PEET7G
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:00 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:09 pm

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 11):
The German magazin "Der Spiegel" -historically anti-French and anti-Airbus,with a track-record of lousy aviation reporting,hailed the 787 succes story by comparing "nearly 600 787 sales against only 13 ...A350 sales.."
I don't know where they get their figures from,but the author of this article shour do some home-work...

However I too don't see "Der Spiegel" as a Bible of accurate reporting, but in this case they are correct...

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 16):
The Airbus Order page figures 71 orders for the -800 and 33 orders for the -900 series.

The plane those orders are for "technically" is no longer on offer... I still scratch my head every time when I see that report... how on earth could you file orders for a product you don't even want to build?

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 17):
That includes the original A350 orders. The majority of those have not yet been converted into XWB orders.

  

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 18):
But they have not been cancelled neither...
So as long a carrier maintains an order for a specific model - despite the aircraft undergoing specification -changes, Airbus has to keep them as confirmed orders.
A typical example is Yemenia Airways,who keep their order-announcement for the A350 on their web-page and publicise it.

Ok if you really want to get into hair-cutting on this... those orders are nothing, but an order for a plane that will never be built, and since Airbus does not seem to ever want to build those planes, any order (if the contract includes such penalties) will draw compensation payments BIG TIME. So look at it this way, if say Yemenia does not convert it's order to any model of the XWB, their contract for the original A350 they ordered will be violated by Airbus at some point... If not sooner, then at the marked date of delivery. So either they sign up for the new and improved XWB with big discounts that will make the deal sweet, or Airbus will simply have to terminate the contract and face the penalties. Either way if you want to be honest, non of those orders can be looked at as a direct order for any XWB since even if those customer sign up for the XWB it will be a new contract, legally a new order, or at a minimum an order conversion!

Now before anyone attacks me on being an Airbus basher, I am not! I hope and pray for the A350XWB to be a success and I would have commented also if this discussion would be about any Boeing product. But legally these things are facts, and as much as I like Airbus products I find the Airbus propaganda leaders and management a dishonest audacious liars who simply brought my one-time favorite aviation company to a messy future! And before the cheerleaders start commenting on Boeing doing the same... no... Boeing never joked on other companies products or on problems the other face... no, they never made sport of discrediting the products of the other manufacturer. They did have scandals and internal affairs, but dealt with them and now we live in a world where any Airline CEO with it's right mind simply gives credit to any Boeing pledge, while simply takes anything coming from Airbus with a grain of salt...

Sorry Beaucaire, It is not aimed at you or your comment, I simply freak out every time when the discussion is about my beloved Airbus... issues are addressed, but almost all the problematic leaders are in place, and keep on yapping as nothing was wrong any more!

[Edited 2007-06-13 16:13:22]
Peet7G
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 48):
I believe Boeing willl likely have 787 787 orders by 7/8/7.

Sounds like a good round number.

God, would I love to see Leahy's face if that were to happen. (Please note the subjunctive mood.)
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
azhobo
Topic Author
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 50):
a minimum an order conversion!

They would be converted orders and would not change the NET orders for airbus this year. Any conversions would not be counted in the yearly totals race for NET orders. Also if they are cancelled, they would be negative toward the NET orders for the year.

I believe.

Not that anyone here is really keeping score or anything.

HOBO
 
azhobo
Topic Author
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 52):
Please note the subjunctive mood

NOTED!
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:27 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
"According to people familiar with the situation, Airbus has offered to pay US Airways steep penalties if it fails to deliver the A350 on time. The airline's board is scheduled to meet today, but a person familiar with the airline's deliberations say there is no guarantee it will agree to a deal."

Why does airbus want US airways so badly?
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9149
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:32 pm

Most likely beccause US has said they won't split up their order between NB's and WB's.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 50):
But legally these things are facts, and as much as I like Airbus products I find the Airbus propaganda leaders and management a dishonest audacious liars who simply brought my one-time favorite aviation company to a messy future!

Exactly right in my view, PEET7G. In point of fact, and on the face of it, the most practical thing for Airbus to have done would appear to have been to cancel the 'old A350' orders as soon as they decided not to build it. Presumably if they had done that, the only cost they would have faced would have been the return of the deposits.

We may not find out for a long time why they didn't do that. But I for one am irresistibly reminded of the A380 freighter orders being kept 'on the books' for so long, even though pretty well everyone (certainly most A.netters) knew that Airbus would never be able to afford to develop it while also having the A380 delays on their plate, plus the urgent need to make progress on the A350.

One suspects that the eventual deals with the airlines that ordered the A380 freighter (details of which have never been disclosed) were highly favourable to the prospective purchasers (with Airbus effectively paying them extra to persuade them not to sue) because of the lateness of Airbus' decision. It's entirely possible that some at least of the 'old new' A350 orders could go the same way - especially if the A350XWB turns out not to have the much-superior performance that Airbus is currently claiming (or rather, given the comments in the WSJ interviews, very possibly 'hinting at' without providing bankable figures).
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9149
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:34 pm

But I for one am irresistibly reminded of the A380 freighter orders being kept 'on the books' for so long

Are those Iraqi A310's still being counted?

Boeing kept those PAL 747s for a long time, but that issue was resolved when they ordered a score of 773ERs
 
mymorningsong
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:11 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:36 pm

Some great quotes in an article in today's Seattle Times...

"Boeing closes in on huge order of 787's"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ogy/2003745590_parispreshow13.html


--------------------------

"We're looking for more momentum for Boeing," Hazy said.

Is he expecting significant Boeing orders in Paris? "Yes," he said emphatically, flashing a big smile.

From him? "Let's just say Boeing top management has been spending a lot of time with ILFC," Hazy said. "Draw your own conclusions."

--------------------------

"My team at ILFC just doesn't feel Airbus has made enough progress," he said. "The [A350] specification definition we have today is not at a stage we're 100 percent comfortable with. ... We can't commit until we know what we're buying.

--------------------------

"On the A350, we've seen nothing with regard to performance guarantees," said Maurice Flanagan, vice chairman of Emirates, the huge Middle Eastern carrier based in Dubai. Flanagan said Emirates will wait for more detail from Airbus before deciding on its order later this year.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 35):
You mean GE will order aircraft that does not offer GE engines? I'd like to see that



Quoting NorCal (Reply 41):
Given the fact that the A350 doesn't currently have GE engines I doubt GECAS will order it, but I could be wrong.

No, I was asking whether GECAS will add to the 787 order book. But...didn't GECAS order the old A350? And if they did, I am very dubious as well whether they'll re-confirm that order with RR engines.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:45 pm

"Pilarski said Airbus must deliver significant A350 orders from somewhere other than the Middle East. As of now, the A380 order book is dominated by Emirates of Dubai, and the A350 prospective order book by Qatar of Abu Dhabi.

"If your major customer in each program is a country that wouldn't make it into the top 100 cities in China, that's not very good," said Pilarski. "You get Steve [Hazy] ... that's a totally different story."


That's a great quote. Says what many of us have been thinking.  Smile Maybe Aboulafia finally has a 'sound-byting' rival.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
I would be shocked if Airbus doesn't walk away with 100+ orders for the A350, and a temporary sales lead.

Well, depends on whether you include the QR order  Wink I expect it to get signed, but I don't expect an additional 100 orders to be signed. It's clear SIA is no where close to signing, US isn't going to (yet, or ever), and EK, well, we may still be talking about "EK 787 or A350" at A350 EIS...
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:54 pm

Quoting Azhobo (Thread starter):
""We sent the first A350 to the cemetery, and many months later, Airbus still hasn't provided the kind of details that would make us rush to place an order," said , chairman of aircraft-leasing titan International Lease Finance Corp., a unit of Inc."

ILFC is not a unit of "Inc." ILFC is a part of AIG (American International Group).
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 54):
Why does airbus want US airways so badly?

For two reasons: (i) They are likely the only North America airline that may still go A350* (ii) Because they are an existing Airbus client, and Airbus has already had many existing clients defect to the 787.

* Edited from earlier post where I accidently wrote "787"

[Edited 2007-06-13 17:12:14]
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
I would be shocked if Airbus doesn't walk away with 100 orders for the A350, and a temporary sales lead.

They would need a lot more than 100 wouldn't they?

Quoting 474218 (Reply 62):
ILFC is a part of AIG (American International Group).

For those of you who dont know, AIG is the biggest insurance company in the world, and among its holdings is the predatory lending company American General Finance.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5535
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 61):
and EK, well, we may still be talking about "EK 787 or A350" at A350 EIS...

Or at the Final Judgement?

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 63):
(i) They are likely the only North America airline that may still go 787

Did you mean A350?
From the sound of things I get the impression that Airbus has taken the 787 specs and arbitrarily said that they can beat them by X amount without a clear idea how, and the airlines aren't buying it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60):
If your major customer in each program is a country that wouldn't make it into the top 100 cities in China, that's not very good," said Pilarski. "You get Steve [Hazy] ... that's a totally different story."

Seems a little bit of a daft comment from Mr Pilarski. There simply are no more large purchasers left in the market. Well, maybe UA and US, and the former is most probably a 787 shoe-in. Everyone else has already gone to the 787. Even if Airbus wins every non-North American contract from now till 2013, then 100 planes from EK and 80 from QR will STILL be the biggest A350 orders on their books, and thus 30 - 50% of the order book will still be exposed to only two Mideast orders.

Given that, what exactly is the genius Mr Pilarski proposing? That they dump EK and QR, so that instead of a 360 to 600 aircraft order book they can have a 180 to 420 book dominated by non-mideast carriers. Ridiculous.

Yes, it is a business risk. But there is not much they can do about it. The low hanging fruit is gone.

[Edited 2007-06-13 17:15:12]
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting MEA (Reply 28):
Based on Airbus' history of announcing orders, I suspect we will see a few A350s ordered with MOUs and LOIs firmed up starting next week.

To avoid over-enthusiastic reactions of either Airbus or Boeings fanatics, we should be very careful to assess if the announced "orders" for either company are real or not more than the reiteration of such MoU's or LOI's. Airlines are willing to go along with such announcements as long they assure them early delivery slots for thr case that after continuing to observe the situation for a while, the finally issue a real order.

Quoting MEA (Reply 28):
Airbus has dropped the ball, similar to what Boeing experienced a few years ago. It's just part of the regular business cycle.

If under "dropped the ball" you mean both having screwed up, I agree with you. But there end the similarity and I do not think this has to do with the Business Cycle, as the market situation is extraordinary good.

aminobwana
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:17 am

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 67):
f under "dropped the ball" you mean both having screwed up, I agree with you. But there end the similarity and I do not think this has to do with the Business Cycle, as the market situation is extraordinary good.

I think you should take your own advice:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 67):
avoid over-enthusiastic reactions of either Airbus or Boeings fanatics

 Smile
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60):
If your major customer in each program is a country that wouldn't make it into the top 100 cities in China, that's not very good," said Pilarski. "You get Steve [Hazy] ... that's a totally different story."

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 66):
Seems a little bit of a daft comment from Mr Pilarski. There simply are no more large purchasers left in the market. Well, maybe UA and US, and the former is most probably a 787 shoe-in. Everyone else has already gone to the 787. Even if Airbus wins every non-North American contract from now till 2013, then 100 planes from EK and 80 from QR will STILL be the biggest A350 orders on their books, and thus 30 - 50% of the order book will still be exposed to only two Mideast orders.

Don't know, I would rather place 80 airplanes with ILFC, who will spread them around the globe and double my sales effort, then place them with one airline that may or may not pull off their business plan.

Cheers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26783
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 69):
Don't know, I would rather place 80 airplanes with ILFC, who will spread them around the globe and double my sales effort, then place them with one airline that may or may not pull off their business plan.

I still believe a sale is a sale.

If EK had 42 748Is and QR had 80 787s while Airbus had four dozen A350 customers and 600 frames, the Boeing Boosters would no doubt be crowing on the size of each of those two orders and the Airbus Aficionados would be commenting on how Boeing was risking putting their eggs in one basket versus the more sensible risk-sharing of multiple small orders spread around the globe.

Boeing certainly has the momentum and Mr. Udvar-Hazy looks to add to it. But Airbus has enough waiting in the wings that if those folks commit to the A350, it will lay the groundwork for confidence in it.

We have to remember that airlines were not initially sold on the 7E7 concept, either. Boeing had to do a lot of work to prove to the satisfaction of the initial carriers that it was worth buying and operating. And even then, major airlines like SQ continued to sit on the sideline for some time after, just as they are now with the A350.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 46):
No, I was merely saying that Boeing is also playing the "announce it at the airshow" game too. We all know EI ORDERED six 350s. Why they couldn't wait two weeks, I don't know, but I am sure Leahy took the order.

Those haven't been signed for - the order has to be approved by the board, no?

Quoting Mymorningsong (Reply 58):
"On the A350, we've seen nothing with regard to performance guarantees," said Maurice Flanagan, vice chairman of Emirates, the huge Middle Eastern carrier based in Dubai. Flanagan said Emirates will wait for more detail from Airbus before deciding on its order later this year.

So not only are the seat mile costs unknown, there are no guarantees either? Odd, I thought there were guarantees.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 60):
"If your major customer in each program is a country that wouldn't make it into the top 100 cities in China, that's not very good," said Pilarski. "You get Steve [Hazy] ... that's a totally different story."

What difference does it make as long as you get the money? Is the danger from the airline going bellyup? If EK or another non-US airline went for Boeing's, they could get protection under US bankruptcy laws - I recall that happening with another foreign firm because of US parts being involved) - yes? That would be bad for Boeing, yes? Sounds off the wall, but maybe not.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
I still believe a sale is a sale.

If EK had 42 748Is and QR had 80 787s while Airbus had four dozen A350 customers and 600 frames, the Boeing Boosters would no doubt be crowing on the size of each of those two orders and the Airbus Aficionados would be commenting on how Boeing was risking putting their eggs in one basket versus the more sensible risk-sharing of multiple small orders spread around the globe.

No one is arguing that a "Sale isn't a Sale" . I stated I would rather sell ILFC 80 frames instead of Qatar. ILFC will spread these airplanes around the globe like butter, making every other potential customer that much more at ease in purchasing the 787, knowing that if their airplane breaks down half way around the world, there will be plenty of other operators that can lend a helping hand. Every airline in the world probably know ILFC quite well, and from what I gather in the news, actually respect their decisions. There probably isn't too many around the globe that know the people behind the Qatar order, or even care/know what they order (Every airshow they sign something for 50 of these, 100 of those, yet still only operate a handful of airplanes).

SQ sat on the sidelines for over 15 years before ordering the A330, therefore I don't see your point. The 787 has a chance of passing the A330 in sales before entry into service, therefore I would say that the 787 has had anything BUT a slow start.

Cheers

[Edited 2007-06-13 19:13:39]
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 56):
Exactly right in my view, PEET7G. In point of fact, and on the face of it, the most practical thing for Airbus to have done would appear to have been to cancel the 'old A350' orders as soon as they decided not to build it. Presumably if they had done that, the only cost they would have faced would have been the return of the deposits.

Leahy said something to the effect that the customers will have to convert until end of this year. I understand that as an indication that Airbus will cancel the remaining orders by end of this year.

Unless this later (compared what you suggested) cancellation changes the amount of the penalty payments I would assume that the choice not to cancel earlier was the right thing to do given that Airbus got to keep the cash from the deposits and also kept the conversation with these customers going.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 56):
In point of fact, and on the face of it, the most practical thing for Airbus to have done would appear to have been to cancel the 'old A350' orders as soon as they decided not to build it. Presumably if they had done that, the only cost they would have faced would have been the return of the deposits.

I don't think so and I'm not sure why. Apart from return of deposits, I think you would have seen penalty compensation for simply cancelling orders. In any case, for many carriers, it does them no harm to sit and wait and see what form the 350 will take. They retain their delivery slots and maintain engagement with the program.

Frankly, the only times I see order numbers debated in such excruciating detail is on a.net. I don't believe many in the business really pay that much heed to the 'bare' marketing numbers except when they are being looked at in a specific context - ie, actual orders+deposits, MOUs, LOIs, carrier relationships etc.

It is Airbus publically stated policy to maintain a profitable business model, not simply have market share. So any order numbers need to be looked at in terms of the specific aircraft, the margins on those aircraft, the buyer, the relationship with the buyer and often the political context. It is not as simple as the absolute numbers and IMO they are only a crude yardstick (but certainly great for entertaining the armchair CEOs  Wink)
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
This is why I think Leahy should be fired, but I still get flack about that. Obviously, few customers believe what he's saying, nor has he really been great at getting Airbus to respond to customer needs. But he sure does talk a lot to the press, and make a lot of claims that turn out to be false. And that can't help build confidence in him, either.

 checkmark 

I have been saying the same thing for a while now. With the mess the A380 has created, how does he keep his job and even get a promotion?  Yeah sure
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:47 am

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 4):
But clarks latest oppinion has changed.

That is probably due to a large discount offered to EK.
 
amicus
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:54 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:53 am

Quote from WSJ article:
"Airbus also has yet to adequately explain how it will deal with engineering challenges posed by plans to mount the airplane's carbon-fiber composite skin panels on an aluminum skeleton. Futuristic composites can be lighter and more durable than traditional materials like aluminum. But aluminum expands and contracts at a different rate than composites, making them difficult to combine".

I have discussed this point regarding differential coefficients of thermal expansion between aluminum and CFRP in the past on another thread or two and still consider this area to be a big problem for Airbus re A-350 for the proposed panel design. I am a little surprised that nobody, I think, has discussed this area of the WSJ article in this thread so far, perhaps order fever is running too high. What I am saying is that the airline problems are not so much re salesmanship, E.I.S., and cost, but rather there are still serious questions concerning engineering aspects of the current A-350 iteration. Evidently WSJ is reading our stuff closely too, which means they are doing their homework too.
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 10):
If he really 'resigned', then why the golden parachute.

Who knows with that company. Noel Foregard got a Golden Parachute for gosh sakes!!!  banghead 
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 66):

Seems a little bit of a daft comment from Mr Pilarski.

You say its daft (silly) , yet you go on to agree with the premise.

What stands out about the quote is that few analysts have been making note of all the eggs-in-one-basket situation that Airbus has dug itself.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26783
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 66):
Seems a little bit of a daft comment from Mr Pilarski. There simply are no more large purchasers left in the market.

Well he is a principle with the aviation value firm AVITAS so he may feel that with A350 selling in large numbers to only a "handful" of customers could hurt resale and rental values (which might be why ILFC and GECAS have not pulled the trigger yet).
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 18):
But they have not been cancelled neither...
So as long a carrier maintains an order for a specific model - despite the aircraft undergoing specification -changes, Airbus has to keep them as confirmed orders.

The old A350 doesn't exist anymore. That would be like counting orders for the Sonic Cruiser that Boeing was developing if any orders existed.
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
I would be shocked if Airbus doesn't walk away with 100+ orders for the A350, and a temporary sales lead

A temporary sales lead on whom?!?! What are you talking about? How many 787's have been sold this year?  scratchchin 
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting Amicus (Reply 77):
Quote from WSJ article:
"Airbus also has yet to adequately explain how it will deal with engineering challenges posed by plans to mount the airplane's carbon-fiber composite skin panels on an aluminum skeleton. Futuristic composites can be lighter and more durable than traditional materials like aluminum. But aluminum expands and contracts at a different rate than composites, making them difficult to combine".

I have discussed this point regarding differential coefficients of thermal expansion between aluminum and CFRP in the past on another thread or two and still consider this area to be a big problem for Airbus re A-350 for the proposed panel design.

I'm not sure about whether this is significant. You'll no doubt recall that the ribs and a significant amount of the internal wing structure of the B787 wing is metal while the covers are cfrp. Building combined cfrp/metal structures is something both Airbus and Boeing have been doing for quite some time. I think the WSJ comment re the A350 fuselage comment is a little misguided.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
Bear in mind. The Air Shows are Airbus territory's. They will make a good showing at it, because their sales team is designed for big splash moments.

Do you really think that an airline comes to a air show looking to buy a number of airliners, looks around at whats there and says, Airbus has the best displays lets buy their aircraft? Any sales announced at an air show has been in work for months, if not years. They are just announced at the show.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
I would be shocked if Airbus doesn't walk away with 100+ orders for the A350, and a temporary sales lead.

You mean a temporary sales lead for sales announced the days of the air show only?
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 83):
Building combined cfrp/metal structures is something both Airbus and Boeing have been doing for quite some time. I think the WSJ comment re the A350 fuselage comment is a little misguided

Because I am not an engineer, I may get heaped on for this question, but does the fact that the fuselage is pressurized make any difference regarding these concerns?
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 85):
Quoting HB88 (Reply 83):
"Building combined cfrp/metal structures is something both Airbus and Boeing have been doing for quite some time. I think the WSJ comment re the A350 fuselage comment is a little misguided"

Because I am not an engineer, I may get heaped on for this question, but does the fact that the fuselage is pressurized make any difference regarding these concerns?

My guess is no, it wouldn't make that much difference. In fact, it might be more critical for structures such as the wing where the components are both subjected to a greater range of temperatures such that the coefficients of expansion for the materials would need to be generally matched over a much wider range of temps. My thinking is that the fuse might be less stringent in this regard as its inner structure would be proximate the cabin (insulation, heating etc).

Either way, metal/CFRP joints have been done for decades, so I think these issues are not really a problem.
 
Danny
Posts: 3748
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 61):
US isn't going to (yet, or ever),

Bookmark this.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 46):
We all know EI ORDERED six 350s. Why they couldn't wait two weeks, I don't know, but I am sure Leahy took the order.

As a publicly listed companies they are obliged to report such important decision as this could affect stock price.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26783
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:02 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 46):
We all know EI ORDERED six 350s. Why they couldn't wait two weeks, I don't know...

Perhaps they were afraid it would get buried in the press if the larger SU, QR and ILFC A350 and 787 orders are all consummated.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8405
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Amicus (Reply 77):
have discussed this point regarding differential coefficients of thermal expansion between aluminum and CFRP in the past on another thread or two and still consider this area to be a big problem for Airbus re A-350 for the proposed panel design. I am a little surprised that nobody, I think, has discussed this area of the WSJ article in this thread so far, perhaps order fever is running too high. What I am saying is that the airline problems are not so much re salesmanship, E.I.S., and cost, but rather there are still serious questions concerning engineering aspects of the current A-350 iteration. Evidently WSJ is reading our stuff closely too, which means they are doing their homework too.

That "engineering issue" cited in the WSJ jumped right out at me, and I read all 88 replies before posting about it, happily finding yours and those of HB88 (meaning that I was glad that at least *somebody* else noticed the sentence in the article). I seriously doubt that the apparently-well-informed WSJ reporter would raise the issue if one could just point to existing designs that use composites and aluminum and say "it's not really a problem". It sounds as if there are some actual en-gin-eer-ing issues to be solved, and it sounds like, at a minimum, some customers are concerned over Airbus's ability to do so in a timely fashion, if nothing else.

As to slot availability, remember that Boeing has said that they're hoping to get to 5 frames per month after frame 100, and eventually to 10 frames per month. (There was some confusion over what "one every 3 days" meant, but I think that it is now clear from subsequent public statements by B that this means ten-per-month.) Presumably, by frame 100, B will have long-solved the fastener supply issue. That means 120 frames per year at the maximum presently-hoped-for production level, and 60 per year after frame 100, which presumably will take more than two years to reach.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 am

What is the likelihood of US making their 'large' order at Paris?? Are they still in talks with Boeing and Airbus, or have they decided and are waiting to announce at Paris??
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:32 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 79):
You say its daft (silly) , yet you go on to agree with the premise.

No, I did not agree with him. His statement is pointless. Airbus will not sign any larger customers. So, they can either reject EK/QR and have a small, solid order book. Or they can accept EK/QR and have a large order book, with a portion at risk. In the latter scenario they get at least the deposits. I'm sure these deposits equal or exceed the margin on an A350, so if EK or QR goes bust before the plane is built, Airbus makes the money with zero COGS. A really attractive scenario, from a financial viewpoint  Smile
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
ScottB
Posts: 6787
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:34 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 66):
Given that, what exactly is the genius Mr Pilarski proposing? That they dump EK and QR, so that instead of a 360 to 600 aircraft order book they can have a 180 to 420 book dominated by non-mideast carriers. Ridiculous.

Yes, it is a business risk. But there is not much they can do about it. The low hanging fruit is gone.

Unfortunately, it's a huge risk. What if some group of fundamentalist wackos decides that Dubai or Qatar has become the infidels' playground and makes a dramatic statement to that effect? Is there enough traffic there to support EK, QR, EY, and others; will the European and Asian carriers be able to short-circuit this plan by flying from their own hubs? If one of the carriers which has taken a huge order of A350's goes out of business, how do you sell new ones when there are 50-plus available with relatively few other operators that might be interested in them?

Do you not take the orders? Of course not! However, it is indeed worrisome if the viability of the program depends on orders which are based on relatively speculative future business plans. Would an order from QR for, say, 30 A350's seem speculative? No, their widebody fleet today is comparable to that in size. Would an AA order for 50 787's seem questionable? No, because they already have 73 767's and 45 777's, not to mention their A300's. Even a Delta order of 100 A350's or 787's, while dramatic, would make sense given their fleet of over 100 767's.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
If EK had 42 748Is and QR had 80 787s while Airbus had four dozen A350 customers and 600 frames, the Boeing Boosters would no doubt be crowing on the size of each of those two orders and the Airbus Aficionados would be commenting on how Boeing was risking putting their eggs in one basket versus the more sensible risk-sharing of multiple small orders spread around the globe.

Honestly, I'd be questioning the long-term viability of those orders whether they were going to Boeing or Airbus. Even the big QR order for 777's last year made me uneasy. And I was always skeptical regarding the Primaris 787 order.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 54):
Why does airbus want US airways so badly?

Who else in North America is likely to buy A350's? AC, CO, and NW are already on board with the 787. AA has practically said that the 787 is in their future. The 787 is a much better replacement for the 767-300's that DL and UA operate as well, both are loyal Boeing widebody customers, and Gerry Grinstein has hinted that Delta will order the 787. Even AM has ordered the 787.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 57):
Are those Iraqi A310's still being counted?

Boeing kept those PAL 747s for a long time, but that issue was resolved when they ordered a score of 773ERs

Heck, Airbus STILL has the America West order for A318's on the books (now under US Airways East), and we know they won't take the A318's. They've also got AC's A340-600 order on the books, too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
And even then, major airlines like SQ continued to sit on the sideline for some time after, just as they are now with the A350.

It has been nearly eleven months since SQ announced its intention to order the A350XWB-900; it's a bit shocking to me that their commitment to 20 frames still hasn't been turned into a firm order. Their commitment to the A350XWB was supposed to validate the new direction of the program -- so where is the order? If Airbus is confident in the numbers they've been touting to the airlines, why aren't they in writing yet (i.e., in contracts, even if they're not available to the general public)?
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 87):
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 61):
US isn't going to (yet, or ever),

Bookmark this.

Hehe. Gladly! If US signs for A350 XWBs this year, then next time you are in Chicago, I'll gladly buy you a beer, and we can go sit on the banks of the Chicago river in front of Boeing HQ drinking it!  Smile
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:55 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 92):
If Airbus is confident in the numbers they've been touting to the airlines, why aren't they in writing yet (i.e., in contracts, even if they're not available to the general public)?

 checkmark 

Exactly,
Everyone's been saying oh SQ will sign their order in January then February and it went on and on. And why haven't all the other pre XWB A350 customers stepped up to the plate and signed after all this time. Airbus says they have something to show them since Farnborough and the relaunch but net net they have yielded only 13 orders.

That sends up a red flag in my opinion about the state of the A350 program. If Boeing announces a production increase in the 787 from 7/month to 10/month or more then I could see big trouble for the A350.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7087
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 61):
It's clear SIA is no where close to signing, US isn't going to (yet, or ever), and EK, well, we may still be talking about "EK 787 or A350" at A350 EIS...

My mouth is mum.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 90):
What is the likelihood of US making their 'large' order at Paris?? Are they still in talks with Boeing and Airbus, or have they decided and are waiting to announce at Paris??

Very good. I think everyone will be surprised.

Hunter
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:15 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
On the face of that, Airbus are battling even to persuade prospective customers that they can meet the current 2013 delivery date.

...and what is the surprise there? IMO, 2015 will be EIS. I stand by that. Airbus has only themselves to blame for their current failures.

Airbus is still looking at the world as Airbus. The EADS Board is looking at the world like Boeing. A Left turn means failure, a Right turn may bring renewed trust. It's going to be a tough road ahead reguardless.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 15):
If EK goes 787, then I'm sure BA, US and AF/KLM will be even more reluctant to select the A350,

Since when has EK been the trend-setter? They order a lot of planes, but I don't think their decisions have the power of validation, certainly not like BA, US, AF, SQ, CX, etc. have.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 15):
and Airbus may as well shut the program down and focus completely churning out really cheap A330s and the NSR.

Airbus cannot shut the program down. If they do they will become the MD of the 2010's because they won't have products spanning all the important market segments. And Airbus knows this. If Leahy comes out of Paris with just his d--- in his hands and very little in orders for the XWB, Airbus will simply add a couple more years to the EIS and go back and produce the XWB with all the whiz-bang that Boeing has in the 787 (read all CFRP fuse and bleedless engines along with more than one engine supplier).


Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 30):
The Air Shows are Airbus territory's. They will make a good showing at it, because their sales team is designed for big splash moments. I would be shocked if Airbus doesn't walk away with 100+ orders for the A350, and a temporary sales lead.

Airbus may walk away with 100+ MOUs/LOIs. Let's see how many eventually are firmed up. I'm still waiting for that shocker MOU from SQ last year for the XWB to firm up. (IMHO, it will firm up when pigs learn to fly.)

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
This is why I think Leahy should be fired, but I still get flack about that. Obviously, few customers believe what he's saying, nor has he really been great at getting Airbus to respond to customer needs. But he sure does talk a lot to the press, and make a lot of claims that turn out to be false. And that can't help build confidence in him, either.

Leahy should not be fired. He had a huge part in making Airbus what it is today. However, someone should politely hand him his hat and show him the door and announce they he resigned due to health reasons.  Smile
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.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8405
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:51 am

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 94):
If Boeing announces a production increase in the 787 from 7/month to 10/month or more then I could see big trouble for the A350.

Per recent Boeing press releases, 10 per month is where they're planning to go already. 5 per month after the 100th frame, and 10 per month ultimately.
 
amicus
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:54 am

RE: Order Rumours From WSJ For Next Week

Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:27 am

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...for-delays-of-the-airbus-a350.html

Re HB88 msgs, #83 and 88.
Sorry, but I disagree, the longest panel cited in Flight International report is 18 metres or let's call it 705 inches or so in my engineering units. Now let us get rather specific and assume, it is aluminum framed along length and circumferentially, which seems logical as poor bearing allowables and other issues re only composite CFRP joints. The CTE of aluminum 2024 and similar is around 13PPM/degree F and CFRP unidirectional, particularly in IM versions such as versions as T800 and the like is close to zero PPM/degree F. If we cross ply into a quasi-isotropic layup to be kind to Airbus, we usually up in 1-2 PPM/degree F for CTE, let's assume 1.5 to be sporting, so delta CTE between the aluminum and the CFRP would be 13-1.5 = 11.5 PPM/degree F.
Now let's assume that Airbus uses an aluminum frame around the panel both longitudinally and circumferentially and let us assume that it is bonded at only 250 degrees F, again to be kind to Airbus. If not bonded it will be bolted, but end result is similar. So if part is cured at 250 degrees F and operational temperature is -65 degrees F, then the aluminum wants to shrink and CFRP doesn't. In service temperature range is 250 + 65 = 315 degrees. Change in aluminum length, if free, would be 315 X 11.5 ppm/degree X 705 at operational temperature which is 2.554 inches shrinkage. Obviously as strains are severely mismatched in free state, then we must force the aluminum into tension and resultant tensile stress is over 14 KSI. Now all this is without ANY FLIGHT LOADS at all and is additional to all such. I also note that the endurance fatigue limit of 2024 aluminum is around 24 KSI and I also note that the CTE stresses cited are cyclical in nature and more than flight pressurisation cycles. Note that there are also significant bondline stresses caused by CTE, again highly cyclical in nature.
Now the best case for Airbus, but only re CTE are bolted joints, which I consider doubtful, but am willing to entertain. In that case we can assume assembly at 80 degrees F and in service temperature range would be from 200 Degrees F to minus 65 F. In this case, desired shrinkage of aluminum is 145 x 705 x 11.5 ppm = 1.175 inches and again there are additional shear stresses on all bolts and, again, significant cyclical tensile stresses are engendered in the aluminum frame. Same problems arise in wing ribs and their fasteners, which should be CFRP not Al Li to avoid CTE issues.
Sorry so long and so detailed, but sometimes we need to add facts into the mix as well as thoughts and subjective opinions. I appreciated the thoughts of Wjcandee in Msg # 89 and hope that I have not bored all to tears.

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