Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27161
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting Morvious (Reply 49):
Why can't EK just buy planes that are availible or will be in a few years time. They always want something different.

 confused 

They're taking a good chunk of 773ERs and A388s...
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 40):
This is where protracted negotations can backfire. Clark could have had all the 787's he needed years earlier than he will get what he wants, but he wanted to keep playing off A vs. B endlessly and to the last moment.

I don't think that this is the case. I am just as convinced now that EK isn't impressed with the original Boeing specs for the 787-10 and Boeing hasn't been willing to pushthe specs up to the point where EK wants them (but if the deal was good enough). The 787-9 sounds like a bargaining tactic more than eanything else. It seems like Airbus doesn't have the products at the right time and Boeing doesn't have the right products (for EK).

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 29):
I imagine the 787-10 is as close to reality(or more likely closer) than any A350 derivative.

The question is whether a -10 with the specs that EK wants is closer to reality. And that I'm not convinced of. The feeling I get is that Boeing thinks that other than EK the market is for less of a performer (emphasizing the capacity increase over the -9). The fact that nobody has signed on to it, though...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
However, since EK prefers higher seating densities, I imagine that Clark probably prefers the current 747-8I's length, he just wants to be able to get 8300+nm out of her when actually carrying closer to 467 passengers then 400.

I agree with the fact that the range is the issue. It would be the only thing that could justify adding a fleet type of that size. I don't know, though, whether Boeing feels that the addiitional market justifies the additional expenses.


On the lightening the 773ER front. It seems that Boeing tried to tweak the 772LR for QF without much success (and one would assume that anything you could do to the 772LR you could do to the 773ER). Sure Boeing had good success so far, but the tweaks become more and more expensive and less and less effective as you continue on (and the margins would probably get tighter on the sale to EK)... Don't know how easy this one is going to be.

cheers.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 43):
I see a huge possibility for the 748i in EK's fleet. After all they have purchased the freighter. Also, Boeing has kept the proposed specs of the proposed 787-10X variant close to its chest. Who knows what they will come up with- perhaps EK will go Boeing on this one. I reckon Boeing will announce the -10X at Paris this year- with one BIG order.

I personally thought the 4 additional A380s outlined their intentions here. Though like you say the as they already have the frieghter in the fleet a few -800Is may be justifiable.

You can't really take a lot out of this article other than EK want planes, they're just stirring the pot.
 
EI321
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 52):
You can't really take a lot out of this article other than EK want planes, they're just stirring the pot.

Its impossible to draw anything from it I guess.
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 23):
Translation: 747-8I can't do DXB-LAX and 787-10 doesn't exist. Without a 787-10 we can't get as good a deal on A350-1000



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 23):
Translation: We want a better deal from Airbus



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 23):
Translation: We need Boeing to do something so we can get a better deal from Airbus.

I tend to think along the same lines. Also, I really don't see EK ordering the 787-9 if they also order the A350, as the 787-9 is closer to the size of the A350-800. And since the indications are that they will go for the larger versions of whichever airplane they pick, the A350-900 and -1000 seems like a better fit for them.

Another potential obstacle for the 787-10 is the fact that, even if Boeing can roll it out faster than the A350-900, at the moment it's still an imaginary airplane. There have been hints that it's on the works but nothing official. On the other hand, Airbus has committed to and given timelines for the A350-900, -1000 and -900R.

But in the end I can't speculate, for me the A350 seems like a better choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 787-10 got a nice launch order from EK in Paris.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
albird87
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:15 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 33):
Have I been sleeping, but what is a 777-400ER?

I beleive that the 777-400ER is one of these mysterious myth creatures that you hear about!! lol

Boeing wont make a 777-400ER as the 773 is already close to the max weight test for the wing of the 777.
A 774 would only be used in a way for high density domestic flights as i doubt its range would be anything good.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15775
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:31 am

Seems that EK is not interested in markets smaller than the 332.

Surely, a fleet of 321/738 could be used to the (many?) smaller markets from DXB not currently requiring the 332?
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 40):
The most stunning part of the article is that he is unconvinced that the A350 will be a composite panel aircraft. He said there are many at Airbus that want and "all composite aircraft" which I take to mean barrels. I think the die is now cast and the A350 will be a composite barrel design

There are a number of people on here, me included, who suspect that Clark's view may well be borne out......

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
I imagine trying new lighter internal structures and fittings, but they're going to be limited in what they can easily and quickly do.

IMO they will discover an alarming large diminishing rate of return in terms of lightness achieved versus cost.
In all honesty, just as the A330 has now, the 777 has a good future ahead of it yet, and it may well be as economical for Boeing just to extend the discounts rather than spend lots of development money, as the way to maintain its competitiveness.

Regards
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:41 am

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 44):

Sure...you might want different options available, but I don't ask Toyota to go back and redesign the car because I want it to be 1 mi/gal more efficient.

you are comparing apples to oranges......the vehicle market is much different than the aviation market...where routes, destinations, locations, etc. basically overlap (in the aviation market)...that's why one sees only 1/50 of the amount of commercial jet planes in the market than one sees in planes....

also, though car makers do "market studies" and "focus groups", plane makers work very closely with the various carriers to get the specifics down....one doesn't see "focus groups" or "3rd people parties" at a Toyota assembly plant, yet we did know that both SQ and EK had their representatives over at TLS making sure things were going smoothly (I'm not saying that they were sitting near the assembly line, but they were still basically at or near the assembly plants)

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 44):
My point isn't that EK shouldn't ask for what works best for them.

...why not? it would be foolhardy for them if they didn't......

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 44):
However, they have been asking, and Airbus practically redesigned the A350 to meet much of EK's needs (granted, it was not just EK who prompted them to do that),

...if the A350 better suits EK than the B787 then EK would be smart to go with it....

Quoting EI321 (Reply 46):
Airbus proposed the A330lite (inc all new engines) but airlines still favoured the 787.

...sure, but the A330lite (which was basically the A350MK-I) did sell in decent amount of units...

Quoting EI321 (Reply 46):
In my opinion they would be better off doing larger & better versions of the 787 asap.

....I'm sure Boeing has a thing or two in the works... Wink

....a lot depends on GE's engine technology and their commitment to the A350 which will be limited to the A358/A359 IMHO....
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27161
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:49 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 51):
I am just as convinced now that EK isn't impressed with the original Boeing specs for the 787-10 and Boeing hasn't been willing to pushthe specs up to the point where EK wants them (but if the deal was good enough). The 787-9 sounds like a bargaining tactic more than eanything else. It seems like Airbus doesn't have the products at the right time and Boeing doesn't have the right products (for EK).



I don't think the cost is the major hold-up on the 787-10, but the time-frame. Boeing is limited in how far they can push the 787-10 MTOW without upgrading the undercarriage, powerplants, and wing. Right now, the 787-10 at 540-560,000lb MTOW gives you everything you wanted in a 777-200ER with better efficiency and payload over range. It also marginalizes the 777-200LR to the ULR market or the 10-abreast Economy market, but I don't believe that is really holding Boeing back since the 772LR isn't exactly setting the world on fire in terms of sales, even with some very deep discounts.

As such, I think what is really keeping Boeing from offering a 787-10 that can go head-to-head with the A350XWB-900 in range - and therefore satisfy EK - is that Boeing couldn't get it into service much before the A350XWB-900. The latest comments from Boeing principals is they intend to keep MTOW at or around 540,00lbs MTOW and a ~7500nm range with a 2011-2012 EIS.

If they did so, then around 2014-2015 they increase the MTOW past 560,000lbs and offer a 787-10ER that will serve as both a 772LR replacement and take the fight to the A350XWB-900 and A350XWB-1000. A 787-11 might come out of this program, as well, or a 787-10ER and 787-9LR might be enough to hold the fort until Y3 in the early 2020's, as I don't see the need for Y3 before then.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 57):
In all honesty, just as the A330 has now, the 777 has a good future ahead of it yet, and it may well be as economical for Boeing just to extend the discounts rather than spend lots of development money, as the way to maintain its competitiveness.



[Edited 2007-05-10 18:57:48]
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 34):
What Mr. Clark basically said in the interview is that Airbus seems to be offering him more suitable planes all accros the spectrum and he'd like Boeing to offer more suitable planes

He seems to be saying the A350XWB, as currently proposed, is unsuitable.

Quote:
He added that he is unconvinced about Airbus's intention to stick with composite panels on an aluminum frame for the A350. There are many at the manufacturer who want to go the all-composite route, which he believes is the future.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
socaljoeyb
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 2:29 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 35):
Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
► Operation of Jebel Ali Airport could impact order. All 6 runway to be operational by 2014, but any delay will force the airline goes bigger aircraft

WHAT??? They are actually building that? That is nothing but crazy.

Will the current Dubai airport be closed when this new airport opens?
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 60):
He seems to be saying the A350XWB, as currently proposed, is unsuitable.

I don't read it that way. I read it as he doesn't believe that it will end up with composite panels. That doesn't mean that either way the plane is unsuitable. I think it is the time of delivery that will be the sticking point (but I'm not sure that Boeing can do better sooner, so...).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
I don't think the cost is the major hold-up on the 787-10, but the time-frame. Boeing is limited in how far they can push the 787-10 MTOW without upgrading the undercarriage, powerplants, and wing. Right now, the 787-10 at 540-560,000lb MTOW gives you everything you wanted in a 777-200ER with better efficiency and payload over range. It also marginalizes the 777-200LR to the ULR market or the 10-abreast Economy market, but I don't believe that is really holding Boeing back since the 772LR isn't exactly setting the world on fire in terms of sales, even with some very deep discounts.

 checkmark  I would say cost, though, in terms of time, etc. I think the naive view by some on the site is that the design of the 787 means that Boeing can simply magically make every version of the 787 at whim. The extended range of the 787-10 (and a hypothetical -11) means that all sorts of systems need to be ugraded. Boeing went the "easy" route originally by essentially doing a 773ER or 346 on the 789 by playing capacity over range. But that didn't catch on with carriers. A little depends on how Boeing wants to deal with Y3 (i.e. do the improvements needed for an extended range -10 translate to a -11 where the costs can be leveraged over both frames, or would it be limited to the -10, etc.) and when. For the engines, as you've stated, part of it depends on how GE handles the bigger 350s (do they go after it) or do they see it more lucrative to spend effort on the narrowbody powerplants in the short term? You raise an interesting point with the last comment there. As great a plane as the 772LR is (and as much better than the 345 it is), it still hasn't sold a ton more than the competition. I think that it will sell more, but it came just a tad late (or a tad too close to the 787; but with the downturn in the economy maybe it wouldn't have done that much better).




Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
As such, I think what is really keeping Boeing from offering a 787-10 that can go head-to-head with the A350XWB-900 in range - and therefore satisfy EK - is that Boeing couldn't get it into service much before the A350XWB-900

 checkmark  Timing is a big issue. I think Boeing has a couple of issues at hand (and they are able to be more patient given Airbus' woes). They probably want to shake out the kinks with the 788s, etc. before expanding the program too much (that doesn't mean that they aren't studying variations of the 787-10, but holding off on detailed work on the extended range modifications). They have to decide how much of their resources should be spent on more variations on the 787 vs. a 737 replacement vs. improvements on the 777 vs. Y3. Part of this is where is the return greatest (i.e. they can do each of these things, but at what point are you wasting money improving the 777 vs. starting a new model, etc.).

cheers.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 62):
I don't read it that way. I read it as he doesn't believe that it will end up with composite panels. That doesn't mean that either way the plane is unsuitable. I think it is the time of delivery that will be the sticking point (but I'm not sure that Boeing can do better sooner, so...).

Since Boeing is going the all-composite route, they're already doing better, sooner.

If Airbus does decide to go the all-composite route, the way Mr Clark believes is the future, we will be seeing something later, much later.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 57):
In all honesty, just as the A330 has now, the 777 has a good future ahead of it yet, and it may well be as economical for Boeing just to extend the discounts rather than spend lots of development money, as the way to maintain its competitiveness.

Astuteman:

An excellent observation. As much as the various cheerleaders do not want to read such things, they can't or won't
recognize the fact that the renaissance being experienced by some of their favorite frames has as much to do with the availability of a competitor as it does the willingness of the framemaker to cut the price.

regards,

F4N
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 63):
Since Boeing is going the all-composite route, they're already doing better, sooner.

Nope, they're not. If they were, EK would have jumped on the -10. WIth a composite panel fueslage the 350 can do better than the 787-10 that Boeing has proposed (both in the original guise and in the latest itterations).

cheers.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 65):
WIth a composite panel fueslage the 350 can do better than the 787-10 that Boeing has proposed (both in the original guise and in the latest itterations).

And which model are we talking of here ? Are you talking of the A350-900 doing better then the 787-10 or the A350-1000 doing better ? The -10 will probably be more competitive against the 350-900 then with the -1000 as the 1000 would be larger . Also do provide Comparison data on performance stating that the 787-10 that boeing is currently floating around is inferior (or superior) to the -900 or 1000 etc etc
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 66):
And which model are we talking of here ? Are you talking of the A350-900 doing better then the 787-10 or the A350-1000 doing better ? The -10 will probably be more competitive against the 350-900 then with the -1000 as the 1000 would be larger . Also do provide Comparison data on performance stating that the 787-10 that boeing is currently floating around is inferior (or superior) to the -900 or 1000 etc etc

It doesn't matter which version of the 350 you want to compare it to. The 787-10 in either form that Boeing has proposed, does not have the range that the 350 does, and that EK wants. Until Boeing is willing to commit to reinforced structures, etc., it won't be able to match the range. It's kind of like comparing a 333 to a 343. You can't buy a 333 to fly the distances that a 343 can. This isn't a matter of just seat mile economics, etc. If the plane doesn't do what you want (or need) it to do, what difference does it make if it is cheap to operate?

cheers.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 65):
WIth a composite panel fueslage the 350 can do better than the 787-10 that Boeing has proposed (both in the original guise and in the latest itterations).

If true, then why is the 787 still on the shopping list?

Quote:
He expressed enthusiasm for the 787's composite barrel and low maintenance overhead and said he is keen to see if Boeing has made progress on the 787-10X's performance. He did not rule out a buy of the smaller 787-9

The fact is that neither the 787-10 or the A350 is defined at this time.

Quote:
Since presenting an overview of the jetliner in July, Airbus has shown customers a variety of plans, but it has yet to commit to a firm configuration, customers say.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1178...20100095343.html?mod=moj_companies
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 62):
I don't read it that way. I read it as he doesn't believe that it will end up with composite panels. That doesn't mean that either way the plane is unsuitable.

 checkmark 

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 63):
Since Boeing is going the all-composite route, they're already doing better, sooner.

To me, a composite fuselage made from "shells" is as near as dammit as "all-composite" as a composite fuselage made from "barrels". The composite content of each aircraft is near-identical. The biggest difference is in the number of fasteners.

TC will judge each aircraft's "suitability" on its specification, economics and availability, irrespective of whether it's "virtually all all-composite", or "really all all composite".......  Smile

Regards
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69):
To me, a composite fuselage made from "shells" is as near as dammit as "all-composite" as a composite fuselage made from "barrels". The composite content of each aircraft is near-identical. The biggest difference is in the number of fasteners.

So why do you feel that

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 57):
There are a number of people on here, me included, who suspect that Clark's view may well be borne out......

Why would Airbus ever incur the additional time and expense of going with barrels if it gets them very little gain?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:27 am

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 44):
but I don't ask Toyota to go back and redesign the car because I want it to be 1 mi/gal more efficient

Too bad, cause us Tahoe drivers did just that and we got FIVE more miles to the gallon out of them with the new model!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69):
The biggest difference is in the number of fasteners.

I cant agree, the composite barrel design has many advantages, including less corrosion, better structural integrity, and if the asking price says anything, better manufacturing costs.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 68):
If true, then why is the 787 still on the shopping list?

Because they want planes sooner. Reading the comments from above. They would be interested in a -10, only if Boeing can give them better range. My guess vis a vis the 789 is simply because they could get frames earlier (and they would make do with smaller capacity to get planes earlier). THe 789 would be like the 330s from Airbus, not the best plane that they could get for their needs, but one they could get sooner. If the -10 was all that and a bag of chips, EK would have signed on long ago.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 68):
The fact is that neither the 787-10 or the A350 is defined at this time.

There is a rather large gap of what "defined" might mean. And, yes, neither one has a firm configuration. But it is clear that all of Boeing's hypothesized configurations for the -10 are not what EK wants, whereas the 350 does seem to meet those requirements (other than the date of delivery). Comments around here remind me of this bizzarre tendency in these parts to believe that one manufacturer's plane is inherently better for every airline. What's good for EK isn't necesarilly good for LH, etc.

cheers.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:39 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 70):
So why do you feel that

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 57):
There are a number of people on here, me included, who suspect that Clark's view may well be borne out......

Personally, because........

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 71):
the composite barrel design has many advantages, including less corrosion, better structural integrity, and if the asking price says anything, better manufacturing costs.

 checkmark 
And its my preferred solution.
Although I suspect the advantages (over all-composite shells) are in most cases of an incremental nature, and other factors could still quite easily sway the decisions.

Regards
 
AVinutso
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:34 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 5:18 am

Are we all tired of Mr. Clark and his statements? Yes, I believe so. On the other hand, this point in history has to be one of the most difficult times ever to purchase aircraft.

A380, 748i, 787x, A350. None of these birds are actually flying in regular service. The A380 is flying, but are the production problems really worked out? How will it actually perform in service? Will the 787x live up to expectations? 748i is not flying. A350 is a long way off.

All the simulated and calculated data in the world is not as good as hard data. Currently, all of these aircraft represent a substantial risk for any customer. IMHO, customers have every right to make demands on vendors when the stakes are this high. We just get tired of hearing it.

Boeing has great timing, but aircraft size may or may not be correct (especially for EK). Airbus may have the correct sizes of aircraft, but the timing is totally wrong (especially for EK).
Maybe we shoulda thought of that FIRST
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 72):
But it is clear that all of Boeing's hypothesized configurations for the -10 are not what EK wants,

It not clear at all:

Quote:
Clark will be working with Boeing to define where the 787-10X and 747-8I sit on range/payload.

He expressed enthusiasm for the 787's composite barrel and low maintenance overhead and said he is keen to see if Boeing has made progress on the 787-10X's performance.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2212
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 7:47 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 62):


Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
As such, I think what is really keeping Boeing from offering a 787-10 that can go head-to-head with the A350XWB-900 in range - and therefore satisfy EK - is that Boeing couldn't get it into service much before the A350XWB-900

checkmark Timing is a big issue. I think Boeing has a couple of issues at hand (and they are able to be more patient given Airbus' woes). They probably want to shake out the kinks with the 788s, etc. before expanding the program too much (that doesn't mean that they aren't studying variations of the 787-10, but holding off on detailed work on the extended range modifications). They have to decide how much of their resources should be spent on more variations on the 787 vs. a 737 replacement vs. improvements on the 777 vs. Y3. Part of this is where is the return greatest (i.e. they can do each of these things, but at what point are you wasting money improving the 777 vs. starting a new model, etc.).

I would think that Boeing is trying to keep the eye on the ball and have an on-time successful launch of the 788. If engineers are becoming available, the 789 and 783 probably need work done still. In 6 months there will be an awful lot of real data, information and lessons learned. The 788 has more new technology than a typical new product, let the dust settle a bit. Parts of the 788 may have very conservative safety factors that are waiting for actual testing to see. Things like barrel tolerances and how they fit up need to be learned. I would let the 787-10 simmer for a while to be able to fully gain all of this information.

Another consideration, if Boeing has a good feel for how many proposals will be accepted for the 788 and 789 is why announce a new model when you can't produce enough of your current offerings. It would be better to concentrate on how to produce more of the current models. Once Airbus has defined the 350XWB and locked the design, Boeing will also have a lot of information on the 788 performance, and the engines sufficient for a more capable 7810 may be present. That would allow for Boeing to respond to a known competator.
 
2wingtips
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 9:26 am

I've been an advocate of EK splitting their 787/350 requirement for a while now, despite EK denying this as a possibility.

I think EK is acutely aware of maintaining a balance of supply from both OEMs and will be loath to head too far in one direction.

I think the surprise packet here is the 789. I always thought they may split b/w 787-10 and 350-1000.
Now, I'm beginning to think this could well be 789/350-1000 as well as both VLAs. They have repeatedly said they want a 400 seater and the 748I is the only real option. The 350-1000 is the 773ER replacement and EK can afford to wait until 2015+ for this as their 773ERs are new and still being delivered. The 350-1000 purchase could be accompanied by interim A333s for interim capacity. The only thing lacking is a new true ULH type. No doubt the 772LRs will eventually replace the 345s, but they may need another ULH type eventually(359R?).
789 baseline 250+ seater
350-1000 320+ seater
748I 400+ seater
A388 500+ seater

Obviously, GEnx would power the 748I and likely the 789. GE appear unlikely to come up with an engine for the 350-1000, so that would appear to be a RR win. I wonder how long it will be before EK is calling for a more advanced engine on the A380?
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 9:29 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 45):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 42):
The 787 isn't exactly begging for orders at this point. It is not inconceivable that Clark may be presented with a very gentle ultimatum that he may want to order the 787 now, or see the slots go away. Boeing would love to have EK's order for sure, but I'm not sure there's an infinite amount of such "love".

This is a more direct expression of my previous point. Mr. Clark can expect very little help from Boeing in driving down A's price. They can sell everything they can build, so what's the point in giving EK anything other than a normal (still accounting for the large volume) discount? EK is burning time playing A vs. B. They should just order the plane they really want, and if it's a 787, they need to get on with it, each week could mean another multimonth delay the way these things are going out the door.

Have somebody thought that Mr. Clark (or possibly some of Emirates owners) is beginning to see
that his pharaonic expansion plans are conflicting with the reality and therefore is burning time
intentionally until he can reach a better assessment of the situation ?? If so, obviously it would be painful
for a personality like his to admit this, aside that he immediately will lose traction both with AB and B if they
realize that no monster orders will forthcome !!
(It is interesting to compare the personality of TIM with the one of his counterpart JOHN LEAHY,
a friend of mine thinks they are the same on opposite extremes of a pipeline !! The positive side i
s that both a brilliant..!)

He has already said that the 100 A350 are on the backburner, and I am curious if an effectve firm order
confirmation for the 43 4 A380 will happen short term. And what he is thinking to do with BOEING
is anybody guess. I am certainly not sure that BOEING wishes to accept a monster order from
Emirates, which would saturate their capacit, because any savy marketing guy will understand that
if the pax flow imagined by EK is not reached by any reason, the order will never be completed
(see between other the frozen order by US companies after 9/11). The same would be valid for Airbus,
but at the present moment they are not able to renounce such orders,!!

Not a easy situation for friend TIM, which he seems to mask behind the verborrea remarked by colleages !!

aminobwana
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27161
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 9:36 am

If Clark truly values range above all else, then the 787-9 might be just what the doctor ordered. If he uses the 773ER seats he can maximize the seating density in each cabin and range wouldn't be a problem. He can then wait for the 787-10ER and the A350XWB-900 to become available mid-decade.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
If Clark truly values range above all else, then the 787-9 might be just what the doctor ordered. If he uses the 773ER seats he can maximize the seating density in each cabin and range wouldn't be a problem. He can then wait for the 787-10ER and the A350XWB-900 to become available mid-decade

What I seem to be missing is why people are discounting the 787-9, yet EK operates planes very much the same size as it currently.

Certainly seems to me to be a perfect plane to kick the A345 to the curb, along with replacing the A330 down the road. For the routes the A345 can do but the 787-9 can't... well they still have 772LR right?

Certainly DOESN'T lock EK into the 787 for other versions, and they can evaluate the A350/777NG/Y3 or whatever in a couple of years since the current 777 fleet isn't needing to be replaced right now. Certainly a solid 787-9 order now is extra flexibility later since they can park older planes or not depending on growth needs

Its funny but I'd say that the 787-8 and 787-9 are planes that if you missed ordering them, you will regret it. The 787-10, A350, 777NG, etc class... well I think you have a couple years before you might really want to get slots. 748/A380? meh, While both are sold out a while, I don't think most airlines would miss them unless like SQ and EK they already planned thier growth plan around them... some 4 years ago or whatever.

Next must have plane? 737RS. Thousands and thousands of obsolete and worn out aircraft waiting for the next major leap forward in construction.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27161
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 80):
What I seem to be missing is why people are discounting the 787-9, yet EK operates planes very much the same size as it currently.

Mainly because Clark is. He seems to prefer not to have something as "small" as the A332 and A343 in his fleet going forward. I get the impression he wants 300 seats as the minimum, which puts him in 787-10 and A350XWB-900 territory.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:04 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):
Mainly because Clark is. He seems to prefer not to have something as "small" as the A332 and A343 in his fleet going forward. I get the impression he wants 300 seats as the minimum, which puts him in 787-10 and A350XWB-900 territory.

If one assumes that he truly DOESN'T want something smaller than a 787-10/A350-9, then I guess the question is, why are people bitching about him not ordering yet. Its a damn stupid time to order either, with the 787-10 still in "studies" and the A359 still in airbus's "we don't really know WTF we are making yet, despite trying to sell it to you" world. More 777 orders is a questionable decision right now.

So they expect him to sign very shortly for SIXTY A330? EL OH EL.
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):
Mainly because Clark is. He seems to prefer not to have something as "small" as the A332 and A343 in his fleet going forward. I get the impression he wants 300 seats as the minimum, which puts him in 787-10 and A350XWB-900 territory.

 checkmark  I see the 789 as serving a similar role as the potential 330 order, they can get some extra capacity much sooner that way. The clincher for them would be that if they don't have the ability to go with more flights (if the new airport isn't open to enough capacity), they can't afford to fly smaller planes in there.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 76):
I would think that Boeing is trying to keep the eye on the ball and have an on-time successful launch of the 788. If engineers are becoming available, the 789 and 783 probably need work done still.

 checkmark  Part of what I was getting at. They don't want to spread themselves too thin to have too many projects going and then have it bite them.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 76):
Another consideration, if Boeing has a good feel for how many proposals will be accepted for the 788 and 789 is why announce a new model when you can't produce enough of your current offerings.

Because, not having a -10 offering could hurt them with sales... Say, you're an Airline like EK who wants planes no smaller than the -9 and don't want to split the order (a better example would be a smaller airline where commonality would be a benefit), you currently have two choices. Order -9s and hope that the -10 turns into the plane you need and you can convert some of your slots to them or buy some 350s that have the specifications you want already... For airlines like LH, BA, etc. the demand is greater for planes in these size ranges than for the low end. Now you can say, there's no rush to order now because they won't be available soon. But say EK decides to wait two years and the backlog puts them out even further. what are they going to do?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
If Clark truly values range above all else, then the 787-9 might be just what the doctor ordered.



I don't think that it is range above all. It is capacity plus range (why the 773ER fits in so well in their fleet).

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 75):
It not clear at all:

And what performance metric do you think he's looking at for the -10? If there has been one complaint that he has had constantly about the -10, it is that it doesn't have the range he wants. He has praised the 787 consistently otherwise.

The issue for Boeing is that getting a -10 that would satisfy EK is going to be incredibly difficult without substantial investment. If the think that EK is the only airline that wouldn't buy the -10 without out it, but would if it had the extra range (and they don't think that EK is a sure thing) then they may deem it not worthwhile to go that way now. These are similar deliberations that probably took place vis a vis the 748i. Which airlines were going to buy it based on the stretch, vs. the original length. Would this have hurt the chances with some of the airlines, like EK possibly? Sure. But if the net is positive, it's the right choice.

Could it just be possible that an Airbus product might be the right choice for a given airline based on merits? Shocking, that it's possible, I know.

cheers.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 12:38 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 57):

IMO they will discover an alarming large diminishing rate of return in terms of lightness achieved versus cost.

In all honesty, just as the A330 has now, the 777 has a good future ahead of it yet, and it may well be as economical for Boeing just to extend the discounts rather than spend lots of development money, as the way to maintain its competitiveness.

That's definitely one school of thought, but the other is that Boeing will have a generational advantage by launching the 787 realistically 7 years before the A350 flies. And Boeing is taking technical risks and evaluating new technologies (bleed less and one piece composites) that Airbus isn't looking at right now. On top of that Airbus is being bled dry by the A380. It gives Boeing the opportunity to go for a jab to the stomach (Y3) and a knockout blow to the head (The 737RS). If they feel like being that aggressive.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 69):

To me, a composite fuselage made from "shells" is as near as dammit as "all-composite" as a composite fuselage made from "barrels". The composite content of each aircraft is near-identical. The biggest difference is in the number of fasteners.

I suspect that there might be impacts in terms of hull rigidity as well. That's not a issue for Airbus as they are already starting out with a larger sized frame, but it may end up being critical for Boeing if they want to expand the 787-10 up. Airbus won't be able to expand the A350 too far up without it starting to cannibalizing possible sales of the A380.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 78):
Have somebody thought that Mr. Clark (or possibly some of Emirates owners) is beginning to see that his pharaonic expansion plans are conflicting with the reality and therefore is burning time intentionally until he can reach a better assessment of the situation ?? If so, obviously it would be painful for a personality like his to admit this, aside that he immediately will lose traction both with AB and B if they realize that no monster orders will forthcome !!

Very doubtful. I don't think you will see this play out until the A380 has taken most of the additional capacity, and the rest of the market responds. EK will see a banner couple of years in profit, and then they will go into a long protracted slump as they will be unable to maintain pricing controls over that larger of a market.

And it will get worse with each passing trade liberalization move.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10077
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 2:50 pm

Some Ramblings . . .

Short or Long 748i for EK? Boeing, in my opinion, isn't going to build a short 748i. in order fot he Long i to be attractive EK would have to use the seat counts planned for the Short i and use that in the 748i that Boeing will build. If they do that and plan on the same cargo loads the Short i would have would the 748i be able to make it to LAX? If so then EK has a winner. When pax counts drop they will have extra room for cargo. If, inn the future, they want to change it to a shorter route with higher density then the plane will have room to accommodate them.

787 ramping: Boeing and their suppliers are going to be conservative fora year or two in this area. When the kinks are ironed out Boeing will be able to look at their suppliers for increased out puts, which means additional ovens. By then Boeing will probably have a fairly good idea of the Y3 barrel size and the new ovens can be made to cook BOTH 787 and Y3 barrels. The new ovens can go full speed with the 787 and as demand slows and Y3 comes on line these suppliers will be in a great position to get the Y3 contracts. They would have depreciated the ovens (and other equipment) to the point where they can underprice any new competition. That allows for excellent ramping of the 787 line and a head start on the Y3 line.

Y1 -v- Y3: I think that Y1 will win this one, mainly because I believe that Boeing is further along than most people believe. Discussions with the major customers like WN and AA would be well along the way, they have the composite technology from the 787 program and are probably waiting for the engine companies to make their commitments. Y3 could hit EIS by 2012 and I believe the major customers are putting a lot of pressure on the engine companies & Boeing to make that happen.

If Boeing is delivering lots of 787s by 2012, the 748 program is in full production and Y1 hits EIS then I believe it will be time to announce Y3. Makes more sense than trying to match the XWB with a 787-10.

Quoting Dank (Reply 62):
For the engines, as you've stated, part of it depends on how GE handles the bigger 350s (do they go after it) or do they see it more lucrative to spend effort on the narrowbody powerplants in the short term?

If you were the CEO at GE would you be going for the -1000 or Y1? Both will only have 2 engines, the -100o will have higher margins, but Y1 (and the Airbus counter part) will be selling a lot more frames. It appears a simple decision on where to place your R&D resources.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 2:50 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 83):
And what performance metric do you think he's looking at for the -10?

That's what he's going to Seattle to talk about.

Quoting Dank (Reply 83):
If there has been one complaint that he has had constantly about the -10, it is that it doesn't have the range he wants.

For now it doesn't, but that could change. What is so hard for you to understand about these two items?

1. Clark will be working with Boeing to define where the 787-10X and 747-8I sit on range/payload

2. He expressed enthusiasm for the 787's composite barrel and low maintenance overhead and said he is keen to see if Boeing has made progress on the 787-10X's performance.


Quoting Dank (Reply 83):
Could it just be possible that an Airbus product might be the right choice for a given airline based on merits? Shocking, that it's possible, I know.

Could it just be possible that Airbus doesn't have this order locked up and Boeing still has a shot at it? Shocking, that it's possible, I know.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 4:21 pm

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 84):
That's definitely one school of thought, but the other is that Boeing will have a generational advantage by launching the 787 realistically 7 years before the A350 flies.

I didn't quite follow how this paragraph had any relevance to whether Boeing "lighten" the 777 or just sell it slightly cheaper, once demand starts to weaken.......

If you're saying Boeing could go ahead and do Y3, I feel that kinda supports my argument not to bother spending lots of money on the 777, when cashflow/profit could as well be served by knocking $5m-$10m off the selling price, and the R+D resources could be saved for Y3.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 84):
I suspect that there might be impacts in terms of hull rigidity as well.

I must admit I start to lose the will to live at times.  Smile
I'm told that the CFRP barrels are so rigid, that a mere few mm thick structure is capable of holding an ovoid shape over nearly 6 m diameter, under considerable pressure, without needing frames( Boeing put some there anyway - just in case, presumably......  Wink ).
However "clamshells" made of the same stuff, with a curvature covering a 90 degree arc , (supported by frames....) will have issues with hull rigidity....

That can't be right - it's got to be one or the other.........  Smile

Even if the clamshells are slightly less rigid than the rigidest, rigid thing to come from the rigid side of rigid construction techniques, surely they'd still be prettty..........rigid....

Or are the gross claims made for the barrels a bit on the ........gross... side?  Wink

Regards
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 5:10 pm

Indeed...a rigid argument...

There's no huge rush for -10 or y3 at the moment. Though I think the 787 will perform above and beyond, I like the idea of waiting until a few of these things are beaten about in real life before they extend the concept to its theoretical limit.
What the...?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19103
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 24):
But EK seems to think they can just ask for whatever they want and the manufacturers will happily oblige.

When you buy as many planes as EK has in the last few years, and is going to in the next few months, too damn right they can ask for whatever they want. Will they get exactly what they want? Probably not. But, as a wise old relative once told me, you definitely won't get what you don't ask for!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 82):
"we don't really know WTF we are making yet, despite trying to sell it to you"

I think Airbus has a better idea than you're prepared to give them credit for. yes 

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 82):
So they expect him to sign very shortly for SIXTY A330? EL OH EL.

Would you be prepared to bet money against EK ordering a large number of A330s?

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 78):
I am curious if an effectve firm order
confirmation for the 43 4 A380 will happen short term.

It already did!

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre..._07_Emirates_additional_A380s.html

Quote:
Dubai based Emirates Airlines has reaffirmed its order for 43 Airbus A380 aircraft and additionally signed a contract for a further four.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 8:54 pm

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 78):
Have somebody thought that Mr. Clark (or possibly some of Emirates owners) is beginning to see that his pharaonic expansion plans are conflicting with the reality and therefore is burning time
intentionally until he can reach a better assessment of the situation ??

Mr. Clark does not have the last word. That belongs to the owners, the al Maktoum family, who also rule Dubai.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):
I must admit I start to lose the will to live at times.

Retrospective apologies, AirFrnt. Your comment didn't merit the response it received.

In a nutshell, I suspect the difference in rigidity between the barrel method and shell method is incremental compared to the difference between either of these methods, and traditional construction.
IMO a 75m A350XWB will be a LOT more rigid than a 75m A346..  Smile
Peace?

Regards
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:03 pm

I probably just missed it somewhere but is there any sort of comparison of the estimated efficiencies of the 787 and xwb?
What the...?
 
EI321
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:06 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 92):
I probably just missed it somewhere but is there any sort of comparison of the estimated efficiencies of the 787 and xwb?

Airbus and Boeing have their own comparisons, maybe somebody can post links to powerpoints.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:14 pm

I don't personally see how a 5" difference in fuse diameter can make that much of a difference in any performance parameter when it comes to stretching or seat numbers or anything, really. I'm not aeronautical engineer so maybe it could be possible but it seems unlikely.
What the...?
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:33 pm

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 86):
For now it doesn't, but that could change. What is so hard for you to understand about these two items?

Everything out of Boeing suggests that it won't. He's going to push them to do better. Will they? Hard to imagine that they will without the major investment they don't seem to want to make now. Could things change? sure. Will it in the short term? I doubt it. But you never know. The second comment supports what i said.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 86):
Could it just be possible that Airbus doesn't have this order locked up and Boeing still has a shot at it? Shocking, that it's possible, I know.

If you actually read what I have said previously, I never said that it was locked up by Airbus. But keep on drinking the Boeing Kool-Aid and you'll see it, I suppose. I see the _possibility_ that Airbus could win it on merits (and I see the possibility that Boeing could, but only with some changes to their models in the short term). You don't appear to ever see that possibility ever.

As I said before, it appears to me that at present (if this is an all or none order), that Airbus is offering the planes with the right specs (and you could argue whether Airbus can deliver on and on), at the wrong time (for EK) and Boeing is able to deliver at the right time, but not with the specs they want. Can things change? Sure. Does that mean that I think that Airbus has it locked up? of course not, since the timing issue may rule the day (as will whatever deals they cut; it could also be that Clark is saying, well, if the specs of the -10 don't match up, but you're willing to give me a sweet deal on them and tell me that an ER version will be coming by year 20XX), then maybe we'll order).

cheers.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27161
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Fri May 11, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 95):
(I)t could also be that Clark is saying, well, if the specs of the -10 don't match up, but you're willing to give me a sweet deal on them and tell me that an ER version will be coming by year 20XX), then maybe we'll order).

EK could arguably use the current 787-10 to replace the 772A and 773A fleet, provided they want to continue to operate a "medium-haul" family of aircraft. So it could be possible if Boeing commits to providing a 787-10ER in a timeframe that meets EK's needs, EK might take the "787-10A" now (along with the 787-9) and secure options with delivery slots which can then be used for the 787-10ER.
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Sat May 12, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 96):
EK could arguably use the current 787-10 to replace the 772A and 773A fleet, provided they want to continue to operate a "medium-haul" family of aircraft. So it could be possible if Boeing commits to providing a 787-10ER in a timeframe that meets EK's needs, EK might take the "787-10A" now (along with the 787-9) and secure options with delivery slots which can then be used for the 787-10ER.

 checkmark  I think that their fear is that to get the uplift they want, even at the shorter ranges, they need the extra range. So they need those guarantees that the ER will be available at some certain time(just like they are going to need those performance guarantees from Airbus).

One of the problems with EK is that they want the best of both worlds and for the manufacturers it is a bit of seeing how much they need to sacrifice and how those sacrifices for EK will impact their ability to sell to other carriers. Interesting days ahead.

cheers.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Sat May 12, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):

If you're saying Boeing could go ahead and do Y3, I feel that kinda supports my argument not to bother spending lots of money on the 777, when cashflow/profit could as well be served by knocking $5m-$10m off the selling price, and the R+D resources could be saved for Y3.

That was my point, and I agree with this analysis.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):

I must admit I start to lose the will to live at times. Smile
I'm told that the CFRP barrels are so rigid, that a mere few mm thick structure is capable of holding an ovoid shape over nearly 6 m diameter, under considerable pressure, without needing frames( Boeing put some there anyway - just in case, presumably...... Wink ).
However "clamshells" made of the same stuff, with a curvature covering a 90 degree arc , (supported by frames....) will have issues with hull rigidity....



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 91):
Peace?

Not a problem at all. Boeing actually raised the point when they were initially doing the technology evaluation for the 787. Their original design was to bolt CFRP panels onto a frame, but that re-introduced lots of bolts, and decreased rigidity. The first is important to optimize total time of construction, the second future expandability.

Airbus is still building a "95 percent there" plane. Some things that Boeing took a risk on, for example no bleed air and one piece composites may still end up making a huge difference. Or they may make 5% difference, and be completely eclipsed by the larger number of seats that Airbus threw in there so they would have some sales differentiation. On this count at least we really won't know until both planes are flying. It took many years for the 777/340 battle to become crystal clear.
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: EK Wants Lighter 77W; Denies 160 330/350 Order

Sat May 12, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 90):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 78):
Have somebody thought that Mr. Clark (or possibly some of Emirates owners) is beginning to see that his pharaonic expansion plans are conflicting with the reality and therefore is burning time
intentionally until he can reach a better assessment of the situation ??

Mr. Clark does not have the last word. That belongs to the owners, the al Maktoum family, who also rule Dubai.

Agreed,
This is precisely my point. Independently of the verborrea both by Al Maktoum and TIM, I am not sure
that the latter at this stage continues to agree with the former's vision of grandiose expansion. Even if he
has too much oil money, he would not like loosing it and therefore his feet possibly get colder !!

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 89):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 78):
I am curious if an effectve firm order
confirmation for the 43 4 A380 will happen short term.

It already did!

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre..._07_Emirates_additional_A380s.html

Quote:
Dubai based Emirates Airlines has reaffirmed its order for 43 Airbus A380 aircraft and additionally signed a contract for a further four.

As I wrote, I am not saying that it will not happen, only that I am curious if it will !!

I notice that the Press release is very carefully formulated, it does not say that anything was SIGNED.
As I stated in my Reply 78, this could be (I repeat, I am not saying it is so!) an element of the stalling
tactics of EK !

By the way, the Airbus Press release confirms that:
Based on the latest market trends for larger premium class products, it can typically carry
525 passengers in three classes in unprecedented comfort


As this reduction as stated in tha data of the AB Website is general and not only at Emirates, and
factually the 555 pax configuration was already most cofortable, it would seem that the real reason
for this reduction is to compensate (together with some other measures), with the goal to maintain
MTOW and/or max.range, a 5-6 Ton overweight of the aircraft and Tim Clark as a good salesman is
presenting a necessity as a virtue !!
Question: anybody have a side by side comparison of the 555
and 525 configuration ??

I am sorry for being so scheptical, but past experience has induced me so !!

aminobwana

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