for each unique task)? How many diagrams (one for each component)? How many components would need to be certified? How many QC processes would have to be implemented to oversee all of the different components? How many vendors would have to be in the supply chain? How many sub-components would have to be stocked (or how far in advance would they have to be ordered within the supply chain?)?

The original 350 fuse from what I understand was to use similar techniques as the CFRP, 4 sections to make up the barrel, laser welded, the part count was significantly less than the 330.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 70):
Finally, regardless of where the price of composites currently are compared to aluminum, that price is going to slowly diminish over time. Market dynamics have a funny way of doing that to things, especially as supply catches up with demand and especially as an item becomes more and more commoditized.

The demand for CFRP outside aviation is also pushing prices up. BTW, I understand the reason why people in the USA cannot spell aluminium, is that it was misspelt on the original US patent application, is that you have heard ?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 73):

Boeing may not have mentioned any 787-10 specifications to you but Boeing have been discussing 787-10 specifications with the airlines since 2004. The cabin floor area has been well-known in the industry since 2005. Now that Boeing have released a side-shot of the 787-10, it's easy to verify by calculating from the aspect ratio

The 748 stretch to the 747 was discussed with airlines since the early 1970s, that did not make it past talks for decades, Boeing has also had talks with airlines about the sonic cruiser, the 787-10 has not been formally offered, it is seen by many as a marketing gimmick by many to detract from A350XWB proposals. Until its a fixed configuration, you may as well be quoting Y3 airframe numbers.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 73):
If you still have delusions that aluminium airliners can compete with CFRP airliners, talk to the A350 development team or to the Airbus sales team. No one knows more about this question than they do. And that's against one of the most inefficient CFRP airliners that will ever be built. CFRP airliners will be improving quickly.

The majority of the composites in the 787 is not in the fuselage, it is in the wing, and the process is not a one piece. The 350 has always had a large percentage of the airframe being composite, with the wings and tail being CFRP. What killed off the original A350 fuselage was not the construction method, it was the cabin width not allowing it to compete 9 across effectively.

People who think MAJOR advantages exist with a single piece barrel construction are very much misguided, it only forms a minor part of the overall structure (although a major visible part). Whilst many see it as a engineering marvel, I have been more interested in the difficult process of engineering a composite wing and wing box which Airbus has successfully done now with the A400 and A380.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 79):
Real airlines don't rely on guesses; they run the numbers through their models. It's called due diligence. Every once in a while the results are surprising.

Hence we are talking about EK ordering 748-i, not 2x787s for one 748-i. As for the A380 having a lower RASM than a 787, that is very much route dependant.

One of the main reasons the likes of EK and SQ buy large VLAs is to make their home port a hub so people stop over, it is a deliberate strategy as their economies in the future rely on the GDP input from the tourists stopping over, they do not have a large customer home base to warrant such aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:41 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
What killed off the original A350 fuselage was not the construction method, it was the cabin width not allowing it to compete 9 across effectively.

Yes, but the version of the A350 for which SQ took a LoI was killed off by the Airbus decision to use CFRP for the fuselage.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
I have been more interested in the difficult process of engineering a composite wing and wing box which Airbus has successfully done now with the A400 and A380.

Also very interesting. Also something at which Airbus and Boeing will get much better at over time. The advantage of CFRP over aluminium will continue to grow as manufacturers gain experience with the former.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
As for the A380 having a lower RASM than a 787, that is very much route dependant.

No. For any given route, a smaller airliner (given sufficient range and equivalent seats and seating density, service, schedule, etc.) always generates higher RASM than a larger airliner. For it to be otherwise would require an inversion of the demand curve. Demand inversion is rare, generally for goods rather than services, and never happens in the airline industry. Raise prices, sell more tickets? Lower prices, sell fewer tickets? No. That just doesn't happen.

[Edited 2007-04-05 10:44:58]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:06 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Revenue potential is also a concern. Its passenger only, with no cargo to back it up. So off seasons, market slumps, competition can all turn a cash cow into a rotting corpse in a hurry as the passenger revenue falls off a cliff and costs remain high

Two combi versions of the 380 were offered to the market, the C7 and C11, both had about 1000 nm less range than the 388, and MTOW of 590t.

The C7 carried 473 pax 3 class plus 37.9t of cargo (7 pallets on the main deck, 6 on the lower deck), the C11 carried 421 pax 3 class plus 51.3t of cargo (11 pallets on the main deck, 6 on the lower deck), the market was not interested, they wanted passengers and range.

Note that the pax ability of the C7 & C11 models basically are what the 748-i and 744 with the added cargo ability.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Do you pay a fairly high price for a 748 when if you wait a year you might pick up a A380 for less per frame due to Airbus potentially having to sell frames a heavy discounts because thats what the economics on their side says is best for them.

Boeing discounted the 748-i to LH as well.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 83):
No. For any given route, a smaller airliner (given sufficient range and equivalent seats and seating density, service, schedule, etc.) always generates higher RASM than a larger airliner. For it to be otherwise would require an inversion of the demand curve. Demand inversion is rare, generally for goods rather than services, and never happens in the airline industry. Raise prices, sell more tickets? Lower prices, sell fewer tickets? No. That just doesn't happen.

That is clearly incorrect, a 744 generates more RASM with a lower CASM than a 738 HKG-TPE, schedule is every 30-60 minutes, both can be equipped with 3 class service, for a 738 to compete with a 744, one must increase the seating density on the 738.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:13 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
People who think MAJOR advantages exist with a single piece barrel construction are very much misguided

bzzt... wrong... thanks for playing. pick up your home-game on your way out.


Barrel construction is a MAJOR advance. No amount of anti-boeing spin will change that. The reduction in parts content alone is worth it, much less all the other fairly obvious advantages. (hoop stress, reduced joints, reduced internal framing, etc.

Basicly to an engineer if you told them that for a given sub assembly you would reduce the parts content from a couple thousand individual items to a dozen or two... well they might not hand over their first born, but maybe the second.

Thousands of rivets more is thousands of extra chances you get to ruin parts. Thousands of details to check, verify, modify, etc. Thousands of chances for tolerance stacking to bite you in the ass.

Zeke, I think you need to take a class or two on engineering 101, and design for manufacturing. What you are claiming is in effect it would be the same if electric drill makers used 5, 6, 8, even 10 different sections for the outer case, instead of one plastic injection molded piece. Clearly since even way back in the day when they used aluminum castings for the case, one piece is better than multiple if at all possible. In the case of aircraft, the size of castings, sheets, etc all have/had practical limits. As these limits got higher, the pieces got larger. Look at Airbus UK machining wing skins out of huge blocks of aluminum. Vast amounts of time, energy and waste to do so when they could have clearly used smaller panels and retained more conventional methods.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:15 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That is clearly incorrect, a 744 generates more RASM [...] than a 738 HKG-TPE.

Evidence?
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:20 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
For those reasons I just don't buy that a contract for 43 x A380's exists just to spare Tim clark's blushes.
He had no qualms at all about dumping 12 (or 18) A340-600's............

EK had ordered the A346IGW for flights from Dubai to LA with a full load. Airbus had promised to work over the A346IGW to make the flight possible. When Airbus didn't deliver, EK dumped the order and went to Boeing. Now Boeing is trying to get another 500nm range for the 748i so that EK can fly Dubai to LA with 400 pax and 10 tons of cargo. If Boeing doesn't deliver, EK won't order the 748i. That simple.

Tim Clark asked Airbus last summer during the Farnborough Airshow in the UK to expedite the development of the A389. I don't see EK dumping any A380 orders. At the time it appeared EK was ready to order even more A380's.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:29 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
Two combi versions of the 380 were offered to the market, the C7 and C11, both had about 1000 nm less range than the 388, and MTOW of 590t.

The C7 carried 473 pax 3 class plus 37.9t of cargo (7 pallets on the main deck, 6 on the lower deck), the C11 carried 421 pax 3 class plus 51.3t of cargo (11 pallets on the main deck, 6 on the lower deck), the market was not interested, they wanted passengers and range.

Note that the pax ability of the C7 & C11 models basically are what the 748-i and 744 with the added cargo ability.

A combi A380 while a good idea on paper, as combi 747's in the past have worked well... is dumb in reality. The market has more or less run away from combi for good reasons. They no longer have to get a 747 to get the range. If you can get any number of conventional aircraft with the range, you will do so. Underfloor cargo is a secondary issue, and one that Airbus has advertised as an advantage of the A346 over the 744.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
Boeing discounted the 748-i to LH as well.

never said they didn't. 748i sales may very well not go anywhere because people are waiting for deals, but right now Boeing has the 748F to fall back on in the short/medium turn. Which is why my doubts about 748i sales are not based on people waiting for pricing, but other issues.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That is clearly incorrect, a 744 generates more RASM with a lower CASM than a 738 HKG-TPE

Configured with the same level of "product", the 738 would indeed have better RASM. Haven't seen too many 737's outfitted with the fancy "international" F products and the like. Usually end up with a "F" seat that looks like its from a WN plane, only 4 abreast instead of 6.
 
EI321
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:32 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Do you pay a fairly high price for a 748 when if you wait a year you might pick up a A380 for less per frame due to Airbus potentially having to sell frames a heavy discounts because thats what the economics on their side says is best for them.

Boeing discounted the 748-i to LH as well.

RE A380 & 747-8 discounts

There is documentation of estimated discounts available from analysts regarding A380 & 747-8 discounts. I suggest referring to these. The LH 747-8 order had quite a large launch discount as reported in a German publication at the time (this has appeared in previous threads). Estimates of A380 discounts are available also, and XT6Wagons assertion of A380 'heavy discounts' [ie. beyond the norm] is not supported by these analyst's estimations.

[Edited 2007-04-05 11:43:56]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:38 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 89):
Estimates of A380 discounts are available also, and XT6Wagons assertion of A380 'heavy discounts' [ie. beyond the norm] is not supported by these analyst's estimations.

Based on the exchange rates at the time of the orders (the dollar was worth more than the euro), the WhaleJet discounts were in the normal range. However, with the major shift in the exchange rate and the whole WhaleJet fiasco, Airbus have admitted that the sales prices on the early frames (first 80 or so?) are lower than production costs. That is well outside the range of normalcy.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:43 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
The reduction in parts content alone is worth it, much less all the other fairly obvious advantages. (hoop stress, reduced joints, reduced internal framing, etc.

Airbus had always had the same aims with the original Al-Li fuselage, it had significantly less parts than the 330 but the same cross section. The 787 still has internal hoops attached to the barrel.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Basicly to an engineer if you told them that for a given sub assembly you would reduce the parts content from a couple thousand individual items to a dozen or two... well they might not hand over their first born, but maybe the second.

Thats exactly what airbus has done with the XWB, but with less risk.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Zeke, I think you need to take a class or two on engineering 101, and design for manufacturing. What you are claiming is in effect it would be the same if electric drill makers used 5, 6, 8, even 10 different sections for the outer case, instead of one plastic injection molded piece.

Going by your profile, I am guessing I was designing semimonoque composite aerospace structures whilst you were at school, I freely admit my detail design ability is now rusty, but I think I still have grasp on the basic principles.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 86):
Evidence?

I chose that route, and aircraft types deliberately, it has been studied internally, if a smaller aircraft like a 738 could generate more revenue, we would pull out of that route an put KA onto it with the 320/321. Similarly we pulled KA off the HKG-BKK route and replaced it with the 777/747.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 87):
Tim Clark asked Airbus last summer during the Farnborough Airshow in the UK to expedite the development of the A389.

They are not the only operator to request that.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:52 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Barrel construction is a MAJOR advance. No amount of anti-boeing spin will change that. The reduction in parts content alone is worth it, much less all the other fairly obvious advantages. (hoop stress, reduced joints, reduced internal framing, etc.

The single barrel method has one consistent barrel thickness. The Airbus approach with plates allows for reduced barrel thickness where Airbus wants / can save weight.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Thousands of rivets more is thousands of extra chances you get to ruin parts. Thousands of details to check, verify, modify, etc. Thousands of chances for tolerance stacking to bite you in the ass.

As far as I know the exact assembly method used by Airbus is not public yet. How do you know it uses thousands of more rivets ?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:53 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 89):
XT6Wagons assertion of A380 'heavy discounts' [ie. beyond the norm] is not supported by these analyst's estimations.

Its well documented that at least SOME of the initial customers got aggressive pricing, which I think I've stated before is normal for launch customers. This coupled with inflation starting, and the dollar dropping has lead them to getting the A380 on the stupid cheap level if they were one of the first ones in the door. Airbus sold them at "market correct" discounts at the time, and would have likely made money without the major delays on all but the development/test frames which of course require extra money to renovate before delivery coupled which is reported to be usually discounted a bit extra. Nothing strange there. I blame the delays on why Airbus is going to have the first 80 or so over all end up being for no profit. They didn't go into the red on the initial frames due to bad sales prices, but delays coupled with a rapid change in economic climate.

So there you go, I've NEVER said that Airbus sold the A380 below market to start the program, and I won't ever.


My question is will they be "forced" to sell it just above the variable cost to move frames. I don't honestly know what will happen, but I stand by my earlier statement. Airbus might be forced to sell just above cost because airlines thinking if they wait, they will get that pricing, will force Airbus to give that pricing.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:28 pm

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 92):
The single barrel method has one consistent barrel thickness. The Airbus approach with plates allows for reduced barrel thickness where Airbus wants / can save weight.

Nope, Boeing is tailoring the thickness of the barrel to the exact location. So door frames, window "frames", and the like are far thicker. Airbus can do less tailoring since they have to reinforce all the panel edges thanks to hoops stress due to pressurization. Basicly the joints for the "4 panel" method to make the fuselage section have to be far thicker than if the fuselage section was taped out in the one piece "barrel" construction.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 92):
As far as I know the exact assembly method used by Airbus is not public yet. How do you know it uses thousands of more rivets ?

Well, its going to have what? 600+ ft more joints than the 787 thanks to the 4 joints running the lengh of the plane between the panels that don't exist on the 787. Given there is no magic wand to join them, Airbus like boeing will have to rivet the sections together

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Thats exactly what airbus has done with the XWB, but with less risk.

wrong, It might be better than the A330, but it still pales in comparison to the 787 in parts reduction. The insanity of the panel method + conventional aluminum inner framing is hardly less risk. Would you say its less risk to not do the A350 at all and just let the A330 roll on till 2020 when Airbus can get all the data they want on why the 787 either changed the industry or failed?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Going by your profile, I am guessing I was designing semimonoque composite aerospace structures whilst you were at school, I freely admit my detail design ability is now rusty, but I think I still have grasp on the basic principles.



So... you claim to have experience with composites, yet you ignore the reality of the industry for what decade or more? All the performance critical applications with budgets to push the bounds of the technology that I know of have all embraced the concept of trying to make the desired part in one piece, if at all possible. Heck Its fairly easy to point out the fallacy of your concept with the fairly pedestrian water tank as used to store water for everything from livestock to whole cities. The metal ones use your "panel" construction, and are a whole lot touchy about having solid joins at the seams between panels or the whole thing goes. Then comes along cheap one piece fiberglass water tanks if you don't need one all that big. Mmmm, cheap, light, drop it on the pad and its ready to go no assembly. They even don't collapse/"blow up", even the old ones with severe UV damage. Clearly if they wanted to they could have made it from 4 panels and joined them up... er... hahahaha yah. Far from perfect those old fiberglass ones, but lets face it 70's fiberglass technology was pathetic compared to today. Heck 1999's composite technology is getting to be fairly pathetic compared to today.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
I chose that route, and aircraft types deliberately, it has been studied internally, if a smaller aircraft like a 738 could generate more revenue, we would pull out of that route an put KA onto it with the 320/321. Similarly we pulled KA off the HKG-BKK route and replaced it with the 777/747.

Oh so now its not RASM, but revenue. Er... ah... "duh" comes to mind that you can generate more revenue putting a larger aircraft on a route, if that route can support it. RASM is PER SEAT, and lets face it if you have a 744 load of people wanting to go from A to B, and you put a 738 on the route, you can be sure that more than a couple of them will pay far more for the ability to be in the select group that does get to go.

[Edited 2007-04-05 12:30:42]
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4481
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
The 787-10 IS quite a bit larger than a 777-200, Zeke.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
If or when its launched we will cross that bridge with some actual numbers, I can assure you that in industry the 787 is seen as a 757/767/A300/A310/A330 replacement, not big enough to replace a 777 unless you want to cramp up passengers. From what I have seen it does not have the capacity of a 777 when the same comfort levels are applied, if your going to look at 9 abreast in a 787, look at 10 abreast in a 777, 8 abreast in a 787, 9 abreast in a 777.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 29):
The 787-10 will be physically much larger, so even 8 abreast in a 787 will be fine to match the size of a 777-200ER.

If (more likely When) the 787-10 gets launched, it will most likely have an increase in seating capacity similar in size to the increase the 789 has over the 788. In practical terms with 2-4-2 seating config it is likely that it will hold approx 290-300 pax... this is slightly less than the 772 in a 3-3-3 config. If the 787-10 is configured 3-3-3 (narrower seats no thanks), it will likely hold 315-330 pax (which is more than the 772). The 787-10 will likely be a longer aircraft than the 772 but shorter than the 773... The big IF is whether or not there will be a 787-11... this aircraft would be the longest aircraft around... longer than A340 and 773. It would require significant strengthening and an extra bogey of undercarriage (although it would be likely the 787-10 would also get another bogey). Its just not very feasible to have such a long aircraft with only the pair of undercarriage (the 773ER is pushing it but does have triple pairs of wheels on each leg).

So the 787-10 is effectively the 772 replacement. The 773ER does not need to be replaced anytime soon, so in about a decade or so when it does get tired, Boeing will be ready with Y3 to replace it and the 748I. Y3 would likely be 2 or 3 variants of an aircraft type holding between 340-500 pax.
64 types. 45 countries. 24 airlines.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
The demand for CFRP outside aviation is also pushing prices up.

You're absolutely correct. Eventually, however, supply will catch up with the demand. And not necessarily worldwide. A cottage industry of suppliers may spring up around the aviation industry that caters just to the aviation industry. In that case you will see a price stabilization for composites.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
BTW, I understand the reason why people in the USA cannot spell aluminium, is that it was misspelt on the original US patent application, is that you have heard ?

No, I just heard that people outside of the U.S. either don't know how to spell or pronounce a-l-u-m-i-n-u-m.  Wink
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
EI321
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:52 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 95):
The big IF is whether or not there will be a 787-11... this aircraft would be the longest aircraft around... longer than A340 and 773. It would require significant strengthening and an extra bogey of undercarriage (although it would be likely the 787-10 would also get another bogey). Its just not very feasible to have such a long aircraft with only the pair of undercarriage (the 773ER is pushing it but does have triple pairs of wheels on each leg).

It would definitly need bigger wings.
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 95):
If (more likely When) the 787-10 gets launched, it will most likely have an increase in seating capacity similar in size to the increase the 789 has over the 788. In practical terms with 2-4-2 seating config it is likely that it will hold approx 290-300 pax... this is slightly less than the 772 in a 3-3-3 config. If the 787-10 is configured 3-3-3 (narrower seats no thanks),

While I agree that a 787-10 is effectively a 772ER replacement (I would say that a 787-10 is to a 772, what a 739 is to a 752; can do most of the same missions, but not quite all), shouldn't you compare a 3-3-3 787-10 to a 3-4-3 772? and i agree, hate narrower seats (one reason i hate flying 747s long haul.

cheers.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
Airbus can do less tailoring since they have to reinforce all the panel edges thanks to hoops stress due to pressurization. Basicly the joints for the "4 panel" method to make the fuselage section have to be far thicker than if the fuselage section was taped out in the one piece "barrel" construction.

What do you call "far thicker" ... 4 plies on the edge ?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
It might be better than the A330, but it still pales in comparison to the 787 in parts reduction.

The 787 barrel still needs a lot of internal fitting once out of the mandrel, and cutouts made, it is not complete part when removed. The barrel reduces the part count when delivered at Boeing, but I yet to see anything to see that the overall part count is less in Japan, Italy etc....

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
he insanity of the panel method + conventional aluminum inner framing is hardly less risk.

It requires less investment in equipment, it uses existing tape laying machines they already have, it uses existing autoclaves, it uses standard forms of transport, they are easier to transport, smaller parts are easier to make in parallel, work packages can be distributed over more manufacturing centres etc etc.

BTW the reason for the Al inner frame was for crash worthiness considerations.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
So... you claim to have experience with composites, yet you ignore the reality of the industry for what decade or more?

No I am not ignoring it at all, just know in reality that gains can be made elsewhere using that approach, which you are ignoring.

And for you water tank example, what are easier to manufacture, transport, and install, the large round ones, or the flat bladders ?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
RASM is PER SEAT, and lets face it if you have a 744 load of people wanting to go from A to B, and you put a 738 on the route, you can be sure that more than a couple of them will pay far more for the ability to be in the select group that does get to go.

No I mean RASM, and with a number of operators on the route, putting a smaller capacity aircraft on the route just means your customers go elsewhere, unlike US based airlines, we have been making healthy profits for some time. I trust their modelling over anything on a.net, they have 4 billion dollars in profit last year to back them up.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
Heck 1999's composite technology is getting to be fairly pathetic compared to today.

Please enlighten us all, what has changed that much ? From my contacts many of the same processes are still in use...new matrices..some more fancy weaves, but from what I see, CFRP tape has not changed that much at all (the robotics is better). The design and analysis is still being done with CATIA, patran, DYNA, ansys, abaquas, nastran etc.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 95):
In practical terms with 2-4-2 seating config it is likely that it will hold approx 290-300 pax... this is slightly less than the 772 in a 3-3-3 config.

Correct, put real first and business configurations into the equation, the difference is lager using the standard Boeing 3 class (3-4-3 for the 772), its about 30 seats differance.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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