PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 4:35 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 145):
Settle down people
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 145):
Please people start thinking critically here.

I think it might be nice to avoid the somewhat condescending tone.   It's just a conversation.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Don’t shoot the messenger, if it was not a 777 derivative, it would not be called a 777X, it would be called something else like a 7F7.

Well, I believe the 777 may have begun as a 767 derivative, though that doesn't necessarily mean anything. From a thread back in 2000:

"The 767X grew into something that was completely different to the 767, and was a completely new aircraft. hence earning a new product name, 777. However, the 747X is basically just a medium scale modification of the 747, not a completly new aircraft. More than likely, the X will become 747-500, and the XStretch the 747-600."

-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.
 
mayohoo
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:15 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 4:20 pm

So to try and fairly summarize (first post):

The 787-8 is out and after PIP and fine tuning will be a fine airplane and better than predecessors (2013). The -9 will be out (2014) and will build on the -8 experience and will likely itself be a fine airplane and better than predecessors. Rampup of both models is ? but might be on track to 10/year with a predicted back-log of 6-7 years (2018-9). The -9 will compete with the 350-8. A 787-10 has been suggested and might be launched in 2013 for shorter range regional flights that would compete with the 350-8, 9.

The 350-8 might be at a slight disadvantage to the 787-9 but will feature commonality to the 350-9. The 350-9 will be a fine airplane and better than predecessors (777-200, 300). It is optimized for its slot. EIS is 2015 but delays and issues with ramp-up have been suggested. Predicted back-log of the -8, -9 is 6-7 years (2019-20?).

The 350-10 is being slotted at the 777-300ER and is likely better than the competition now...but the proposed 777-8x, 9x are comparable IF you can fill a larger plane or IF you desire better cargo capacity. The 350-10 is predicted to be available in 2017 (18?), the 777-8x-9x in 2019?.

If I were an airline planner looking at 2018-2020, I would look at 787-8, 9 for point to point and regional flights. For larger capacity flights I would look at the 350-9 or possibly a 787-10. If I need even larger capacity I would look at the 350-10, 777-8x, 9x.

If I were an Airbus planner looking at the 2018-2020 time frame, I would be concerned about getting the 350 program on track now as I see future orders being taken by my competitions larger portfolio offering ie 787-9, 10 below and 777-8x, 9x above. Once flying, the ramp-up has to be without major glitches as I may not be able to offer the -10 in significant numbers until 2020? since my back-log is >500 planes already.

If I were a Boeing planner, I would be concerned my engineers can't deliver what I have promised (777-8x, 9x) or that my industrial ramp up will be problematic (changing the 777 line over may be disruptive?). I theoretically could offer 777-8x and 9x variants in significant numbers by 2019-20? My strategy would be to try and do an Anaconda maneuver and squeeze from above and below based on comparable product and better availability.

Does this sound right?
 
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 6:32 pm

Seeing how the 737MAX grew in changes maybe the 77X will too. Any word on new Al-Li skin? 7% lighter and yet stronger than Al..maybe 7% higher priced too?

Engines..The GE90 is quite old, is it possible to rework that much? The new wings, well they did a great design for the 787 wing and the 748 wing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 6:45 pm

Boeing's O&D update today shows no new 787 cancellations, so I continue to believe that the reports about the 25 cancellations "this month" in fact refers to the 24 cancelled by China Eastern and Shanghai Airlines earlier this year (as well as the other one by another airline).

[Edited 2012-05-10 11:50:51]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 150):
Well, I believe the 777 may have begun as a 767 derivative, though that doesn't necessarily mean anything. From a thread back in 2000:

The 767X was a different machine. Boeing was looking for a way to fill a opportunity in the market with more seats, they initially looked at a partially double deck 767X, however then decided on the wider single deck 777. The rest is history.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The 777 did indeed start life under the moniker "767X", but it was not meant to be a 767 derivative (like the "Hunchback of Mukilteo" above).

Indeed, the 777 moniker dates all the way back to the development of the 757 and 767. It was designed as the third member of the family, offering three engines - two under the wings and one in the tail (ala the 727).

Early Boeing 777 Design (Circa 1977). Would have been part of the 757 and 767 families.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Thu May 10, 2012 9:58 pm

The Hunchback was certainly an unattractive bird. I was thinking it started as a 767 stretch, but obviously that is not correct. Thanks for the pics.

-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.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 3:54 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 131):
And secondly, because the sweet spot of the market sits where the sweet spot of the A350 family is. Having a fleet of large twins, that spans over any need between 300 and 350 seats (and with some exceptions down to 250 seats), is much more natural, than having a new 777 generation that has the sweet spot at >400 seats (and with some exceptions also covers 350 seats).

That is based on the assumption that the "sweet spot", as it were, doesn't move over time. When you consider the number of carriers that operate the 77W with more than 350 seats - EK, AF, KL, JJ - just to name a few off the top of my head, clearly there is a case for a larger 777. Increasingly, carriers are wanting more capacity in order to fill the gap that the 744 leaves when it is retired. The 407-seat 777-9X is the answer to that dilemma, where the 777-300ER is not quite big enough to replace a 744.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 131):
Boeing won't keep their current 777 market share,

I agree. While the 777 currently dominates its market, when the next generation 777X and A350 arrives, that market will become a duopoly, with both having more or less an equal share.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 131):
But the 778X won't be able to overcome that penalty by just growing bigger. At a comparable capacity it will offer excessive range & payload but not so good fuel burn.

Not according to ferpe's calculations. If they are correct, then the 777-8X will match fuel burn per seat figures with the A35J, and the 777-9X will beat it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 131):
The 787 and the 748 are the only aircraft in the last 30 years (except the MD11) that have shipped with performance and timeline shortfalls. And of course the A380 has been shipped with timeline shortfalls. And the A350 will as well. But the promised performance has been delievered by Airbus at each instance (with some very minor exceptions).

The hard bit to swallow is the 77X propaganda from Boeing IMO.

Propaganda? It works both ways, you know. I find that Airbus' claims for the A35J a bit hard to swallow too. As I have said before, whenever a manufacturer compares its product with an opposition's product, it should be taken with a grain of salt, as the figures are more likely than not to have been "massaged" to make their product look better. This goes both ways. In contrast, a manufacturer is less likely to "massage" the figures of their future product, making their current product look decidedly inferior, lest they turn customers off buying their current product. If Airbus had claimed that their A35J is 25% more efficient per seat than their A346, I'd believe them. Likewise, if Boeing are saying that the 777-9X will have a 21% fuel cost per seat over the 777-300ER, I'd believe them.

Need I remind you, that the only target the original 777 program missed was budget. The 777-300ER exceeded design specifications.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 131):
If the A351 would be 5% off from the goals (which might be realistic) and the 77X too (which appears to be even more realistic), the A351 would still be 10% more fuel efficient per seat. And I tell you that the A351 goals are much more credible than anything Boeing is claiming about the 77X (nobody rejected my wonderland remark about the 77X). I repeat: Boeing is planning to increase the payload and the capacity and the wingspan, as well as the wingarea but, at the same time reducing the weight and the thrust requirements significantly. This is a pure and utter joke. Sorry. The A351 is a very defined entity in comparison.

You're forgetting that larger wings, made from composite materials, will probably both reduce weight and add lift - or at least, add lift without adding weight. There's also going to be a wider cabin through the use of thinner and lighter insulation, which allows for a greater seat count, thus improving its fuel burn per seat figures. There's also the possibility that the fuselage skin will be made from a new alloy. Oh, and brand new engines which are newer than the Trent XWB. At this early stage of the program, anything's possible. Or, dare I use Adidas' slogan ... 'Impossible is Nothing'.

Quoting sweair (Reply 152):
Engines..The GE90 is quite old, is it possible to rework that much? The new wings, well they did a great design for the 787 wing and the 748 wing.

My understanding is that it'll have brand new engines from either GE, RR or PW. Boeing has sent out an RFP to all three engine manufacturers. More details about the 777X's proposed engines are here.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 7:32 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 157):
That is based on the assumption that the "sweet spot", as it were, doesn't move over time.

Fair point, it seems the sweet point for twins is moving upwards since 10 years. Consider that the traditional 767-size will not be covered anymore at all.

Nevertheless I would not assume that the sweet spot will soon shift away far from the size of the 77W. Because there is also an opposite trend. If the smaller aircraft is as efficient or even beats the larger aircraft, there is a significant trend to pick the smaller aircraft. Best evidence for this are 77Ws that started to replace 744s in large numbers. IMO shifting the sweet spot to a smaller size in order to operate a more efficient aircraft is even the main market mechanism that has boosted the 77W. From this we can learn that efficiency trumps over raw capability. If the capability is similar the more efficient aircraft wins.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 157):
As I have said before, whenever a manufacturer compares its product with an opposition's product, it should be taken with a grain of salt, as the figures are more likely than not to have been "massaged" to make their product look better.

I don't agree because Airbus knows the capabilities of the 77W as good as Boeing. So both are comparing against the same, known quantity.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 157):
You're forgetting that larger wings, made from composite materials, will probably both reduce weight and add lift - or at least, add lift without adding weight.

Larger wings will have better L/D (as you say) but reducing take off thrust by 15% for the same MTOW does not pass the smell test IMO.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 157):
There's also going to be a wider cabin through the use of thinner and lighter insulation, which allows for a greater seat count, thus improving its fuel burn per seat figures.

When 787 started to be seen as 9-abreast, Boeing had to alter the figures: obviously the aircraft gained seatcount but it also lost range. As an additional effect the empty weight grew as well and to counter that the MTOW had to be increased. So, it is fine to increase the seatcount. But there is a penalty in OEW, Range and MTOW that contradicts the claims about the 77X even more. Because the 77X bets massively on an increased seatcount, Boeing will have to counter an increased OEW and lost range. And all this shall be realistic thanks to new wings and new engines?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 10:15 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
If the smaller aircraft is as efficient or even beats the larger aircraft, there is a significant trend to pick the smaller aircraft.

The 764ER has a lower fuel burn than the A332. Yet the A332 outsold the 764ER many times over. From that, we can deduce that capacity and capability are still very important factors.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
From this we can learn that efficiency trumps over raw capability. If the capability is similar the more efficient aircraft wins.

  

"Efficiency" is but one of the factors that airlines take into account when making aircraft purchasing decisions. Your continual over-emphasis on "efficiency" is a very one-sided and narrow minded argument. I don't dispute that the 777X will probably burn more fuel per trip than the A35J. It may even burn a little more fuel per seat, depending on how the airlines choose to configure it. But the 777-9X as proposed wins on capabilities because it can carry a greater payload up to 7000nm than the A35J. The billion dollar question is whether the 777X can make more money per trip than it loses due to an inherent weight disadvantage as the larger aircraft to the A35J. If the 777-9X does everything Boeing expects it to - namely, a 16% drop in operating costs per seat and 21% reduction in fuel burn per seat over the 777-300ER, it may be a very attractive proposition for the increasing number of carriers that need an aircraft larger than the 777-300ER - evidenced by an increasing number of them "cramming" 10-abreast in economy with a total seat count greater than 350.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
I don't agree because Airbus knows the capabilities of the 77W as good as Boeing. So both are comparing against the same, known quantity.

Airbus also knows the capabilities of the A346. Why didn't they compare the A35J with the A346? I wouldn't have a problem with such a comparison.

In my (admittedly rather extreme) view, the marketers from one company should be legally barred from making comparisons with a competitor's product. They should only be allowed to compare against their own product. Just give out the figures and let the customers make the comparison.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
Larger wings will have better L/D (as you say) but reducing take off thrust by 15% for the same MTOW does not pass the smell test IMO.

MTOW for the 777-9X is 344t, as opposed to the 777-300ER's 352t. Source.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
Because the 77X bets massively on an increased seatcount, Boeing will have to counter an increased OEW and lost range. And all this shall be realistic thanks to new wings and new engines?

... and lighter fuselage skin; as well as lighter, thinner insulation ...

The 777-9X carries 11% more passengers than the 777-300ER and burns 21% less fuel per seat. Ergo, the 777-9X's fuel burn per trip will be lower than that of the 777-300ER. As such, I'm willing to bet that the 777-9X will not weigh any more than the 777-300ER. Also, the 777-9X and 777-8X will have more range than the 777-300ER and 777-200ER respectively. Your assertion that the 777X will have an increased OEW and decreased range contradicts what Boeing are saying about it, and I'm more inclined to take Boeing's word over yours.

[Edited 2012-05-11 03:18:41]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 10:33 am

Did Boeing mention Al-Li skin? Or is this something we have added here? According to Alcoa its Al-Li alloy is 7% lighter than older Al alloys, how much would that do for the total skin? I guess you could replace all Al with Al-Li if cost is not a problem.

7% lighter, but how much does the 777 skin weigh? I know its not possible but wouldn't a bleed-less system save even more weight on a larger frame?
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 11:55 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):
The 777-9X carries 11% more passengers than the 777-300ER and burns 21% less fuel per seat.

Of course when you compare the 9 abreast 77W with the 10 abreast 777X. Do not know if this is the savings that AF and EK will get.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):
But the 777-9X as proposed wins on capabilities because it can carry a greater payload up to 7000nm than the A35J. The billion dollar question is whether the 777X can make more money per trip than it loses due to an inherent weight disadvantage as the larger aircraft to the A35J.

So to make money using the 777X, it has to be fully loaded with 405 passengers and cargo all the time. This is going to be a very small niche. Kind of the B757-300, or the B767-400, or the A340-600. Nice going Boeing.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 1:11 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 160):
Did Boeing mention Al-Li skin? Or is this something we have added here?
Quote:
Under the skin of the new 777X family, which is likely to be advanced aluminum-lithium alloy
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

It is a possibility that has been discussed before. Boeing looked at using Al-Li on the original 777 but dismissed the idea due to its propensity for cracking. With advancements in alloy technology, it is probable that Boeing might reconsider using newer alloys in an effort to reduce weight.

Quoting panais (Reply 161):
Of course when you compare the 9 abreast 77W with the 10 abreast 777X. Do not know if this is the savings that AF and EK will get.

Maybe not, but if the 10-abreast 777 operators are evidence of anything, it's that there's a need for a larger 777. EK are one of the strongest proponents of the 777X, and I would argue that any current 77W operator that configures its aircraft with more than 350 seats is a potential 777-9X customer. The 777-9X is needed to fill in the gap that the 744 leaves when it is retired, and by the time the 777-9X EIS, the 744 will be all but gone from pax service.

Quoting panais (Reply 161):
So to make money using the 777X, it has to be fully loaded with 405 passengers and cargo all the time. This is going to be a very small niche. Kind of the B757-300, or the B767-400, or the A340-600. Nice going Boeing.

Funny, that's the same argument that Airbus afficionados dismiss as nonsense when it is applied to the A380.

There is a market out there for the 777X. Any current 777 operator that operates their aircraft with a 10-abreast configuration in Y is a potential 777X customer because they clearly need that extra capacity that the 777X offers, along with operators phasing out 744s who needs something marginally larger than the current 777-300ER to replace them one for one.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 1:34 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):
Why didn't they compare the A35J with the A346? I wouldn't have a problem with such a comparison.

For us it would be useless. First because we would not have a common data point. And second because the wiggle room to account for the difference between 77W and A356 would create a much larger room for interpretation overall than we have now.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):
Larger wings will have better L/D (as you say) but reducing take off thrust by 15% for the same MTOW does not pass the smell test IMO.

MTOW for the 777-9X is 344t, as opposed to the 777-300ER's 352t. Source.

Which makes the 77X claims less credible. It was an admission from my side that MTOW would stay about the same (less than 5% deviation).

It means that the 77X will carry more payload, more OEW, more wingspan, more wingarea, but less MTOW and considerably less take off thrust. Is that credible? I would say if Boeing can fabicate miracles, they would not struggle that much to reach just parity with a company like Airbus. I do admit, because of their WB business they will likely achieve parity with Airbus in the near future.

Quoting panais (Reply 161):
Do not know if this is the savings that AF and EK will get.

Of course the savings per seat for EK and AF won't nearly be as large as for 9 abreast 77W operators.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 1:52 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162):
There is a market out there for the 777X.

No doubt about that.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162):
Any current 777 operator that operates their aircraft with a 10-abreast configuration in Y is a potential 777X customer because they clearly need that extra capacity that the 777X offers,

Can also argue the other way around. They might prefer the A350-1000 and drop 40 economy class passengers and user their weight to carry more profitable cargo. It works differently for each airline.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162):
operators phasing out 744s who needs something marginally larger than the current 777-300ER to replace them one for one.

Agree and this might be the role of the B777X. Pull an A340-600 on the B747-400 and the B747-8.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 2:06 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 163):
It means that the 77X will carry more payload, more OEW, more wingspan, more wingarea, but less MTOW and considerably less take off thrust. Is that credible?

Why wouldn't it be? The 777-300ER needs a high MTOW to tank fuel for long-haul missions. Reduce that fuel load through more efficient engines and better aerodynamics and you can dial back the TOW while not crippling your range.



Quoting panais (Reply 164):
Can also argue the other way around. They might prefer the A350-1000 and drop 40 economy class passengers and use their weight to carry more profitable cargo. It works differently for each airline.

It's possible they can carry the passengers and the cargo with the 777X...
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 163):
Which makes the 77X claims less credible. It was an admission from my side that MTOW would stay about the same (less than 5% deviation).

It means that the 77X will carry more payload, more OEW, more wingspan, more wingarea, but less MTOW and considerably less take off thrust. Is that credible?

More payload ... check. More wing area ... check. Less MTOW ... check. Less thrust ... check.

So where on earth did you get more OEW from? Boeing hasn't released its OEW figures yet. As I said before,

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):
The 777-9X carries 11% more passengers than the 777-300ER and burns 21% less fuel per seat. Ergo, the 777-9X's fuel burn per trip will be lower than that of the 777-300ER. As such, I'm willing to bet that the 777-9X will not weigh any more than the 777-300ER.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the technical expertise to understand much about aircraft design, and it's quite possible that I made a mathematical error as I'm hopeless with numbers. But despite the fact that the 777X will have a larger wing and longer fuselage, that larger wing could be made almost entirely of composite materials. That longer fuselage could have an all new Al-Li (or other alloy) skin. That wider cabin is made possible by the use of thinner and lighter insulation materials. The 777 is currently 10% composite by weight. With advancements in technology, more and more components can be made from lighter materials. It is not always true that the larger aircraft will weigh more, particularly when you take into account technological advancements that have been made in the time since the 777 entered service. There is some weight that can be shed from the 777 frame which, along with fuel burn improvements, will make the 777X a very competitive aircraft.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 3:26 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 159):

In my (admittedly rather extreme) view, the marketers from one company should be legally barred from making comparisons with a competitor's product. They should only be allowed to compare against their own product. Just give out the figures and let the customers make the comparison.

That’s not how sales campaigns work. It’s up to Etihad or whomever is comparing the airplanes to realistically ask questions and do their own analysis. I don’t see a problem with them proposing comparison numbers, just with the understanding that they are not objective facts.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 158):

I don't agree because Airbus knows the capabilities of the 77W as good as Boeing. So both are comparing against the same, known quantity.

Surely you haven't forgotten the thread about manufacturers massaging numbers and this confusing chart:

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/blockfuel-neo-v-max1.jpg

When comparing numbers, Airbus says the A320 is as much as 7% more efficient than the 738 while Boeing says the 738 is as much as 8% more efficient depending on assumptions. That's a difference in 15% on two existing models. When speculating about future models, the difference is 20%!!!

I agree with CXB77L. Numbers comparing different manufacturers have too many variables and assumptions that have to be made to be actually useful to the untrained eye.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 163):
It means that the 77X … more OEW

Sorry for the partial quote, but is it true that it will have more OEW? More use of composites will bring weight down. A stretch will bring weight up. I haven’t seen numbers on what the final OEW will be. Have you seen them?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 167):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 163):It means that the 77X … more OEW
Sorry for the partial quote, but is it true that it will have more OEW? More use of composites will bring weight down. A stretch will bring weight up. I haven’t seen numbers on what the final OEW will be. Have you seen them?

My estimates suggest that B777-9X should be heavier by 5,000 lbs. than B77W. It could be more, but is less likely to be lower than 5,000 lbs.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 168):
My estimates suggest that B777-9X should be heavier by 5,000 lbs. than B77W.
zeke believes it will be closer to 12,000.

If an EK 777-9 burns only 10% less trip fuel than an EK 777-300ER, that would be around 11 metric tons of savings for DXB-JFK. So add in 6t of OEW and you still come out 5t lighter at take-off. Reduce trip fuel by 15% and you end up almost 11t lighter.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 5:04 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 167):
Numbers comparing different manufacturers have too many variables and assumptions that have to be made to be actually useful to the untrained eye.

Indeed - and then there's the fact that comparisons will depend heavily on how an airline uses the airplane.

For example, LH says that their analysis shows that the 737 MAX will be 2% more efficient than the A320NEO (didn't say on what basis), retaining the status quo, i.e. the difference is the same as between the current A320 vs 737NG.
Qantas, on the other hand, states that in their operations, there is virtually no difference between the two types.
Leeham.net has a slightly longer piece on this - it's off-topic in the sense that it doesn't mention the A350-1000 (it does mention EK's push for Boeing to get a move on the 777X, though), but it does illustrate what to make of manufacturer's comparisons, so I think it's still relevant.

As an aside: If Airbus' and Boeing's claims of 7% or 8% better, respectively, were true, it would also mean that 50% of all airlines (those that bought the competitor's product) were completely irrational. Hardly true.
42
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 5:14 pm

I have a feeling a stretch past 773 is sub optimal, sort of like the 346 was. I vote for the Y3, aim for EIS about 2025, do a small upgrade to the current 77W, new engines and some weight trimming.
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Fri May 11, 2012 9:55 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 161):
So to make money using the 777X, it has to be fully loaded with 405 passengers and cargo all the time.

Where do you come up with that? As I read it, the analysis shows that when you load it up with 405 and cargo, you will make MORE money than an A350. However, you can still make money, and lots of it, with less than 405 passengers, just less than you potentially could with the A350.

It's not like you make more than an A350 at 405 passengers but lose your shorts at 404...
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 169):
If an EK 777-9 burns only 10% less trip fuel than an EK 777-300ER, that would be around 11 metric tons of savings for DXB-JFK. So add in 6t of OEW and you still come out 5t lighter at take-off. Reduce trip fuel by 15% and you end up almost 11t lighter.

Looking at the numbers at B77W design range:

............................MTOW......................OEW(lbs.)
B77W..................775,000....................370,000
B777-9X..............759,000....................375,000(my estimate)

As per the FG article linked below, B777-9X is expected to have an MTOW of 759,000(16,000 lbs. less than B77W). At B77W's design range of 7,930 nm, and at 10% lower trip fuel burn than B77W, B777-9X should burn about 4,400 gallons less(30,000 lbs.) less fuel.

Roughly speaking, adding up the lower MTOW of 16,000 lbs. and 5,000 lbs. in higher OEW of B777-9X, and 8,000 lbs. of extra passenger weight(407-365 seats at 210 lbs.) equals the 30000 lbs.

B777-9X with 2% lower MTOW coupled new engines and wings should be able to achieve 10% and more in lower trip fuel burn.

I am comfortable with a range of 5,000-10,000lbs. in higher weight for B777-9X over B77W.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/
Quote:
The 407-passenger, 76.48m (250ft 11in) long 777-9X, a four-frame stretch of the 777-300ER, would likely lead the new family. It would be powered by two General Electric GE9X engines, each providing 99,500lb of thrust, and have a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 344t (759,000lb).
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 2:10 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 119):
Or is that because you just like to choose the metric that suits you best?

No, it's because the A350-1000, as I understand it, has received 75 gross orders (62 net, apparently).

I think it's reasonable to question whether the 351 is actually what the market wants and whether Boeing has squeezed it with the 77Ws timing and the prospect of the 77X.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 119):
No. And if you had actually read my post you would know that.

I was trying to demonstrate an (assumed) unintended conclusion from your argument. Sorry if the nuance was lost.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 119):
And yes, I do remember the huge A350 Mk. I embarassment quite vividly. And the A380 and A400M delays, in case you were wondering.

I'm not really trying to go on an Airbus bash here. I'm saying that the groundwork was laid from the A346 to the first iterations of the 350 to what we have now, for Airbus to essentially be strategically squeezed by Boeing in the 350-400 seat segment. They got it right with the 359, jury is out on the 358 (though pre-EIS, it's a bit cheeky to make any declaration of success or otherwise) and there's really no competitive offering in the 200-270 seat space. But with the 351, no matter how you look at the orders, and the behaviour of existing customers, it's just not looking too rosey at the moment.

Perhaps the 351 will become the 773 of the family, with Airbus later pursuing a beefed up version that could trump the 77X. But that's a long way down the road.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 3:25 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 140):
If you look at the A350-1000 specifically, at launch, it's EIS was 9 years away. All of the existing A350-1000 orders were placed in 2007 and 2008, at which point the entire A350 backlog was well in excess of 9 years.
And at that point, I think reality (and the GFC) bit.
No A350-1000's have been ordered since then, but equally, in the last 4 years only 68 A350's in totasl have been ordered.
In the current economic climate, 9 years is in my opinion, way too long to wait.

How times have changed... In the 30's, 40's, 50's, that would have been almost the entire service life of quite a few airliners... Like the H.P.42...
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
5MillionMiler
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:35 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 7:35 am

Interesting that with the 380 and 787 experiences customers are wary of promises in terms of delivery times and performance.

The 777 and A330 are know quantities and perform very well in their missions, and new improvements to them continue to add reliable performance enhancements. Much less risk and pay-off sooner.

While I think Qantas made some fleet planning mistakes, specifically the 77W and the 737-900ER (and the 757 long ago)... I don't blame them for going to the leading-edge tech route with 787s and A380s, but only to have BOTH manufacturers default on their promises. Had the 380s and 787s been on time, many carriers would have not suffered as much in the fuel crunch.

I would imagine once the 350s begin to become more real, we will see orders increase. The companies are naturally nervous when the spec keeps changing given recent experiences -- the 777 was probably the last aircraft where the blueprint paper model delivered on the promise rather quickly after EIS (77W was outstanding, per the AF evaluation).
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 7:45 am

If Qantas stood up the 777 and now wont order it, why not order the modern copy of it? Too much pride? The A380 has brought them much headache as it is with wing cracks and engine blowout.

Large twins are the future I suspect, seeing the numbers in orders. The 380 forces you to fill it to be economical, A A350-1000 is more forgivable if not filled to the gills. If fuel prices keep rising like they have in the past 5 years large aircraft will hurt if not filled to max. Also The A350-1000 would carry more cargo than a A380?
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 11:33 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 177):
If Qantas stood up the 777 and now wont order it, why not order the modern copy of it? Too much pride? The A380 has brought them much headache as it is with wing cracks and engine blowout.

Pride doesn't come into it. It's always numbers in the end.
The wing cracks as well as the engine blowout causes are known, and the cost of rectifying them is borne by the respective manufacturer (Airbus for the wing cracks, RR for the engine). While obviously a headache, these issues don't change that Qantas overall seems quite happy with their selection of the A380.
Never mind that the 777 - even the 777-9X - would in no way be sufficient to replace the A380.

Quoting sweair (Reply 177):
The 380 forces you to fill it to be economical, A A350-1000 is more forgivable if not filled to the gills.

I don't think that a 50% load factor is a better idea on an A350 or 777 (or even an A320) than it is on an A380.
And it does seem that you don't need to always fill either type "to the gills" to make money.

The load factor you need to achieve in order to fly an aircraft economically depends primarily on the number of engines.
If a two-engine alternative in the same size category is available (777 vs A340 for example), you'll generally be better off with that. Not quite the case for the A380, though.

So generally, it doesn't make much sense to buy an airplane that you won't be able to fill to a certain degree. And yes, the larger the aircraft, the lower the number of carriers for whom that aircraft is going to make sense. Which is reflected in both Airbus' and Boeing's sales forecast for the different size categories.
42
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 12:25 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 177):

If Qantas stood up the 777 and now wont order it, why not order the modern copy of it? Too much pride? The A380 has brought them much headache as it is with wing cracks and engine blowout.

Large twins are the future I suspect, seeing the numbers in orders. The 380 forces you to fill it to be economical, A A350-1000 is more forgivable if not filled to the gills. If fuel prices keep rising like they have in the past 5 years large aircraft will hurt if not filled to max. Also The A350-1000 would carry more cargo than a A380?

They have received a pretty substantial compensation for the problems. It has been exactly what they wanted. The problem was the 787 was late. It would have fitted in well. In hindsight, the 777 would have been a better option.

Going forward, the 748i is not in consideration, but a 77X would be.

QANTAS, under it's current management, is in survival mode. They want the cheapest options for long routes, with price being an important consideration. That is what is suited to the Australian market. The 380 fits in well, the 787 should fit in well too.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4054
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 12:45 pm

Whatever is eating Ethiad about the A350-1000 is really not he airplane though it could be the Engines, GE is not going to supply the engines because they have an Exclusive deal with Boeing for the 777-200/300 LR's and "derivitives" of the Type.
So Rolls is the "ONLY game in town" The 9 abreast seating is common throughout the design. It will remain to be seen whether the all electric enviornmental systems aboard the 787 line will be more efficient than the Pneumatic Air cycle Bleed system as it does over time erode engine performance. affects the Engine Longevity on wing, takes a LOT of equipment and added weight to bring down the Bleed temps and pressures to a useable standard anf will increase engine Overhaul costs over a Non-Bleed engine Configuration.. Something the 787 won't need or have. Where the problem is as I see it for Airbus and the A350 Series is?? What if it WORKS?? And worse than that?? Works WELL?!? Then an all electric Air conditioning system and Hydraulic system could be easily scaled up for the B777 series and put the A350's performance and range "envelope" in "Serious Hurt" . That Ethiad faces Hot day temperatures ISA +15-20 deg on any given day will effect takeoff and climb performance, Payloading and the max gross weight allowed For Takeoff even though I believe that could be offset with longer runways at DXB and in the area. It DOES give one room to wonder though. Is the Price out of line for the 8400Nmi range (only 300 Nmi farther than the -900 )?? I'm Sure that's a negotiable item. There's GOT to be more to it than That.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 174):
I think it's reasonable to question whether the 351 is actually what the market wants and whether Boeing has squeezed it with the 77Ws timing and the prospect of the 77X.

Again, AFAIK there is precisely 0 order for 77W due to be delivered in 2017. It is not unreasonable to question, but we won't have an answer until the second half of this decade because there are just too many variables. Airlines are now risk-averse, which is why low-risk projects like NEO, MAX, 330 and 77W are going strong. OTOH, A350 is perhaps the highest risk project there is in the world of aviation today.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 149):
the 777X hasn't even been authorized to offer to anyone yet and they are still working with some airlines to help define what they MAY offer later this year. That's the difference.

I doubt A350 managers just woke up one day and decided "right, let's make our lives a bit more interesting and change this, this and that on the A350-1000." The change they proposed would have been based on feedback from potential customers with the aim of attracting more customers and/or program constraints. They took a calculated risk that while the existing customers may not be happy with the change A350-1000 is still a bloody good aircraft.
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9267
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 2:14 pm

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 181):
The change they proposed would have been based on feedback from potential customers with the aim of attracting more customers and/or program constraints. They took a calculated risk that while the existing customers may not be happy with the change A350-1000 is still a bloody good aircraft.

Something in this rings weird, customer needs were what drove the initial design, customers needs were supposed to also drive the additional changes, but you are saying that they ignored the second set to make a bloody good aircraft, do we assume that they thought the potential to attract more customers was greater than those already in hand?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 3:18 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 182):
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 181):
The change they proposed would have been based on feedback from potential customers with the aim of attracting more customers and/or program constraints. They took a calculated risk that while the existing customers may not be happy with the change A350-1000 is still a bloody good aircraft.

Something in this rings weird, customer needs were what drove the initial design, customers needs were supposed to also drive the additional changes, but you are saying that they ignored the second set to make a bloody good aircraft, do we assume that they thought the potential to attract more customers was greater than those already in hand?

The question I have is whether it was because Airbus was struggling to meet the objectives that they established and sold to customers or because they tried to make the airplane more appealing to additional customers. Airbus may have pushed the A350-1000 into redesign because they did not want to have performance shortfalls with the airplane. I am just speculating, but it does not sense to me that Airbus would change the design of the A350-1000 and alienate their customers if they were able to meet all the promises. It may have been that they were not meeting the expectations which forced redesign. It is better to do that early in the program when they still can change the airplane rather than when it is too late like the MD-11.

It is just speculation, but I personally wonder if Airbus was forced into redesign because they airplane was not meeting its targets, and when they had to increase MTOW, the inability to offer the efficiency originally proposed is what has led to airlines publicly criticizing the airplane and Etihad canceling.

I know that comes across as anti-Airbus, but I do wonder what is going on with the A350-1000. If it really can offer all the capability of a 77W with a 25% fuel burn reduction, then I think it is a slam dunk airplane, but that is not what is happening. I am just speculating why it is not getting the orders that seemed imminent. The long delivery lead time could explain it all, but I wonder if there is more to it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sat May 12, 2012 4:34 pm

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 181):
Again, AFAIK there is precisely 0 order for 77W due to be delivered in 2017.

True, but Boeing now has 777 orders booked through the original A350-1000's EIS of 2015 - and that is with Boeing seriously ramping the 777's delivery rate. If 2012 is another 200 order year for the 777, deliveries will be encroaching on 2017.

I've long been boggled why the A350-1000 has not sold better. I would think plenty of 777-300ER operators are using the plane on missions where the launch-spec A350-1000 would have been perfectly capable and would have been significantly cheaper to operate.

Maybe it's just bad timing. Launching the program right at the start the 777-300ER's order boom meant that the A350-1000 would become available when most every airline that wanted a 350-seater were flying 777-300ERs with a decade-plus of usable life still left in them and therefore those operators could not make the economic case to add the A350-1000.

It's like taking delivery of an A330-200HGW today and in three years being offered a 787-8. Yes, the 787-8 is significantly more efficient, but your A330-200HGW is making you plenty of money and you're still making payments on the loan. So you stick with the A330-200HGW and pass on the 787-8 for a decade because that is what the equations say you should do.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 3:03 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 182):
but you are saying that they ignored the second set to make a bloody good aircraft, do we assume that they thought the potential to attract more customers was greater than those already in hand?

Yes, although potential customers' feedback is unlikely to be the only reason driving the change. Airbus has to find more customers for A350-1000 as it is unlikely that existing customers would order more at this stage of its development. Despite all the changes, if A350-1000 meet its fuel burn target I doubt EK and QR will dislike the aircraft. If worst comes to worst, they would convert to -900. Yes they complain now, but how much of it was negotiation by press?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 183):
The question I have is whether it was because Airbus was struggling to meet the objectives that they established and sold to customers or because they tried to make the airplane more appealing to additional customers.

IMHO the answer is more of "and" rather than "or", and I might add engineering/resource constraint as well.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 183):
I am just speculating, but it does not sense to me that Airbus would change the design of the A350-1000 and alienate their customers if they were able to meet all the promises. It may have been that they were not meeting the expectations which forced redesign. It is better to do that early in the program when they still can change the airplane rather than when it is too late like the MD-11.

Quite plausible, although unlikely to be the only reason. Some of the changes are aimed at making the aircraft more capable.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 183):
I know that comes across as anti-Airbus

Not at all. 77W is a tall mountain to climb and I suspect Airbus needs all their engineering expertise to topple it. I think it highlights the challenges facing the 77X team as well. Of course, it is an inherently less risky project than A350-1000, doesn't make the job of meeting Boeing's promise any easier though.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 184):
Maybe it's just bad timing.

  
The oldest 77W will be 13 years old in 2017, and given the recent boom of 77W orders. many airlines are probably in no hurry to replace them. Maybe the delay factored this into consideration as well.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 184):
I've long been boggled why the A350-1000 has not sold better.

Let's see what tricks JL has up his sleeves
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/idUKL5E7KL65N20110921
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
astuteman
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 6:19 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 184):
True, but Boeing now has 777 orders booked through the original A350-1000's EIS of 2015

And?

The A350 line has been sold out WAY beyond the A350-1000's EIS since 2007 - 5 years ago.....
To me, the observation that the 777 is sold out to the original A350-1000 EIS when the A350-1000's availability is now easily 4 years beyond that, is completely meaningless.
TODAY, the 777 sells on a lead time half that of the A350.
Just like the A330 sells on a lead time half that of the 787.
And like the 777, the A330 has creamed its modern competitor in terms of sales in the last 4 years as availability became a real issue.
It's that simple.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 184):
I've long been boggled why the A350-1000 has not sold better

Seems crystal clear to me.
By the end of 2007 airlines had to wait longer to order an A350 than any other aircraft.
And look what the consequence for the entire A350 line has been since it sold out past a 9 year backlog.

If you want corroboration, look also what happened to 787 sales from 2008 onwards, when the delays took THEIR backlog from 7 years long to 10 years.....

Since 2008, niether of these programmes has sold diddly squat.
That includes the A350-800, A350-900, 787-8 and 787-9.
But we single out the A350-1000 for some selectively applied logic.

I've applied my logic identically to both the 787 and A350.
No doubt i'll be castigated for it, because it goes against the current ruling a-net mantra that there's something wrong with the A350-1000.

For what its worth, I think airlines will always have performance concerns about new programmes until they prove themselves.
I find the notion that airlines are entirely comfortable with the A350-900's potential, but think the A350-1000 which STILL shares 90% commonality with it is going to be a complete dog, laughable frankly.

If they're concerned that the A350-1000 faces stronger competitors than the A350-900, then that's a different matter completely.

If people think I'm wrong, well, they're entitled to do so.

I've seen no convincing argument otherwise.

Rgds
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 8:45 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 186):
Since 2008, niether of these programmes has sold diddly squat.

I think the Global Financial Crises has put businesses in a far more conservative and less risk taking frame of mind. Both in terms of long lead times, and committing large amounts of money to products that they don't know they will need when they are delivered.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 8:51 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 187):
I think the Global Financial Crises has put businesses in a far more conservative and less risk taking frame of mind. Both in terms of long lead times, and committing large amounts of money to products that they don't know they will need when they are delivered

There's no question that the GFC is a major factor, and leads to a more conservative approach. This certainly hasn't stopped the 777 or A330 selling in big numbers in the last 4 years. (In fact it might have been to their benefit).

Rgds
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 9:11 am

It might just be the fresh wounds of the 787 delays that keep airlines from ordering a brand new aircraft family. Seeing how it turned out to be a huge mess, maybe some have low hopes for the A350 and wait and see how it goes.

Also its still long before they can actually get it into service, the economy crashing every third year, most companies have gone conservative with investments far ahead.

Its not the same world today as we had pre 2008, a lot has changed if you think about it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 4:56 pm

Look, I've long held the opinion that the A350-1000 is an absolute ass-kicker of an airplane. So when I comment on why it hasn't sold better, it's not because I think it sucks, but because I think it's brilliant.

And yes, it is true that the 787-8, 787-9 and A350-900 have sold poorly since their backlog expanded to such huge amounts.

But those three models have huge backlogs - the A350-1000 does not.

With new-build 777-300ER deliveries slowly moving closer and closer to the A350-1000's EIS, I have a bit of a concern that once the A350-1000 enters service, it will not magically see hundreds of orders (either new or conversions from existing orders for the A350-800 and A350-900) because airlines will still be digesting their 777-300ER deliveries. So that could push significant new A350-1000 orders into the mid-2020s when the first serious wave of 777-300ER replacements come due.

Now, if Boeing was just going to sit on the 777-300ER, I'd say BFD. Current 777-300ER operators would just move on to the A350-1000 just as A340-600 operators moved on to the 777-300ER. But Boeing appears to not be sitting on the 777-300ER. And even if the 777-8 and 777-9 are not as good as the A350-1000, they're likely going to be a hell of a lot closer than the 777-300ER is.

Now, I use the word "concerned" versus "worried" because I don't see dark clouds on the A350-1000's horizon in such a scenario. Boeing literally owns this market now, so Airbus can only go up from their current position. So even if the 777X is good enough that we get into a duopoly situation on the high-end, that's a huge success for Airbus and a big loss for Boeing. But a duopoly keeps Boeing well in the game and allows them to take their time on Y3.

I just see an opportunity lost because of this delay. If Airbus had been able to get the A350-1000 into service in 2015, they would have had four to five years lead on Boeing's response. If they could have placed even 200 A350-1000s into customer's hands (especially customers like EK, SQ and CX with large 777 fleets), Boeing might have found interest in the 777X about as lukewarm as Airbus did the A340-500E and A340-600E. And if that had happened, then Boeing would have been forced to try and accelerate Y3 to get back into the game while Airbus had time to consolidate their position to defend.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 9:43 pm

Leeham has an interesting link to a Reuters interview with EK Clark:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...rates-boeing-idUSBRE84910K20120510

He there confirms that the 777X "is almost there" where they want it. What he wants is some 40t+ hauled 8600nm and my model says he is getting 35,3t (ie a full pax+bags load) hauled 8600nm, he's 40t he gets to 8200nm.



Re the 350-1000N he is saying exactly what I referred to in my posts above, he doesn't bash the changes anymore he just says, I want my contracted efficiency (and I would have liked it 2015):

"It's up to them (Airbus) to deliver the airplane to the specification that we have contracted ... and that's what we continue to watch," said Clark.

As the 350-1000 fills a role below the 77W and the upcoming 777X with EK they just wanted the capacity and the fuel burn, the more capable frame to the price of a higher fuel burn (seems to be about 2%) does not bring them anything (but perhaps others).

[Edited 2012-05-13 15:01:58]
Non French in France
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 10:13 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 183):
If it really can offer all the capability of a 77W with a 25% fuel burn reduction, then I think it is a slam dunk airplane, but that is not what is happening. I am just speculating why it is not getting the orders that seemed imminent. The long delivery lead time could explain it all, but I wonder if there is more to it.

For those who contracted if before the changes and who was not intending to use it at it's extreme of the payload-range curve the changes has just brought them a 2% higher fuel bill and 2 years later delivery time. I would have been displeased as well   especially if I had no chance to say NO I don't want these changes, the frame is fine as it is, suits me perfectly (like EK who was thinking of switching all 900 to 1000).

For the original -1000 there was only a 0.8% penalty in fuel per pax to take the -1000 instead of the -900, now it is a 3.0% difference  Wow! .

[Edited 2012-05-13 15:13:58]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18424
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Sun May 13, 2012 11:30 pm

Am I the only one not excited by this? Due to the push out of the EIS, EY has the option of utilizing options if they like the A350-10. Why put down money for deposits on aircraft that far out?!? I believe this is an EIS issue. EY must compete with EK and QR. Right now they are #4 in a race with EK, QR, and TK. Being #4 does not give the flexibility to plan out that far.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
So with that family, Airbus could really leverage the extra barrel width and the A330 came to supplant the 767 in the marketplace by 2000.

Which will take time with the A350. Right now, Boeing has to increase production so that airlines that desire 9-across Y have the ability to leverage that barrel. The market will change.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77):
Yep. It's funny what delaying EIS by at least 2 years can do to the ROI calculation that airlines make their buying decisions on

   Not to mention, I suspect the NEO/MAX (if the increase in range estimates holds true and isn't a false rumor) should help.

Quoting CM (Reply 112):
ENGINE: To achieve the needed 97K thrust for the A350-1000, the Trent-XWB is increasing core flow while maintaining the 118-inch fan. This change provides the needed thrust, but achieves it by trading away the bypass ratio of the engine. It is a de-optimization of the basic Trent-XWB engine architecture.

Hey, that worked well for the PW4098.    Hint to RR: make sure its worth the 'de-optimization'. I think it is, but that has bit a few in the...

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 167):
Surely you haven't forgotten the thread about manufacturers massaging numbers and this confusing chart:

   I believe the real number is between those two charts but closer to one side than the other. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the sales split that we have...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 186):
ODAY, the 777 sells on a lead time half that of the A350.
Just like the A330 sells on a lead time half that of the 787.

And both the 777 and A330 are already embedded into fleets cutting training costs too...
But the new planes will be worth it.   

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26522
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 12:40 am

Looks like the A380-800 and A350-1000 are not the only models seeing potential sales impacted by lack of slots.

Bloomberg has run an article noting that the strong 777 backlog is dampening sales campaigns due to the wait for an airframe.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 4:49 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):
I just see an opportunity lost because of this delay. If Airbus had been able to get the A350-1000 into service in 2015, they would have had four to five years lead on Boeing's response. If they could have placed even 200 A350-1000s into customer's hands (especially customers like EK, SQ and CX with large 777 fleets), Boeing might have found interest in the 777X about as lukewarm as Airbus did the A340-500E and A340-600E. And if that had happened, then Boeing would have been forced to try and accelerate Y3 to get back into the game while Airbus had time to consolidate their position to defend.

I can agree with all of that. Although the opportunity loss is one that is shared with other recent programmes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 194):
Bloomberg has run an article noting that the strong 777 backlog is dampening sales campaigns due to the wait for an airframe

Yep. 3 Years backlog. Dampens sales. Says Boeing.
  
Nothing like a bit of context, is there?

Rgds
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 7:20 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 195):
Yep. 3 Years backlog. Dampens sales. Says Boeing.
  
Nothing like a bit of context, is there?

But if the backlog is more then 7 years, and the plane is not gaining new orders (or sees cancellations predominantly due to that fact), then there must be something wrong with the plane.    At least according to another A-net myth.  .
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 11:48 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 192):
For the original -1000 there was only a 0.8% penalty in fuel per pax to take the -1000 instead of the -900, now it is a 3.0% difference .

Ehm, sorry if I ask a silly question (something might have been lost in translation here), but do you mean the -1000 burns more fuel per seat than the -900?? That might explain a little bit why the A35J has such a relative lack in success compared to the A359. (A358: 21,5%, A359: 67% A35J: 11,5% of all A350 orders to date). Comparing with the 787, about this time in its development we saw a shift in orders from the -8 to the -9 (the latter was also not available for another 7 years). So let's wait and see for another year what happens to A35J orders, I think we'll be able to see things a bit more clearly then.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 196):
But if the backlog is more then 7 years, and the plane is not gaining new orders (or sees cancellations predominantly due to that fact), then there must be something wrong with the plane. At least according to another A-net myth. .

Of course, the delay by almost 2 years for the -1000 (and uncertainty about production ramp-up of the whole A350 line) is a major factor. But do we know for sure till when the A350 is sold out out? I last heard it was 2018, but I can be wrong.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1419
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 12:17 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 192):
For those who contracted if before the changes and who was not intending to use it at it's extreme of the payload-range curve the changes has just brought them a 2% higher fuel bill and 2 years later delivery time. I would have been displeased as well especially if I had no chance to say NO I don't want these changes, the frame is fine as it is, suits me perfectly (like EK who was thinking of switching all 900 to 1000).

BUT from WSJ online May 14 2012:

"Mr. Al Baker said he has received assurances from Airbus that the A350-1000, a stretched version of the A350, "will meet and surpass its contractual obligations to Qatar Airways."

Qatar has no plans to cancel its order for the aircraft right now. "I have made it very clear that if it doesn't meet the performance guarantees on the payload, the range then of course we will have to rethink what we are going to do with that airplane," Mr. Al Baker said."

Which souds fair enough to me!
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 15, 2012 2:02 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 195):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 194):
Bloomberg has run an article noting that the strong 777 backlog is dampening sales campaigns due to the wait for an airframe

Yep. 3 Years backlog. Dampens sales. Says Boeing.
  
Nothing like a bit of context, is there?

Rgds

Nearly 200 posts to drive the point home. It's not the plane, it's the time. But if Boeing hadn't said so about their 777, then we'd still have lots of people reading way too much about Eithad's cancellation and making 1 + 1 = something is wrong with Airbus.

Well done for calling it like it is throughout this thread. Astute indeed. Top of the class. Back of the net. Hole in one. And the rest  

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