FlyingAY
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:26 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 6:54 pm

Why is Airbus having such a big problem stretching the A350-900 into A350-1000? After all, 777-300 is a stretch, 787-9 (that many predict will be wonderful plane) is a stretch, let alone 787-10 that many seem to wait eagerly... A330-300 is a successful stretch as well, where does all the difficulty come for A350?
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 7:24 pm

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 56):
Why is Airbus having such a big problem stretching the A350-900 into A350-1000?

If Airbus were only trying to stretch an A350-900 into an A350-1000, there would be little difficulty. The problem comes with tying to also make the same basic aircraft work for a shrink model in the A350-800. The span of MTOW needed to cover an A358 through to an A351 is simply more than one wing and one engine can accommodate with the needed efficiency. Some of additional details are in my post above, but this is the essence of the challenge Airbus is facing.

Airbus has stubbornly resisted the urging of several carriers to further modify the A350-1000 in order to make it more efficient. Qatar has been the most vocal in asking for further change to the A351. However, I believe in the long run Airbus will accommodate these carriers and make a new wing and a more efficient fan diameter for the A350-1000. This will provide Airbus with the added luxury of being able to further stretch the A350 into an A350-1100, which will create a much more direct competitor to a 777-9X.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 7:37 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 39):
As you already hinted at - if barrel size itself was all-important, where would that leave the 737? Or the 767, for that matter? Going by barrel size, the A300 should have won against the 767 long before the A330 came along

You are correct in noting barrel size alone does not an airplane make.

In the case of the 737 vs. A320, both were maximum 6-abreast so that negated any CASM advantage. If the A320 could have done 2+3+2 at 17" seat cushion width, it would have knocked the 737 as a family out of the market and the 737NG would not have helped.

The A300 was designed as a short-range high-density transport. The 767 was designed as a long-range medium-density transport. While the 767-200 did not have much more range than the A300B4, the 767-200ER could fly almost twice as far. To compete, Airbus developed the A310-300, but even that came up close to 1000nm short at full-load. And then Boeing launched the 767-300ER, which was as long as the A300-600R but offered almost 50% more range. So even though the A300 and A310 were wider and could hold one more passenger per row in Economy and interline ULDs and pallets with the larger widebodies (747 | DC-10 | L-1011), it was not as flexible in terms of missions.

The A330-200, on the other hand, flew farther than the 767-200ER and 767-300ER and the larger barrel allowed it to carry more passengers and more cargo - and that cargo could also be interlined with other large widebodies. 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.

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 56):
Why is Airbus having such a big problem stretching the A350-900 into A350-1000?


I do not believe it is so much Airbus is having a problem stretching the A350-1000, but that the target they are seeking to supplant is just so amazing that they may be having a difficult time convincing customers to switch.

Boeing was able to stretch the 767 to create the 767-400ER which was in the neighborhood (in terms of passenger capacity) of the A330-200. However, the A330-200 was just so darn good that the 767-400ER just wasn't competitive and even the improved concept - the 767-400ERX - couldn't convince enough carriers to switch from a model that had proven itself to be the best in it's market.
 
ghifty
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 7:58 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 43):
As I understand SFC, an airplane would only be less efficient at X miles even with an unchanged SFC if you calculated SFC as a function of the range. Which I don't think is generally done, although I'm happy to be proven wrong about this.

I've been under the impression that an airframe with, say, range 4000nm would operate better (lower SFC) at X miles but worse (higher SFC) if the "same" airframe had range 5000nm. The aircraft would be optimised for longer distances... sort of like the raked wingtip vs. blended wintip argument(s).

Quoting CM (Reply 47):
Like the A350-800, the A350-1000 is compromised by the fact Airbus is trying to cover a span of 100 seats in the Airbus product line with a single aircraft type. The A350-900 hits the efficiency sweet spot, but the A350-800 and A350-1000 have some compromises as a result of being out at the edges of what the A350 architecture can accomplish. Compounding the problem, the A350 competes against two different aircraft, both of which have efficiency sweet spots exactly where the A350 models are weakest.

For comparisons sake.. is Boeing in a worse spot (I know they're different capacity points...)? They need to stretch their base -8 up two frames, the -9 and -10 (assuming a -10 comes along). Airbus only needs to stretch up one frame and shrink one frame from the base -900. I guess what I'm asking is if it is easier (cost-effective) to start at the lowest range, or the mid-range. Looking at the -400ER, ignoring its "late" introduction, I'm compelled to believe the latter is more ideal.


Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 46):
Yes we are seeing the same thing. Deliveries for new orders are either extremely expensive for relatively close slots (Airbus and Boeing mark up early delivery slots, so even though on paper the airplane is sold out for years, it likely is not), or the delivery is so far into the future that airlines have trouble negotiating any financing or commiting to the airplanes.

Exactly. Why wait eight years for a plane you can't get even though it's better? If you need the capacity now, you need it now. 20% less efficient is better than losing passengers. The whole "outsold" point is moot. You can argue the MAX has outsold the NEO based on Q12012 orders.. but is that inherently true? No.. Compare the products as they are in the same levels of maturity. The A330 is the A330 with set range, set MTOW, set capacity, etc. It's not going to change dramatically. The 787, on the other hand, will change.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 46):
I think airlines just do not want to commit to ordering airplanes 8 years out. We will eventually see the A350 orders surpass A330 orders and 787 orders surpass 777 orders again, but not for the current timeframe.

   Product timeframe > QX201Y timeframe.
Fly Delta (Wid)Jets

Comments made here reflect only my personal opinions.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 8:04 pm

Some cancellations maybe due to economic forces and nothing to do with the delivery schedules or preference, they may just have gotten a dose of reality from their accounting departments.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 8:26 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 60):
For comparisons sake.. is Boeing in a worse spot (I know they're different capacity points...)? They need to stretch their base -8 up two frames, the -9 and -10 (assuming a -10 comes along).

Except Boeing is not increasing the MTOW of the 787-10 from that of the 787-9 (see below). For this reason, the same wing and engine on the 787-10 provides pretty much the same efficiency as they do on the 787-9. What the 787-10 sacrifices is range. The A350-1000 could do that, but today it is spec'd with a large MTOW bump over the A350-900 in order to avoid sacrificing any of the A359's 8000nm range. This MTOW bump for the A351 means the wing and engines on that airplane must provide much more work.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...esign-notes-787-9-lays-the-78.html
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 8:41 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):

And they may merge with DL to create Delthiad.   I am no expert but Ethiad is in no way losing money or looking for partnerships to stay afloat. Buying 30% stake in Air Berlin and a 3% stake in Air Lingus says the accounting is ok in my opinion.   
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 8:49 pm

But back to topic, I think that the main point was hit when a member here said that the A350 is trying to kill two birds with one stone. While the A350-1000 will be a fine aircraft when the numbers and the specs correct and not over inflated but until then they need to find ways on keeping more orders on the table.

This could be a chance for the A330S version to gain some momentum because the A350-1000 alone faces an uphill climb.
 
redrooster3
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 8:57 pm

I'm a bit confused, didn't they cancel like 6 of them last year? I never heard them firming the cancel. Unless this is the firm canceled order that was released last year.

So did they cancel another 7 A351's?
Marry one of us, and you'll fly for free!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 9:06 pm

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 59):
I'm a bit confused, didn't they cancel like 6 of them last year? I never heard them firming the cancel. Unless this is the firm canceled order that was released last year.

So did they cancel another 7 A351's?

They cancelled 6 in January 2012 and have now cancelled another 7, for a total of 13. This reduces their order from 25 to 12.
 
phxa340
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
They cancelled 6 in January 2012 and have now cancelled another 7, for a total of 13. This reduces their order from 25 to 12.


Any chance of a 77W order from them soon then to offset the cancellation ? IIRC they only have 8 more or so on order and 40+ 787-9s.
 
redrooster3
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
they cancelled 6 in January 2012 and have now cancelled another 7, for a total of 13. This reduces their order from 25 to 12.

Thanks! I should of read the initial post..He mentions it clearly. :/

Does this mean that they'll order another 10 787-9's.  
Marry one of us, and you'll fly for free!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 9:37 pm

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 62):
Does this mean that they'll order another 10 787-9's.  

I would expect if they are looking for replacement frames, it will the 777-300ER.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 10:16 pm

I also don't think you can discount the poor press Airbus has received around the A380 cracks and engine drama. I'm not sure but it seems that also may be playing into the shyness we are now seeing. I'm sure it's a temporal lull but no doubt momentums seems currently to be swinging, after quite some time, toward Boeing and the 777-300 and 77x
 
phxa340
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 10:25 pm

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 64):
I'm sure it's a temporal lull but no doubt momentums seems currently to be swinging, after quite some time, toward Boeing and the 777-300 and 77x

Its hard for momentum to swing to a plane that doesn't even exist yet or can be offered by Boeing with the 777X. Do I think some airlines might be waiting to see what Boeing comes up with ... absolutely.

Give it time, A350-1000 orders will pick up closer to EIS. I am not so confident about the A350-800 , that model will always seem to be the orphan of the three ; the A350-900 will be a huge market success IMO , I hope United will exercise some options for it. I see the A350-1000 delays allowing for more 77W orders ... which personally makes me happy as a part of me never wants the 77W replaced.
 
4tet
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:18 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 10:40 pm

Trying to compete against two models with one model, can be a different approach:

While the 'aerodynamics and fuel' efficiency might not be the best, the 'production process' efficiency plus the savings of developing and certifying one extra model can maybe lower the price until this 'aerodynamics and fuel' inefficiency is offset by a cheaper price... Just my 2 cents

R.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 10:42 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 37):
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 49):
I tend to agree with you. I too think that the A350-1000 is a stretch (both literally and figuratively) to make it an effective B77W "killer". It seems like the 77W is a real fit for its purpose

The 777W is, for now, for the airlines the best option, considering it is flying now and has proven to be an exceptional aircraft for the future as well as the present. The A350-1000 has yet to become more than just orders and a plane on a drawing board.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
redrooster3
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):
I would expect if they are looking for replacement frames, it will the 777-300ER

It was kind of a joke, back in January, they ordered another 10 787-9's intended to replace the 6 A350 cancellation.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/blo...-securing-medium-term-growth-64486

Quote:
"Etihad Airways' order for ten additional Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners will see the carrier join Emirates in guaranteeing medium-term growth. While some of the growth may be organic, a concern is further delays – or all together performance shortfalls – for the Airbus A350-1000, which both Emirates and Etihad ordered."
Marry one of us, and you'll fly for free!
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Mon May 07, 2012 11:05 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
I think that airlines are just not buying into the bs that Airbus marketing people are putting out.

What's the saying? Once bitten, twice shy?

I of course have no idea what the airline executives are thinking, but if I were them (and I wish I were), after the debacles involving the 380 and 787 deliveries, I wouldn't be very trusting of either manufacturer when they talk about EIS dates. Perhaps the airlines are waiting until the 350 has made it farther along through the manufacturing process before committing billions of dollars/Euros on it.
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:09 am

Seems not only Airbus getting clobbered.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...orld_business/view/1199825/1/.html

Quote
"With 25 cancellations of 787 Dreamliners by clients not named, against 19 orders so far this year, Boeing is in negative territory for its flagship aircraft built largely with composite materials that it says will use 20 per cent less fuel than similarly sized aircraft.

At $193.5 million (148.3 million euros) apiece according to list prices, the cancellations are a $4.8 billion hit on the US manufacturer's order book.

Boeing did not comment on the latest order figures."
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:12 am

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 70):
Quote
"With 25 cancellations of 787 Dreamliners by clients not named, against 19 orders so far this year, Boeing is in negative territory for its flagship aircraft built largely with composite materials that it says will use 20 per cent less fuel than similarly sized aircraft.

At $193.5 million (148.3 million euros) apiece according to list prices, the cancellations are a $4.8 billion hit on the US manufacturer's order book.

Boeing did not comment on the latest order figures."

It appears that neither Boeing nor Airbus are getting orders for the next generation of widebodies. Airlines don't seem to be interested in committing to widebody airplanes with delivery 6 years or more out.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:21 am

@Roseflyer reply71

In these lean times it's better the metal you know.

Though I'm curious how Reuters didn't mention the 787 cancellations? They must have just not thought it as newsworthy as the 7 Airbus planes. Hey ho
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9589
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:32 am

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 72):
Though I'm curious how Reuters didn't mention the 787 cancellations? They must have just not thought it as newsworthy as the 7 Airbus planes. Hey ho

It is probably because they are not an aviation fan site and only needed to report the news of a single event. There was no one saying "but the others guys lost sales too!". Such is the life of a news site versus a fan site.

Actually I have enjoyed the relatively balanced nature of the discussion I have seen so far. A few fanboy-type posts but no real digs and flames. Nice to see.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:41 am

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 72):
Though I'm curious how Reuters didn't mention the 787 cancellations?

Possibly because they reported them when they happened back in late March and in mid-April.

[Edited 2012-05-07 17:42:03]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Yes, Airbus claims the A350-1000 will club the 777-300ER like a harp seal, but as cmf noted, a 777-300ER will still make you large amounts of money and you can get one now.

The A351 has 3 problems

1. risk

2. commonality

3. far off avaliblity.

I don't think the 777 is really the issue here.

Problem 1, ordering a A351 today, you are taking large risk on when it will arrive at your hanger ready to work. You are taking a large risk on it being the same plane you ordered.

Problem 2. Airbus keeps adding changes chasing the entire mission capiblity of the 773ER. This is causing it to keep getting "upgrades" from its A359 little brother. So Airlines are having to face the possiblity of them being virtualy two different plane with thier own parts, training, tools, etc. So little savings for operating a A359 along side A351.

Problem 3. Getting airlines to pony up commitments to buy an aircraft that won't be delivered till 6+ years later. Its hard enough to do when its been in production for a decade. I has to be nearly impossible for a manufacturer to push airlines to buy right now while the financial world is in trouble. 787 benifited greatly from the bubble that made bankers and executives not care about liablities at all. No aircraft has that luxury today.

I think the solution to this can't be implemented anymore, but it was to do a simple stretch on the A359. Sure it left that corner of the market that it couldn't do the 773ER's job. It however would be minimal risk, minimal cost, and maximum commonality. Sell your piles of planes to airlines that don't need 8,000NM on most of thier routes. Do so to even current 773ER operators as they would still have those frames for that tiny corner of the range/payload chart the simple stretch couldn't do. Then when you got production safely underway, you have a firm grip of what you didn't get right, and technology has that bit more to offer you... Come back with a A359ER and A351ER that leverage those advantages.

Look at how close the 747-200 followed the 747-100 and the 772ER followed the 772. I think we can all agree that worked out quite well for Boeing.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 1:25 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 75):
a simple stretch on the A359

Considering the recent success of the A330-300, It surprises me Airbus is not doing this. A simple stretch of the A359 (no MTOW growth) would likely have still been capable of over 6500nm, maybe even 7000nm. That's longer range than the A330-300 today, and nearly as long as the A330-200. Like you, I believe Airbus would have sold a lot of those airplanes, as they would enjoy all the economics of the A359, but with considerably more revenue and would only concede a few markets needing extrme range, such as ME to US west coast.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 3:56 am

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 69):
Seems not only Airbus getting clobbered.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...orld_business/view/1199825/1/.html

Quote
"With 25 cancellations of 787 Dreamliners by clients not named, against 19 orders so far this year, Boeing is in negative territory for its flagship aircraft built largely with composite materials that it says will use 20 per cent less fuel than similarly sized aircraft.

At $193.5 million (148.3 million euros) apiece according to list prices, the cancellations are a $4.8 billion hit on the US manufacturer's order book.

Boeing did not comment on the latest order figures."

1. 787 Orders/Cancellations were already mentioned up the thread. Was there more that needed to be said about it?
2. This was a singular event. This time it was the A350. Next time, who knows?
3. As Stitch mentioned, it was already mentioned. I looked for a thread where you might have tried to balance things out by pointing out the January 350-1000 cancellations, but strangely couldn't find it.
4. Do we really need to to the tit for tat - again?

-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.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7027
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 5:29 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 10):
It suggests to me that the Airbus figures are extremely optimistic, to the extent that the airlines just don't believe them. And EIS is still almost a decade away

One of these is the reason for the lack of orders...

Quoting qf002 (Reply 10):
We can expect the orders to ramp up in 3-5 years time IMO.

Correct. Which tells you which one is the correct reason

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
since the redesign was announced the back log has fallen from 75 to 62 with no new orders for the airplane. During the same period of time (Idon't have numbers) the 77W backlog haas increased.

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

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
The 787 had orders rolling in at this point of time in its design life.

And the moment it got delayed, the orders hit a complete brick wall, to the extent of being a net negative number for the last 4 years. So why the f*** are we so trying to convince ourselves that it's somehow different for the A350-1000?
It's BS

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
What's hurting the A350-1000's sales is that the 777-300ER is just so bloody good

It is bloody good. But that's NOT what's hurting sales. The 777-300ER didn't "suddenly" become good just as the A350-1000 got delayed   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
Saying that customers aren't ordering due to long lead time is indeed factual but also damning, because clearly there are products that customers will order that have long lead times.

Not correct. You pick up on any of the aircraft families you want to, and as soon as deliveries get into the c. 2019 period, they hit the wall. You think the NEO will sell thousands more this year?
No.
Why?
Because it's hit the sort of lead times the A350-1000 is now out at.

Only on A-net.   

Rgds
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 6:01 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77):
Not correct. You pick up on any of the aircraft families you want to, and as soon as deliveries get into the c. 2019 period, they hit the wall. You think the NEO will sell thousands more this year?
No.
Why?
Because it's hit the sort of lead times the A350-1000 is now out at.

Not to mention that the A320NEO holds far less risk for an airline to order into the future... and its sales still stalled at the 5 year mark. The A320 has the protection that its a much less risky program for airlines and thier lenders, with massive resale ability.
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 7:00 am

@ reply 72

To be fair to Reuters, neither is the site I quoted an aviation fan site.

@ Stitch reply 73

The article mentions 25 cancellations from "unnamed clients". You, however, referenced articles with named clients. Could these be another batch that you don't know about? Highly unlikely as you, or Reuters know nothing about it. You do know an awful lot about Boeing.

@ reply76
My bad. I didn't see the mention up thread as you said.
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 7:20 am

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
A simple stretch of the A359 (no MTOW growth) would likely have still been capable of over 6500nm, maybe even 7000nm.

I think it would have worked if Boeing was not going to do the 777X.

This is like creating the A320 and then doing the A321 which is not like the B757 but can compete in 80% of the routes and then through enhancements to the A321 it can now compete on 90% of the B757 routes leaving no space for the B757.

I believe that Boeing is pushing itself into a position where to compete in the 350+ seat segment they need to improve their B77W product, otherwise it will have the fate of the B757. If they pull it off, they will have a good size of that segment but not one where they will have dominance although at that segment it is not so much of how many planes you sell but at what price.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4001
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 7:33 am

If I would have all the numbers and the dates of all the orders than I would love to compare the evolution of the sales numbers graphically for the 380, 787 and 350. I am quiet sure that the curves would almost look the same:

- a huge bulb*) shortly after launching the programme
- then a flat rate**) during development shortly before and after EIS because of lack of orders in that phase
- new orders after a certain time of period of time after EIS (follow-up-orders)
- normal rate of orders in correlation with the production rate after production ramp-up has been achieved

*) most probably, the bulb begins to decrease when the availablilty becomes an issue and the time between ordering and estimated delivery is too high due to the high number of orders and the estimated production rate after EIS.
**) flat rate created by some cancellations and some additional orders during the design freeze

In that respect everything is ok for the A 350 right now.

When asked about the fact that there were no additional orders for the A 350 during the last Le Bourget show, John Leahy said that he is not too sad because creating a huge backlog can become a problem as well.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 7:38 am

I think the A3510 has to be very good to replace a 77W, it brings a cost to replace a type in a fleet, this will help Boeing as many airlines have huge fleets of the 77W already and if the 77X is even better why then go through an expensive training and maintenance procedure. Its not like the 351o is a new type like the 380 was, it enters a matured market niche.
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 7:50 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 82):
I think the A3510 has to be very good to replace a 77W, it brings a cost to replace a type in a fleet

Boeing has decided not to compete with the A350-1000 and instead is building the 777X-9 which will be bigger and carry more passengers and cargo. This says to me that they cannot compete with the A350-1000 as the B777-300ER is now or can be with the 777X enhancement and instead decided to go bigger where they know that the A350-1000 cannot compete. This also seems to be the strategy with the B777X-8 which might be bigger than the A350-900.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 8:11 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 25):
What am I missing here that is so fundamentally different between the pre-XWB A350 and the 777X?

Good questions. There is certainly a larger difference in admiration than appropriate between the 777X and the first A350.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 25):
But I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that it'll beat the A350 in all respects.

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
The 787 will burn less fuel than the A330-200.

As the A350 will vs the 777.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
But the A330-200 can lift more payload weight.

As the 777 will vs the A350.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
So there is the belief that an A330-200's greater cargo capacity can offset the extra fuel it needs to burn and keep the plane overall competitive.

That belief is false.

We don't even have to rely on belief. The real order books show that no A332 is on order for delivery when a 788 would be available. As no 777 is on order when A350's (or A351 in particular) will be available. The A350 is outsold longer, or has a longer backlog. This also applies to the A351.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
The 787 at 9-abreast and the 777 at 10-abreast helps an airline improve the CASM of their airframe as operating costs rise through adding more seats.

This is certainly correct. But a 10-abreast 77X no longer sits at the sweet spot where the 77W today is.

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 33):
The pre-XWB A350 was an upgraded A330 made for missions which were previously flown by 777's and even 747's

No, no. As the bulk of 1000 sold 787's in the last 10 years, the A350MKI would have replaced 767's primarily.

Quoting CM (Reply 45):
Like the A350-800, the A350-1000 is compromised by the fact Airbus is trying to cover a span of 100 seats in the Airbus product line with a single aircraft type.

So the 77X at more than 400 seats is excluded from being impacted by that factor?

Quoting CM (Reply 45):
The added thrust is accomplished by increasing the engine core diameter/flow, but without increasing the fan size. This sacrifices bypass ratio and TSFC.

RR, Airbus and JoeCanuck would contradict this. I believe that in theory there would be losses. But in reality these are planned to turn out minimalistic, so that RR, Airbus and JoeCanuck could be correct as well.

Quoting CM (Reply 45):
Quoting qf002 (Reply 10):
It suggests to me that the Airbus figures are extremely optimistic, to the extent that the airlines just don't believe them.

This is at the heart of the problem.

IMO the drafts for the 77X are even much less credible (capacity increase, wing size increase, weight decrease, thrust decrease, I mean are we in wonderland). To believe in the 77X requires much more fantasy than believing in the A351.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 48):
I too think that the A350-1000 is a stretch (both literally and figuratively) to make it an effective B77W "killer". It seems like the 77W is a real fit for its purpose.

I don't agree. The A350 already has a larger wing area than the 777. So there is no limit IMO (except the 10 abreast capability) that would hold back the A350 more than the 777 (e.g. regarding payload, range, max length). At a much better efficiency. B.t.w. with some exceptions this even applies to the 787 IMO.

Quoting CM (Reply 51):
The problem comes with tying to also make the same basic aircraft work for a shrink model in the A350-800. The span of MTOW needed to cover an A358 through to an A351 is simply more than one wing and one engine can accommodate with the needed efficiency.

Other than the 788 the A358 will get new upper and side fuselage shells. This means that the panel concept allows a better adoption to create a less rigid design for the shrink. The wings of course will not change.

Quoting CM (Reply 51):
Airbus has stubbornly resisted the urging of several carriers to further modify the A350-1000 in order to make it more efficient
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 74):
The A351 has 3 problems

1. risk

2. commonality

3. far off avaliblity.

Correct, except 2).

The A351 will have commonality with the 300 seater of choice in the future. And even a 250 seater with commonality will be available, if you need to round up the fleet a bit at the lower end.

Don't think for one minute that the 400 seater 77X9 will have as much commonality with any other product that will be in large demand in 2020. The 77X8 will not be a hotseller. And the difference to the 77W will be much bigger than any difference you will find between A350 versions. That means that airlines would have to accept 400-seaters as an isolated fleet in order to find the 77X9 compelling.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Stressedout
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:29 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 8:54 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
Other than the 788 the A358 will get new upper and side fuselage shells. This means that the panel concept allows a better adoption to create a less rigid design for the shrink.

Although I won't say that I know exactly what you mean by this statement, at face value it is entirely incorrect. Boeing can tailor the 787 fuselage however they please except for making it too thin to withstand stresses from barely visible impact damage which is not a limitation imposed by the manufacturing methodology.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 9:25 am

Quoting CM (Reply 75):
A simple stretch of the A359 (no MTOW growth) would likely have still been capable of over 6500nm, maybe even 7000nm.

I did such a frame, the A350-950 and put it into my rough model, it comes out as 6700nm. It would be the A350 wing and MLG with the A350-1000 fuselage and tail. The model is very similar to the 787-10 except it is one tick larger. Here the relevant data for all models that are alternatives to A350-1000 and one tick larger or smaller, to be taken with a grain of salt, it is just a model, but interesting just the same:


Aircraft.............................787-10.......A350-900.....A350-950...A350-1000N....777-8X......777-9X
EIS....................................2018............2014...........2018...........2017............2019.........2019
Seating, 3 class typical.........320.............314.............350............350..............353...........407
Spec range model nm .........6.700..........8.100...........6.700.........8.400...........8.600........8.500
FF kg/hr.............................5.700..........5.700...........5.800.........6.500...........6.500........7.000
FF kg/nm/per Pax..............0,0365........0,0370.........0,0350.......0,0370..........0,0370......0,0350


The 350-950 Silly would have the seat-mile-fuel burn of the 777-9X ie best in class and a tick better then the 787-10. Right now Airbus have the 350-900 as best model just shy of the 787-10.

The 350-950 is no bad idea, could be made right after the 350-1000 and hit the market the same time as the 787-10, just mix and match the pieces, piece of cake    .

[Edited 2012-05-08 02:32:51]
Non French in France
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 9:44 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77):
And the moment it got delayed, the orders hit a complete brick wall, to the extent of being a net negative number for the last 4 years. So why the f*** are we so trying to convince ourselves that it's somehow different for the A350-1000?
It's BS

Except, before the brick wall, the 787 (-8 or -9) had a ton more sales than the 351. BS indeed.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 11:50 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 87):
Except, before the brick wall, the 787 (-8 or -9) had a ton more sales than the 351. BS indeed.

Sure, because Boeing made the airlines believe that not only was the 787 the best thing since sliced bread, but that it would also be available with a lead time of only 4 years after launch. With so many carriers falling for that PR, Boeing was able to generate an unprecedented number of sales within a very short time indeed. Once expectations regarding composites and the delivery targets became a bit more realistic, Boeing had to cope with net order losses for the 787.

Airbus never had the "luxury" of airlines rushing in to buy the A350 XWB, because they always gave a lead time of over 6 years between programme launch and EIS for the first variant. (As an aside: At the time - we're talking 2006 here - they were getting a lot of flac on this here on a.net, because that seemed so much slower than what Boeing were still proposing for the 787.)
Regarding the -1000: It was always scheduled to be the last variant to enter service, about two years after the -900.
Along with the changes to the A350-1000's thrust, MTOW and range that Airbus announced in June 2011, the -1000 EIS also got delayed by a whopping 18 months.
Etihad then proceeded to cancel 13 of its 25 orders for the type.

Recognise a pattern here that really hasn't much to do with which manufacturer and type we're talking about?

And lastly:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 68):
I of course have no idea what the airline executives are thinking, but if I were them (and I wish I were), after the debacles involving the 380 and 787 deliveries, I wouldn't be very trusting of either manufacturer when they talk about EIS dates. Perhaps the airlines are waiting until the 350 has made it farther along through the manufacturing process before committing billions of dollars/Euros on it.
42
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:06 pm

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 69):
Quote"With 25 cancellations of 787 Dreamliners by clients not named, against 19 orders so far this year, Boeing is in negative territory for its flagship aircraft built largely with composite materials that it says will use 20 per cent less fuel than similarly sized aircraft.At $193.5 million (148.3 million euros) apiece according to list prices, the cancellations are a $4.8 billion hit on the US manufacturer's order book.Boeing did not comment on the latest order figures."

Not exactly true, Those 19 do not include the 10 QR frames ordered in Jan, as they are not firm as of yet. That would make them +4 even with the 25 they lost from CX. But anyways, you are talking about a plane that has over 800 firm orders for it and a production line filled to capacity for years to come.
Florin
Orlando, FL
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:58 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 89):
Not exactly true, Those 19 do not include the 10 QR frames ordered in Jan, as they are not firm as of yet.

So really, those 10 haven't been ordered in the same way that the A350 LoIs and MoUs from Vietnam Airlines, AF/KLM and others haven't been ordered.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 89):
But anyways, you are talking about a plane that has over 800 firm orders for it and a production line filled to capacity for years to come.

Nobody disputed that over 800 orders is a healthy order base, and I don't think anybody here will have any doubt that the 787 will have no issues breaking the 1000 order barrier.

But when comparing the current 787 and A350 order book please keep the points I and others have made above in mind.
42
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 12:59 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
The 350-950 is no bad idea, could be made right after the 350-1000 and hit the market the same time as the 787-10, just mix and match the pieces, piece of cake

A great idea - perfect replacement for A333 regional but a little bigger.

Presumably it would have A359 not A3510 engines?

And maybe some structural weight loss due to lower MTOW?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9920
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 1:15 pm

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 79):
The article mentions 25 cancellations from "unnamed clients". You, however, referenced articles with named clients. Could these be another batch that you don't know about? Highly unlikely as you, or Reuters know nothing about it. You do know an awful lot about Boeing.

24 are from China Eastern (they converted to 45 737s), which was discussed extensively here on a.net, and 1 from an unknown customer.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 1:38 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 92):
Quoting ebbuk (Reply 79):
The article mentions 25 cancellations from "unnamed clients". You, however, referenced articles with named clients. Could these be another batch that you don't know about? Highly unlikely as you, or Reuters know nothing about it. You do know an awful lot about Boeing.

24 are from China Eastern (they converted to 45 737s), which was discussed extensively here on a.net, and 1 from an unknown customer.


The 1 from an unknown customer was a VIP bird I believe.

So, China Eastern converts 24 787's to 45 737s... and then orders 20 773er's? That seems like a very good trade to me.   
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 2:19 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 91):
Presumably it would have A359 not A3510 engines?

And maybe some structural weight loss due to lower MTOW?

The -950 would be based on the -900 including wing, MLG, Engines but it would have the 7m longer -1000 fuselage. That in turn means 7*1.2t more OEW then the 350-900, here the assumed weights for all models:


Aircraft.............................787-10.......A350-900.....A350-950...A350-1000N....777-8X......777-9X
EIS....................................2018............2014...........2018...........2017............2019.........2019
Seating, 3 class typical.........320.............314.............350............350..............353...........407
Spec range model nm .........6.700..........8.100...........6.700.........8.400...........8.600........8.500
FF kg/hr.............................5.700..........5.700...........5.800.........6.500...........6.500.........7.000
FF kg/nm/per Pax..............0,0365........0,0370.........0,0350.........0,0370..........0,0370......0,0350
MTOW.kg...........................250.837......268.000.......268.000......308.000........315.247....344.277
MZFW................................188.000......192.000.......202.000......220.000........225.000....245.000
MSP.....................................56.000........57.000........59.000........68.000.........67.000......73.000
OEW..................................132.000.......135.000......143.000......152.000........158.000....172.000
OEW/MTOW..........................0,526...........0,504.........0,535..........0,494...........0,500........0,500

When you do a transform like the 789 to 7810 or 359 to 359.5 you keep the MTOW to keep MLG, engines and wing planform/high lift but you need to increase the MZFW otherwise the larger cargohold becomes unusable. As the MZFW goes up you need to reinforce wing and fuselage main loadcarrying structure (the fuse inherited from the -1000 comes ready for higher weights, here you need to reduce margins a bit). Also the OEW goes up with some 1.2t or so per meter fuselage (structure + system and extra cabin furnishing, seating etc).
Non French in France
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 2:32 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
The 77X8 will not be a hotseller.

Interesting comment. If Ferpe's numbers below are correct, the -8X will match the A351 in fuel burn per passenger but will have a range advantage that will allow more cargo to be carried on a given mission. If this is the case, it would seem to do as well in the market place as the A351 since both airplanes have about the same passenger count.

The data also says that the -9X will have a almost a 6% fuel burn per pax advantage over the A351. This will allow it to compete rather well against the A351 and fill a market hole formerly occupied by the 744..

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):

Aircraft..............................787-10.......A350-900.....A350-950...A350-1000N....777-8X......777-9X
EIS....................................2018............2014...........2018...........2017............2019.........2019
Seating, 3 class typical.........320.............314.............350............350..............353...........407
Spec range model nm .........6.700..........8.100...........6.700.........8.400...........8.600........8.500
FF kg/hr.............................5.700..........5.700...........5.800.........6.500...........6.500........7.000
FF kg/nm/per Pax..............0,0365........0,0370.........0,0350.......0,0370..........0,0370......0,0350
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
HAL9k
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:30 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 2:48 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
The 77X8 will not be a hotseller.

I guess that there is quite a market for the 77X8, and I like the idea to make the 77X8 to replace the 772R and the 77X8L to replace the 772L.
Today Boeing have used the "second generation" 777 only for the -200LR and the -300ER moldels, still selling, alongside the 10 year older -200ER.
The -200LR is suited only for ultra long range routes and quite heavy for the the routes where you can deploy a -200ER.
On the other side airlines are sheptic about the -200ER as it will not maintain residual value quite long as still of the "old generation"...

The 77X8 will not have such a problem and the 77X8 + 77X9 will be a successfull family. Bechmarks in their respective categories as the 77W is today.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 3:15 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 95):
If Ferpe's numbers below are correct, the -8X will match the A351 in fuel burn per passenger but will have a range advantage that will allow more cargo to be carried on a given mission. If this is the case, it would seem to do as well in the market place as the A351 since both airplanes have about the same passenger count.

They do but only if the airline accepts 10 abrest, for 9 abrest the -1000 is the better choice as per this table:

Aircraft.............................A350-1000.......777-300ER..........777-8X.......777-9X
Seating, 3 class typical.........350..................365..................353............407
Fuselage length....................73,9.................73,9.................68,6...........76,5
Maximum cabin width...........5,61.................5,87..................5,97...........5,97
Cabin lenght........................58,8.................58,5...................53,3...........61,1
Cabin floor m2....................329,8................343,4.................318,0.........364,7

The reason the -8X can compete with the -1000 in fuel burn per seat is that it compensates it non CFRP body with one generation newer engines (-2% in TSFC).

Conclusion: it is all about the engines  , we have seen this before  Wow! (sorry, the 71m wing is nice to, contributes as well Big grin )

[Edited 2012-05-08 08:20:57]
Non French in France
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 3:17 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
Correct, except 2).

The A351 will have commonality with the 300 seater of choice in the future. And even a 250 seater with commonality will be available, if you need to round up the fleet a bit at the lower end.

My point was A351 in reference to the A350 lineup, not AvsB. We have seen that the 777-200LR has suffered in sales due to its lack of commonality with the 777-200ER. Of course all the changes were made to improve the performance, but most airlines were simply unwilling to add a new sub-fleet unless they had the 777-300ER to share commonality with it.

The A351 seems to be moving away from its A359 brother day by day. This may improve the performance, but it adds costs. These costs are both upfront and ongoing. Which will make selling the A351 to an airline operating the A359 that much harder.

Which is why I still believe in canceling the A358, and making the A351 a simple stretch at this time. The work for the higher MTOW A351 can continue later, and be rolled into a A359ER and A351ER model that has that decade of technology and "bug" fixes learned from actual airline use of the aircraft.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Etihad Cancels Another 7 A350-1000

Tue May 08, 2012 4:22 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 77):
It is bloody good. But that's NOT what's hurting sales. The 777-300ER didn't "suddenly" become good just as the A350-1000 got delayed.    

I believe the performance of the 777-300ER is having some effect on sales and here is why I believe this.

Airbus is improving the capabilities of the A350-1000 at EIS beyond what they planned for in 2006. And I honestly believe that is not just to keep the Middle Eastern customers happy, even if they are the ones making the most noise. We can safely assume that most A350-900 customers have the option to switch to the A350-1000 and as a number of them are also 777-300ER operators (including large customers like SQ and CX), it strikes me as logical that these improvements are as much meant to get those customers to switch to the A350-1000 instead of continuing to buy 777-300ERs, as they have been doing, as it is to shut Clark and Al-Baker up.

And yes, I understand that availability is a significant reason for them to continue to place orders for 777-300ERs, but it is also the performance of those planes that is influencing their decision to buy them and not wait for the A350-1000. And that those customers are continuing to add 777-300ERs means that those carriers have new airframes being delivered within a couple of years of when they could be receiving A350-1000s. So they have young 777-300ERs they are making payments for and they are not going to turn around and toss them for new A350-1000s even if the plane does end up costing significantly less to operate. So where they may have been placing orders for the A350-1000 for delivery in the late 2010s, they are instead going to operate their 777-300ERs during that period and defer their next wave of orders - which likely would be the A350-1000 - until the next decade.



Quoting ebbuk (Reply 79):
You, however, referenced articles with named clients. Could these be another batch that you don't know about?


It is possible, but it would have had to have happened over the weekend since no 787 cancellations were reported in their latest O&D update on 3 May.

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