Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Airportgal
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:23 am

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 8):
I have a relative at Boeing and he indicated it was a very strong probablility. He also said that more enhancements were on their way for the 747-8 as a direct result of "talks" with some new customers for the model. He didn't elaborate but seemed to feel that a couple of orders were in the bag but not public or signed.



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 10):
Forgot to mention that the feeling is when the 787-10 is announced some of the 9 orders will be converted to 10's. I think this has been overted discussed with specific airlines and whether announced is written into contracts and expected.

your relative needs to keep his mouth shut......

jmo
 
bbobbo
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:31 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 49):
Wow, and this is how it starts. The quote that you pasted in your post states "can make" then you state he said they "will make" technology insertions. I can see why one wouldn't trust a quote from someone else  smile 

You mis quoted the quoter  smile 

The quoter was me. So I misquoted myself.  Smile

"Probably will make". How's that?
 
HughesAirwest
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:28 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 4):
Well what will Boeing do? Can they commit to the -10 with their huge 787 backlog and overcome the manufacturing hurdles that has forced an $500 million overspend on R+D (FT 25/7) ie, can they have the cake and eat it too?

Really??? Where is that info found......???
"One man practicing Teamwork is far better than fifty preaching it."
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:43 am

Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 45):
from yesterday's Boeing conference call

Ah, a decent source-- so you can be taught.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 49):
The quote that you pasted in your post states "can make" then you state he said they "will make" technology insertions. I can see why one wouldn't trust a quote from someone else

 checkmark 

Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 51):
So I misquoted myself.

...brilliance made manifest  Yeah sure

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
If Rolls-Royce can deliver 25% better fuel efficiency then what GE can get out of the GE90, then that is essentially all she wrote.

Only problems with that are: 1) the 772A/773ER/773A models aren't much for new sales as of late, and 2) RR would then have to also deliver on the multiple millions-if-not-billions Boeing would have to spend in litigation and restitution to GE for breech of contract, should the aircraft in question continue on as a 777 derivative without a < 700K.lb MTOW.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
EI321
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
Where the 777 will truly live and die is engines. If Rolls-Royce can deliver 25% better fuel efficiency then what GE can get out of the GE90, then that is essentially all she wrote. Boeing will still sell hundreds more 777s through 2020 just because Airbus will have sold a thousand or more A350s by then and can't deliver to existing 777 customers who need immediate expansion and replacement orders, but eventually as the 787 will render the A330 obsolete and irrelevant, so would a 25% more efficient A350 do to the 777.

However, if GE and Boeing can knock that advantage down to 10% - especially if Airbus and RR can't hit 25% as planned - then things start to change. The 777 is already a 9-abreast plane with wider seats and can do 10-abreast with (essentially) identical seat-width to the A350 at 9-abreast. It is also a fully proven design family with a decade of revenue service under her belt.

Theres a few problems.

1. RR wont be allowed put engines on new 777s.
2. GE wont want to do it themselves, as they would screw up their 115B investment and would then have an engine that would fit the A350 anyway.
3. A 25% improvement over the GE90-115 is very far fetched. As far as I have seen, the current GE90 engines have a very similar SFC to the engines on the A380 (maybe even better), which have a SFC of approx 5% higher than the engines on the 787, which will have a SFC of approx 2% higher than the engine on the A350. Son in essence, even the engine in development for the A350 which will enter service in 2013 only offers a ~8% SFC over the existing GE90-115 at best. A 25% improvement of the same engine (GE would likely base any future 777 engine on the GE90) would be extraordinary, if not simply impossible.
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 10):
Forgot to mention that the feeling is when the 787-10 is announced some of the 9 orders will be converted to 10's. I think this has been overted discussed with specific airlines and whether announced is written into contracts and expected.

Airbus better hope that the -10 offering is not announced and that Boeing does not commit to increasing the 787 production output any time soon. Because when they do, that will be the 350 killer IMO. Airbus may even see some of the early A350 orders converted to the 787-10.

I dont think Boeing will offer -10 for a few years when and until the 787 production line gets humming. They have time on their side regardless of the fact some airlines want a larger 787 derivative.

7E7 Too small??? LMAO.

It was never intended to capture the whole twin aisle market, just the very sweet spot of it. And they have oh so successfully.

HOBO
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:58 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 46):
Such as? The 777-300ER?

Along with the A350XWB-10 which it will struggle to compete with, ROI and Y3.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
bbobbo
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 53):
Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 45):
from yesterday's Boeing conference call

Ah, a decent source-- so you can be taught.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 49):
The quote that you pasted in your post states "can make" then you state he said they "will make" technology insertions. I can see why one wouldn't trust a quote from someone else

 checkmark 

Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 51):
So I misquoted myself.

...brilliance made manifest  sarcastic 

Let's see, I backed up the FlightGlobal article with direct quotes. You backed up your claims of "sources of equal-if-not-greater credibility" with ad hominems. Please teach me more, CorcordeBoy.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 23):
But they don't feel that the 358, 359 and 3510 suffer the same issue??? Intersting.

Both Airbus and Boeing have admitted that the 787 and A350 are not quite direct competitors of each other as they are not the same sizes. The A350 was designed to be bigger from the beginning and hence may attract those airlines which in general are after bigger planes.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 28):
Are you talking about Airbus here? -1000, -900???

Yeah I was referring to the Boeing. -10 and -9 if you prefer....something I have never really understood as being more than a gimmick...after all the JAL 787s for example are still 787-346 and 787-846.....absolutely no different to the numbering system they have adopted for years.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:42 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 54):
A 25% improvement of the same engine (GE would likely base any future 777 engine on the GE90) would be extraordinary, if not simply impossible.

The 25% fuel burn improvement need not come from the engines only. It may also come from aerodynamic improvements (better cruise L/D) or structural improvements (lighter OEW). Propulsion efficiency, structural efficiency and aerodynamic efficiency all show up in the bottom line fuel burn.

That being said, it is doubtful that the 777 could ever cost-effectively close such a huge efficiency gap with the A350. The only hope for the 777 is that Airbus misses their fuel burn numbers, by a lot. Another factor to consider is maintenance cost: the 777 will be an aluminum airframe with legacy avionics and legacy systems. All the cost advantages the 787 enjoys over aluminum airliners will also be enjoyed by the A350, when all is said (by Udvar Hazy) and done (by Airbus) Big grin
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:44 am

Quoting Kbdude (Reply 34):
huh... according to the BOEING website... the 777 program has 973 Firm orders. I think the 777 program has more than just paid itself off.... but has made handsome ROI for Boeing. In fact i expect it too break the 1000 firm order barrier late this year or early next year.

I think Qatar is looking to convert 20 777 options to firm later this year. So that would put them only 7 short. Easy as pie....HOBO
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:52 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 53):
the 772A/773ER/773A models aren't much for new sales as of late

I assume you meant the "772ER". The 773ER is selling rather well if you take a look at Boeing's O&D page.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:04 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 25):
I doubt you'll see a 787-10ER ever, as I'm guessing the stock 787-10 will be what we've often thought of the 787-10ER being. That opens up the 787-11 on the same platform + a stretch. My $0.02 anyway.

Agreed 100%

Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):

Who again stated the 7e7 was a little small again, 4 yrs ago?

The 787 is too small to sell really strongly in what will be the predominant widebody plane sales market in the 2010-2020 for delivery in the 2015-2025 timespan. At that point people will be looking to replace lots of 777's that were delivered between 1995 and 2005. That market is only just starting to emerge now and was really not there at all in 2004-2005.

The 787 was the exact right aircraft for when it was built. It need modifications to compete with the A350 which is targeted primarily at a different section of the market. There are no reason such modifications cannot be made making the 787 a more complete product line.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
Boeing have sold just under 800 of them, which considering the era and technology involved isn't enough.

Wow, how many planes would you consider a failure then?

The A330?
The A340?
The A300?

The 777 is closing in on 1,000 models which will put it way up on the list for sales of widebody aircraft.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
Secondly, for it to compete with the A350XWB-9 and A350XWB-10 it'll probably need a bit of re-engineering, adding expense to the programme and pulling engineers from other, more pressing matters after 787 EIS (Y1 and Y3).

Y3 is still pretty speculative at this point. What you need is a new wing and undercarriage for the 787. This will take a whole lot less engineers than a Y3 will and it will generate a better ROI at lower risk in a better market than whatever Y3 would.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
hirdly, Boeing pushing the size of the 787 could lead Airbus to consider an A350XWB-11, which would have similar R&D costs to a 787-10, with potentially more benefits for Airbus.

There is really no amount of people you can put in an A350 fuselage that you could not also put in a 787 fuselage of the same length. Assuming Boeing makes the 10 with a new wing, which I suspect they will, there is no reason they cannot match the A350 across the whole of the family.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
The A350XWB family with an -11 would look better than the 787 family, with the poorly-selling -3. An A350XWB-11 would really kill the 777 programme dead.

No, not really. If everyone built their programs out to the longest length you would be looking at the following lineups excluding the 787-3 since it is not comparable to anything that Airbus is planing to make. Since both are 9 wide airliners it is simplest to compare lengths.

Boeing Length Airbus
787-8 170 None
787-9 197-198 A350-800
787-10 ~220 A350-900
787-11 ~240 A350-1000
787-12 ~260 A350-1100

Now before you say that the prospective Boeing models do not exist I will concede that point. Then again at this point none of these planes exist. Boeing has one close to built, one is pretty much designed and will be built in a year or so. They would have 3 more planes to design, presumably they would need another wing and new undercarriage. The fuselage and cockpit are pretty much done.

Airbus has 3 planes to finish doing. If you want them to build a 1100 then they have four. Not sure how many wings they are doing but it is at least one and possibly two. They have to design 2 undercarriage setups. They have to design a cockpit and a fuselage. They have to design all the transport and production facilities for the same.

So basically Boeing is in a position it can, if it desires, compete with the A350 by investing in a new wing and new undercarriage. They already paid for the fuselage and cockpit. There would be 3 more major designs to do.

Airbus has 3 more designs to do just to get what it currently proposes into the air, 4 if you want to build an A350-1100. They have to design all the major components, figure out a way to produce them and then build them. Even at that point they will not cover the market the 787 would because they have nothing to match the 787-8 and the A350-800 is not really an optimal design with its current wing vs the 787-9.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
Fourthly, the 787 success has been with the -8 so far, the -9 accounts for only about 18% of 787 orders; assuming the -10 will sell less than that, the ROI doesn't look good.

That makes little sense, if the 10 will not sell well then why would Boeing need to worry about countering the A350-900 and A350-1000? The 787-9 has not sold as well primarily due to the fact that it was not around when the 787-8 was selling in pretty big numbers at program launch.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 39):
So it does! Still, are Boeing really willing on sacrificing all but the 777-300ER after just over 10 years of manufacture?

Well, they have been building the 777 for 12 years and they have a backlog that is long enough to push that out past 15. Most planes only really make it about 10 years in between major revisions anyway.

The 747-100/200 were about 1971.
The 747-300 was 1983.
The 747-400 was 1989.

You see the same thing for the 737
The 100 was launched in about 1970.
The classics were 1980 or so.
The NGs were 1993.

I would suspect it is not all that unusual for them.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 43):
Boeing needs to quickly decide on building the 787-10 or begin a 777 replacement that can be built fast, it could easily be a wider and longer 787 with redesigned wings and satisfy 777 owners, basically make the 777 composite ( not literally but just the basics) if there was a 777 sized 787 it would be a hit, so it is time for boeing to decide on what they want to do.

Why make it wider? It does not need to be any wider than the 787 currently is to compete with with the A350 and doing so would incur a lot of additional cost. If you need it soon it is to compete with the A350, if you are competing with the A350 you do not need to be wider.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 23):
But they don't feel that the 358, 359 and 3510 suffer the same issue??? Intersting.

Both Airbus and Boeing have admitted that the 787 and A350 are not quite direct competitors of each other as they are not the same sizes. The A350 was designed to be bigger from the beginning and hence may attract those airlines which in general are after bigger planes.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 28):
Are you talking about Airbus here? -1000, -900???

Yeah I was referring to the Boeing. -10 and -9 if you prefer....something I have never really understood as being more than a gimmick...after all the JAL 787s for example are still 787-346 and 787-846.....absolutely no different to the numbering system they have adopted for years.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:28 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):

Wow, how many planes would you consider a failure then?

The A330?
The A340?
The A300?

The 777 is closing in on 1,000 models which will put it way up on the list for sales of widebody aircraft.

Yes, but we're in an era where Boeing can sell 700 aircraft before they've even flown. Whilst the 777 programme has made a significant profit, Boeing will still be reluctant to canibalise it.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
Y3 is still pretty speculative at this point. What you need is a new wing and undercarriage for the 787. This will take a whole lot less engineers than a Y3 will and it will generate a better ROI at lower risk in a better market than whatever Y3 would.

Y3 is speculative, but is close enough for Boeing to consider it. It's doubtful whether it'll be larger than the 747-8i, so it doesn't take much to realise it'll be 777-300 to 747-8i sized. Boeing don't want to eat away at the lower end of that market with an under-optimised 787.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
There is really no amount of people you can put in an A350 fuselage that you could not also put in a 787 fuselage of the same length

From an economy point of view? Yes. From the point of view of other classes? No.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
Assuming Boeing makes the 10 with a new wing, which I suspect they will, there is no reason they cannot match the A350 across the whole of the family.

Given the optimisation of the entire 787 structure around the -8 it would take quite significant modifications to bring the 787-10 up to the same level of optimisation as the A350XWB, which is optimised from the start to be almost 50 tonnes heavier.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):

No, not really. If everyone built their programs out to the longest length you would be looking at the following lineups excluding the 787-3 since it is not comparable to anything that Airbus is planing to make. Since both are 9 wide airliners it is simplest to compare lengths.

Boeing need more work to create a 787-11 than Airbus does to create an A350XWB-1100. Assuming equal R&D, the A350XWB-1100 should come out the better performing, being designed a few years after the 787 and only two stretches away from the design point, not three.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):

That makes little sense, if the 10 will not sell well then why would Boeing need to worry about countering the A350-900 and A350-1000?

Boeing (and Airbus, to be fair) still have to prove that two stretches are possible. The 737-900 doesn't sell that well, the 767-400ER didn't sell well, the A340-600 doesn't sell well. The -10 will only sell well if it maintains the efficiency of the others, something the A350XWB-900 should do from the get go.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
The 787-9 has not sold as well primarily due to the fact that it was not around when the 787-8 was selling in pretty big numbers at program launch.

Since the first -9 order, Boeing has sold 265 -8s and 138 -9s, almost twice as many.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
Most planes only really make it about 10 years in between major revisions anyway.

Except Boeing other big twins. But yes, they should canibalise the 777 market entirely, from both ends. If Boeing don't, Airbus will.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
It does not need to be any wider than the 787 currently is to compete with with the A350 and doing so would incur a lot of additional cost. If you need it soon it is to compete with the A350, if you are competing with the A350 you do not need to be wider.

For the same amount of galley space, toilet space and first/business seating, a competing 787 has to be longer.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
QantasHeavy
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:47 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:55 pm

When will CX get its 77Ws and how many are they getting?

If they have a good experience with those I think, based on the A346 dissapointments, Boeing will be way ahead in the trust factor.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:59 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 64):
For the same amount of galley space, toilet space and first/business seating, a competing 787 has to be longer.

Why? They are the same size and really only differ in MTOW.

iwok
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:50 pm

Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 65):
If they have a good experience with those I think, based on the A346 dissapointments, Boeing will be way ahead in the trust factor.

Why? Because they had issues with three early-build and known to be overweight aircraft? The fact that they have ordered, re-ordered and re-ordered again one of the world's largest fleets of A330s (the largest if you include Dragonair) will count for nothing?

People read too much into the alleged woes of three leased A346s - planes which, I might add, they are still flying getting on for 5 years after taking delivery of them. I doubt if they've damaged Airbus's credibility much.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 39):
Quoting Kbdude (Reply 34):
the 777 program has 973 Firm orders.

So it does! Still, are Boeing really willing on sacrificing all but the 777-300ER after just over 10 years of manufacture?

Don't forget the 777F which has no direct competitor in its class with none on the horizon.

Quoting PM (Reply 67):
People read too much into the alleged woes of three leased A346s - planes which, I might add, they are still flying getting on for 5 years after taking delivery of them. I doubt if they've damaged Airbus's credibility much.

Except that CX didn't re-order A346's, choosing to take 773ER's instead. They should get the first of these in the Sept/Oct '07 time period.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:56 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 64):
Given the optimisation of the entire 787 structure around the -8

I may have missed it in this thread, but what was the source for the 787 being optimized around the 787-8 versus -9?

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27167
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:58 pm

ConcordeBoy and EI321 - Evidently my comment was not clear. I was referring to the Trent XWB on the A350 being 25% more efficient then the GE90 series, not to RR putting a new engine with greater then 100K lbs of thrust on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. So GE would need to make an engine much more efficient for the 77L and 77W for those two planes to successfully fight the A350.

Airbus swears the A350 will be (at least) 25% more efficient then the 777, and I can only imagine a large portion of that will come from the Trent XWB.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:02 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 68):
Except that CX didn't re-order A346's, choosing to take 773ER's instead. They should get the first of these in the Sept/Oct '07 time period.

Quite true and I wasn't for one second suggesting otherwise. I just doubt that Cathay's experience with three A346s has put them off Airbus for life. I'd see CX as being a very strong candidate for the A350 sooner or later.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:07 pm

Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 65):
When will CX get its 77Ws and how many are they getting?

September. 5/5/5/3 for the next 4 years.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
ConcordeBoy and EI321 - Evidently my comment was not clear. I was referring to the Trent XWB on the A350 being 25% more efficient then the GE90 series, not to RR putting a new engine with greater then 100K lbs of thrust on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. So GE would need to make an engine much more efficient for the 77L and 77W for those two planes to successfully fight the A350.

Wake up, because you are dreaming if you believe the Trent that will go on the A350 is 25 percent more efficeint then the GE90 on the 777NGs.

Cheers
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:42 pm

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 58):
Yeah I was referring to the Boeing. -10 and -9 if you prefer....something I have never really understood as being more than a gimmick...after all the JAL 787s for example are still 787-346 and 787-846.....absolutely no different to the numbering system they have adopted for years.

Okay, thanks. Gimmick or not, it makes it unclear when an "incorrect" designation is applied.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 73):
Wake up, because you are dreaming if you believe the Trent that will go on the A350 is 25 percent more efficeint then the GE90 on the 777NGs.

As a package, Airbus is claiming 25%, so why would you say "dreaming"?
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:37 pm

Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors? They aren't really. The A350XWB is Airbus' replacement for the A340 which is not competitive anymore. As that, it becomes a competitor to the 777. From a timing standpoint, the 787 is very well positioned as the successor to the 767 and with 700 +/- orders, it clearly has hit the current sweetspot in the market. From a timing standpoint, it isn't clear if the A350 isn't perhaps a bit early for its market. If it is too early, the risk is that Boeing will have a more capable competitor available when the majority of airlines with A340/777's look for a replacement. Its not that the A350XWB won't be a success, but after too many years focused on the A380, Airbus seems to be having problems getting in step with the market - too late for once cycle, too early for another.
 
sk909
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:56 pm

Another A vs B...

It's a never ending story.
Life's for Living!
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:00 pm

Quoting Klkla (Reply 26):
Reading between the lines

Nothing is written between the lines and the reader - therefore - can indeed read all of his or hers empty speculations in there...

Abba
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:12 pm

OAG,

Still a possibility to see more 346s coming to CX, just because they decided to purchase and lease some 773ERs does not mean that the 346 will automatically go, in fact its due to start a JNB-HKG-JFK service shortly. If CX do not get more of them, then yes they will go, but not because they have been unreliable, nor uneconomical, far from it, and one of the flight ops managers has said as much recently in an internal publication. This manager indicated that the main driver for them to leave the fleet will be for economies of scale, 3 aircraft is a micro fleet for management and maintenance. Two ways of fixing that, get rind of them, or get more, lots of arguments for and against this idea, and most of them are not along the lines of the normal a.net crap. The 346 is a better aircraft for CX over some routes, just like the 773ER is better over others, and pilots, we have 900+ airbus pilots, we can absorb a more 340s without the crew rosters becoming unreasonable, and the availability of delivery slots.

CX will be having a number of 777 crew bases in north america, I think the plan initially to open Toronto, then New York, and then move the east coast destinations, the core group of pilots on those bases will initially be filled internally and then recruiting direct entry first officers onto those bases.

As for the 777F, short term competitors are converted MD11s, 744BCF, long term A350F, all cheaper than the 777F.

I am sure there are routes that CX could deploy 787s and make a profit, but the question remains, are there other routes that they could deploy a larger aircraft and generate even more profit for the same number of frames using the most of our other assets like slots, crews, apron, and terminal space. CX could add another 20 profitable destinations from HKG now, but why bother doing that if they can get more money by increasing frequency and capacity onto existing ports, and therefore reduce the cost of operating to those ports.

CX has a history of building new routes with smaller aircraft, and then adding lager aircraft to that route later, and then adding frequencies with a smaller aircraft, replace that with a bigger one....like HKG-LHR, I would not be surprised to see that go 4 times daily with a 744 replacing the 340.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:31 pm

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
The 787 is too small to sell really strongly in what will be the predominant widebody plane sales market in the 2010-2020 for delivery in the 2015-2025 time span. At that point people will be looking to replace lots of 777's that were delivered between 1995 and 2005. That market is only just starting to emerge now and was really not there at all in 2004-2005.

Uhm, NO. The major market here is cleaning up the remains of the A300/A310 market, + 767 market + 100% LF 757 market, + international growth market. The early A340classic and A330 market is also on the edge of being ripe. The 777 market is NOT there yet, other than perhaps the 777-200A, which lets face it the 787-9 in 9Y still does a damn good job regardless of size difference. The Majority of the 777 market won't be replacing hulls for a long time to come. You might note that for many of the airlines that have ordered the 787 to date, they are EXPANSION orders, not replacement orders. Certainly we will see some (1/3?) of the orders on the books result in other frames leaving service, but it remains that most are already penciled in for opening new routes not currently operated.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 64):
Given the optimisation of the entire 787 structure around the -8 it would take quite significant modifications to bring the 787-10 up to the same level of optimisation as the A350XWB, which is optimised from the start to be almost 50 tonnes heavier.

I would point out to you that this means that the A350XWB in its 800 version will get absolutely ruined by the 787-8 much less the more comparable 787-9 if it actually arrives on the market wearing all those A350XWB-1000 parts. Seriously, a DOUBLE SHRINK? The last time this was a good idea was never. The next time this is a good idea is Never. If it was a shrink and a stretch off the 900 model its a bit better looking, but from what I recall of the argument in tech-ops is that the wing is/was sized for the 1000 model. AS will be the wingbox, and other components that will be overbuilt for the -800's use. However its my expectation that in the end the A350XWB will HAVE to shrink on its baseline down to the 900 at a minimum if they remain at this current crosssection.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 64):
Boeing need more work to create a 787-11 than Airbus does to create an A350XWB-1100. Assuming equal R&D, the A350XWB-1100 should come out the better performing, being designed a few years after the 787 and only two stretches away from the design point, not three.

Boeing can created a "1/2" new 787 without THAT much effort. If they do they can then optimize for only a 2 size span on both MTOW and length in their designs. CAD + carbon barrel construction means that "cut and paste" is easier than it was ever before. Still a good bit of money, but when you look at the advantages of being able to make was is effectively a whole new plane in terms of MTOW, length, and capability yet retain moderate commonality... Worse for airbus, their long (and IMO dumb) campaign to promote "cockpit commonality" as a major sales point would be suddenly completely OWNED by Boeing if they go this route. an Identical cockpit on what to regulators will look like the same old plane... suddenly Boeing has a common type rating for the ENTIRE non-VLA widebody market. From the "A310" market, to the 777-300ER market. The A350XWB, simply doesn't have that reach "down" given its massive size difference with its baseline to the current 787's baseline.

More to the point right now Airbus would need to convince RR to make the TrentXWB take another SERIOUS jump in size to meet the needs of the A350XWB-1100...

Anyhoo most importantly is the apparent abandonment of planes larger than the 777-300ER. You might have a VERY tough sell for a plane in this size class regardless of commonality with a smaller plane.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:55 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 79):
suddenly Boeing has a common type rating for the ENTIRE non-VLA widebody market.

The the 787 will be one type rating with differances, but will not be a common type rating with any other Boeing model, if anyone has told you otherwise they are wrong. Boeing is aiming for people to say fly a 777 and 787, but they will still need 2 type ratings, and will need to maintain 2 type ratings (means 2 lots of recurrent checks in a simulator and aircraft).

Common type ratings require emergency procedures to be the same, not the cockpit or display layout, for the emergency procedures to be the same, the systems would need to be similar (like 757/767) for a similar response in an emergency, 737/767/787/777/747 systems are all very different as you would expect with several decades of evolution.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:45 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 79):
suddenly Boeing has a common type rating for the ENTIRE non-VLA widebody market.

The the 787 will be one type rating with differances, but will not be a common type rating with any other Boeing model, if anyone has told you otherwise they are wrong. Boeing is aiming for people to say fly a 777 and 787, but they will still need 2 type ratings, and will need to maintain 2 type ratings (means 2 lots of recurrent checks in a simulator and aircraft).

Common type ratings require emergency procedures to be the same, not the cockpit or display layout, for the emergency procedures to be the same, the systems would need to be similar (like 757/767) for a similar response in an emergency, 737/767/787/777/747 systems are all very different as you would expect with several decades of evolution.

Your not much one for actualy reading before posting are you.

Its rather clear I was talking about a having a 787-8/787-9 & 787-10/787-11 dual family.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:01 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Boeing is aiming for people to say fly a 777 and 787, but they will still need 2 type ratings, and will need to maintain 2 type ratings (means 2 lots of recurrent checks in a simulator and aircraft).

Are the -200ER and -300ER 1 or 2-type rating ?
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:10 pm

The 777 family is just one type rating with a short differences course.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Range

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Your not much one for actualy reading before posting are you.

Its rather clear I was talking about a having a 787-8/787-9 & 787-10/787-11 dual family.

I did read the entire post, you said "suddenly Boeing has a common type rating for the ENTIRE non-VLA widebody market", and in your next sentence said "From the "A310" market, to the 777-300ER market", no 787 is in the 777-300ER market, nor is any on the current board being offered to any airline, it is an a.net pipe dream perpetuated by people like yourself.

You are fairly clueless on what it takes to stretch an aircraft, the barrel section is not what is key, it is the wing, wing box, engines and landing gear to get the correct geometry and performance for take-off and landing. The majority of the composites in the 787 is not in the fuselage, its in the wing, it has to carry the fuselage, engines, fuel, landing gear, the fuselage has much lower loads.

The only 787s available to Cathay are the 300/800/900, one cannot purchase anything else at the moment, and all of them are essentially too small. It looks like you will not be able to fly a 300 in Europe either with a JAR airline, so the A310 market is limited. FYI most Asian airlines follow JAR style regulations.

If you meant to write something else, I cannot help you make yourself express your thoughts clearly, that you have to do on your own. At the moment Boeing is not offering Cathay a "a common type rating for the ENTIRE non-VLA widebody market", which for Cathay would includes the 777, as according to you "The 777 market is NOT there yet, other than perhaps the 777-200A".
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
EI321
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Its rather clear I was talking about a having a 787-8/787-9 & 787-10/787-11 dual family.

The 787-10 design that I have seen is basically a stretched 787-9, what constitutes it belonging to another family?

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 82):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Boeing is aiming for people to say fly a 777 and 787, but they will still need 2 type ratings, and will need to maintain 2 type ratings (means 2 lots of recurrent checks in a simulator and aircraft).

Are the -200ER and -300ER 1 or 2-type rating ?

All 777's are on the same type rating. A pilot can fly a 777-300A one day and fly a 777-200LR the next.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:23 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

...because to a certain extent they are...i.e. such as the A358 and B789....
"Up the Irons!"
 
EI321
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:32 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 86):
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

...because to a certain extent they are...i.e. such as the A358 and B789....

To ALL extents they are competitors.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 41):
I''ve been wondering if the dreamlifter is capable of carrying larger barrel sections then what is requried for the 787-9??????

Yes. The 787 wings are considerably longer than any one fuselage barrel and the Dreamlifter can comfortably carry a wing set.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

Because Airbus needs to market it that way. They're not technical competitors, they're PR competitors.

Tom.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:51 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 85):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Its rather clear I was talking about a having a 787-8/787-9 & 787-10/787-11 dual family.

The 787-10 design that I have seen is basically a stretched 787-9, what constitutes it belonging to another family?

My origional statement was at the end of a statement about the possiblity of doing a "1/2" new 787-10/787-11 family.

It remains that Zeke can't read.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:06 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
Because Airbus needs to market it that way. They're not technical competitors, they're PR competitors.

Incorrect. Planes do not need to be exactly the same size to compete with each other. The sizes of the planes available on the market affect an airline's strategy more than the other way round. Only in rare occasions has an airline complete influence on the manufacturer to produce exactly what it wants. So by all means planes of different sizes do compete.

An example would be A350 v B787. Do I stick with a good number of A350s and forget about the B787 to fly once daily? Or I can have an enormous number of B787s and fly multiple times to the same destination each day? Should I go for a mix? These are all competing strategies within an airline and will influence their procurement.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:17 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 89):
It remains that Zeke can't read

You are correct, when you fail to express in words what you are thinking, I cannot read what you do not write.

I am not a mind reader.....
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:41 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 87):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 86):
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

...because to a certain extent they are...i.e. such as the A358 and B789....

To ALL extents they are competitors.

..ok...that might be, but the A358 and B789 are direct competitors.... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:59 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 78):
Still a possibility to see more 346s coming to CX, just because they decided to purchase and lease some 773ERs does not mean that the 346 will automatically go,

Time will tell. If the 773ER wasn't better than the A346 for the majority of CX's current and future routes, why did CX order the 773ER? Wouldn't it have made more sense for CX to have simply re-ordered the A346? At the least, this would have avoided adding another engine type (GE90) to their maintenance burden.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 78):
As for the 777F, short term competitors are converted MD11s, 744BCF, long term A350F, all cheaper than the 777F.

The only possible way a MD11 or a 744BCF is cheaper than a 777F is acquisition costs. The 777F has a large operational cost advantage in terms of trip cost and ton-mile costs. And while the A350F might have better operational costs, its acquisition costs are unknown. You can't even order one today and EIS is a least 10 years out.

Besides, my original response was pointing out that the 773ER isn't the only 777 product that is selling well today and will not impacted by 787/A350 developments for a number of years.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:30 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 93):
Time will tell. If the 773ER wasn't better than the A346 for the majority of CX's current and future routes, why did CX order the 773ER?

Its was cost driven, Boeing had a sharper pencil.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 93):
Wouldn't it have made more sense for CX to have simply re-ordered the A346?

They have always been leased, and to turn your argument around, if the 773ER was so great, why did the 346 last for so long ? Why did the lease get extended again and again ?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 93):

The only possible way a MD11 or a 744BCF is cheaper than a 777F is acquisition costs.

If you already own the 744s, like CX, an investment of 10-15 million and 90 days later you can have a BCF, you can convert 10 BCFs for for the price of a new 777F. 10x744BCFs have a vast advantage over one 777F.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:41 pm

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 90):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 88):
Because Airbus needs to market it that way. They're not technical competitors, they're PR competitors.

Incorrect. Planes do not need to be exactly the same size to compete with each other. The sizes of the planes available on the market affect an airline's strategy more than the other way round.

You're correct in general, planes of different sizes can compete against one another due to market pressure. However, that's not what's going on with the A350 and 787. The A350 was built to take the 777's market. It is being pitched as a 787 competitor because Airbus must be seen as responding to the success of the 787 but that's not what the A350 is designed for.

Tom.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13958
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:55 pm

Cathay are now operating both the A330 and 777 family.

Cathay smallest WB fleet types are A330-300 configurated 311 seat for regional medium haul operations and 251 seat for three class medium / long haul operations.

Unless they want to downscale on the many 1 -2 flights a day operations the 787-8 and 787-9 are simply to small.

In Asia's / China's rapidly growing market even the 787-10 might be small as BigJKU summarized (thnx!).

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 62):
Boeing Length Airbus
787-8 170 None
787-9 197-198 A350-800
787-10 ~220 A350-900
787-11 ~240 A350-1000
787-12 ~260 A350-1100

Add to this the A350 will offer a much more realistic 9 abreast cabin then a Boeing 787 for a Premium carrier like Cathay Pacific, and it becomes clear to me Boeing has some homework to do to avoid Cathay going for the A350 XWB-900 and/or A350XWB-1000 in the future.

Be reminded they are not in a hurry ( excellent A333's availabe in good numbers ) and 787-10 won't be availble before an A350-900, and there might be some other business taken into account.

http://www.airbus.com/en/airbuslive/bourget-2007/img/getOptionMedia.htm?id=698
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
They have always been leased, and to turn your argument around, if the 773ER was so great, why did the 346 last for so long ? Why did the lease get extended again and again ?

When did CX put out the RFP for the A346/773ER evaluation? CX signed up for their current A346's before the 773ER was offerable. The 773ER won the first head-to-head competition at CX and the 773ER's they will receive this fall are the first ones available after the acquisition decision was made.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
If you already own the 744s, like CX, an investment of 10-15 million and 90 days later you can have a BCF, you can convert 10 BCFs for for the price of a new 777F. 10x744BCFs have a vast advantage over one 777F.

And other airlines don't have any 744's to convert. The 777F market goes far beyond CX.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5631
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
I think the numbers of 787 ordered are very impressive. However the line of major airlines that have not chosen the 787 for various reasons is also impressive. BA, LH, AF/KLM, AA, UA, DL, CX, MH, EK, ..

No airplane can fulfill ALL requirements. That's why they build families.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 23):

But they don't feel that the 358, 359 and 3510 suffer the same issue??? Intersting.



Quoting EI321 (Reply 24):
Personally I'm a bit sceptical that boeing would optimise the 787 around the -8. The smaller end of the market wont be where the long term orders will come from IMO, and thats also what has been indicated by market forecasts.

I think the difference here is that the A350-800 is a shrunk A350-900, whereas the 787-9 is a stretched 787-8. It is largely a case of designed MTOW and wing geometry.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 38):
I do recall reading a quote from Boeing management stating that it was better to have "one cannibalise one's own product than having the competition eat it"...

I am so tired of reading posts saying that Boeing will not build a larger 787 or Y3 because they want to protect the 777. By this logic they should have never built the 757 to protect the 707, and they should have never built the 737NG to protect the Classics. Have you guys never heard of competition? Boeing can offer the 777 until Hell freezes over, but if they're more economical alternatives out there it won't sell. Ever heard of the A350? If Boeing does not offer something comparable in the larger sizes the A350-1000 will totally destroy the 777. Even though it cannot match the 777-300ER in capacity it will beat the tar out of it on CASM, so it will effectively kill it. The only question for Boeing is whether to stretch the 787 to match the A350, or to launch Y3. Personally, I think they'll do the latter. Tarting up the 777 is a loser; they shouldn't even think about it. I think statements that they are considering it are just fodder for the press and A-net; I think Boeing management is smart enough to know it's a non-starter.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 75):
Why are the A350XWB and 787 being treated as competitors?

Because they are, just as the 767 and A333 are. The point is if you want a midsized widebody from Boeing you buy the 787; if you want one from Airbus you buy the A350. It's not like cars, where you can buy just about any permutation of sizes and options your heart can conceive of.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:36 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 97):
When did CX put out the RFP for the A346/773ER evaluation? CX signed up for their current A346's before the 773ER was offerable. The 773ER won the first head-to-head competition at CX and the 773ER's they will receive this fall are the first ones available after the acquisition decision was made.

Boeing had people in the office pushing the 773ER before the 346 even came on the scene....and the lease was renewed again after the 773ER launch/EIS.....

You are ignoring the fact is the performance was THAT good, CX would have gone to ILFC and said replace those 346 aircraft with 773ERs and bypassed the RFP.

The price difference between the two over the order was considerable, and could not be ignored. You are assuming the competition was won on performance or capability, it was won on cost, and I would assume it would be one of the lowest prices paid per 773ER airframe by any customer.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 97):
And other airlines don't have any 744's to convert. The 777F market goes far beyond CX.

But the thread is about CX....would it not be better for CX to convert their existing 744s to BCFs and get another decade out of them, and purchase new 773ER/748/380s to replace them ? Same goes for the 330/340s.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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