Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44): Yes, eventually 2-3 years after EIS they will grab an extra few percent but you draw the best plane that you think you can build with the technology you believe you have; you can't just magic up extra performance or you end up in 787.. Its pretty obvious that LH firming up first has caused issues for Boeing WRT EK's demands.

But the point is that few percent is always there, and Boeing has a pretty good idea at the beginning where it is. The reason is that they do the initial calculations with some safety margin, and with testing and experience they learn where they can make things lighter, where they can improve the aerodynamics a bit, and other tweaks. They could do it earlier with more work and more testing. What I am saying is that in this case, where EK wants more range and LH wants the efficiency that they would get with slightly less range, Boeing will likely dig in and work on getting the additional efficiency that would normally come after a couple of years in service at the outset, and make both of them happy.

Reply 31
For EK, I subscribe to the theory they are trying to improve details. Until the MOU approaches expiration, they have no rush. As with the GE-90 powered 777s, they will likely remain the #1 customer, so Boeing will negotiate.

Yes I am sure that this is simply the answer.No big deal.We know ('cos they said so) that given a choice they would want more 380's but they can't fit anymore in at their base. So yes they will try and make the 777X 'do' as much as possible esp' range (what with them opening up S America and all).

Slightly of topic. But what I believe we are starting to see in a whole new model of how aircraft are specified. Right now (essentially) EK is redesigning the 777 and the 380 to 'their personal ' spec's. When you but 150 od one or 150 of the other you can do this.

Now think of the next gen 600 seater or next gen 400 seater. EK will design it essentially and ask for the 2 manufacturers to pitch for thir business (say 200 copies per type).They can and IMHO they will. Everone else will have to fit themselves around this - unless- a large group of airlines group together with a similarly large order.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 50): But the point is that few percent is always there,

I don't agree, if the few percent is obviously there then just agree to what EK wants and cash the cheque.. the 7779X is pushing the airframe and engine design up to its limits (no other reason for GE to mull over water injection), further than they would have gone if the A350 were not threatening the 777W.

Designs can only be stretched so far 744-->748 for example where they could not make it do what EK wanted - physics 1-0 Boeing (AET).

And promissing magic aircraft just leads to embarasment (sonic cruiser) or embarasment and penalty payments (787), I doubt that Boeing will allow marketting to design another aircraft.

To start out I think it is more likely that Eimirates and Qatar firm the MOU and order the B777X rather than not.

That said, neither Emirates nor Qatar has ordered the B777X up to now.
The situation is not comparable to A380-800 versus B747-8i. There is a big size (ca. 20%)a and CASM difference between those two.

The B777-9 has a real competition in the A 350-1000. The size difference is around 10% and CASM is expected to be nearly identical. The expected range of the B777-9 is about 8,200 nm and of the A350-1000 8,000 nm.
So were there is no real alternative to the A380, the A350-1000 is a stick well usable to wave in the face of Boeing if Emirates does not get what they want.
So there could be the possibility that if Boeing makes the wrong moves we could see 50 to 100 B777-8 for range and some 100 A350-1000 for economy on not as long routes. Both fleets being big enough to reach economy of scale.

I would not be worried for Boeing waiting out this year, but a longer wait gets nearer to the first flight of the A350-1000.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53): To start out I think it is more likely that Eimirates and Qatar firm the MOU and order the B777X rather than not.

Yup.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53): The expected range of the B777-9 is about 8,200 nm and of the A350-1000 8,000 nm. So were there is no real alternative to the A380, the A350-1000 is a stick well usable to wave in the face of Boeing if Emirates does not get what they want.

I imagine that Airbus would build the -1100 and hang RR Advance on it if EK asked them real nice as stealing the 150 aircraft order would shoot the 777-9 in the head, and it would kill it..   

Pretty sure that an A350 with advance was never offered as an option against the 777X but if they are going to build it for EK's A380NEO why the heck not..   

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53): I would not be worried for Boeing waiting out this year, but a longer wait gets nearer to the first flight of the A350-1000.

I'm quite convinced EK will convert a substantial part of their A350-900s on order into -1000s. They seem to be waiting for in-service figures of the A359 from what I've heard.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 54): I imagine that Airbus would build the -1100 and hang RR Advance on it if EK asked them real nice as stealing the 150 aircraft order would shoot the 777-9 in the head, and it would kill it..

   For EK the -1100 would lack the range, if it would be a straightforward stretch from the -1000.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53): The expected range of the B777-9 is about 8,200 nm and of the A350-1000 8,000 nm.

Range for the A350-1000 goes up to 8,400 nm in a three-class cabin. The 8,000 nm figure is for a two-class cabin.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 55): the -1100 would lack the range, if it would be a straightforward stretch from the -1000.

With the Trent XWB engine, it would. But BoeingVista is suggesting the RR Advance engine, have a look at this article:

http://leehamnews.com/2014/05/05/log...usions-airbus-wide-body-decisions/

Quote: The Advance works like a magic wand on this viscous circle. More efficient and lighter then the Trent XWB, it enables a 2020 EIS of a 400 seat A350 which weighs fractionally more than today’s A350-1000. It means no new wing, no new landing gear, etc, just a fuselage stretch married to Advanced engines and you have your 400 passengers flown the distance asked for.

Not saying it will happen of course.

[Edited 2014-05-13 08:14:22]

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 55): For EK the -1100 would lack the range, if it would be a straightforward stretch from the -1000.

I don't have the article to hand (it was on Scott Hamiltons blog) but the suggestion has been made that a 400 seat -1100 with RR Advance engines would have the same range as a -1000 for roughly the same weight with no wing modifications. As I say this combination was not in the mix when the 7779X was launched.

EDIT

Thanks Karel yes, thats the article

[Edited 2014-05-13 08:14:31]

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56):

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 57):

Wow. A new engine and you can increase capacity with 10% and still keep the same ramge. It is truly amazing how fast engine development goes nowadays!
Thinking about it, Boeing could create a 787-10ER with the same range as the -9 by just applying the RR advance engine - destroying the A350-900....
But:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56): Not saying it will happen of course.

I personally think the A380 needs a new engine harder than the A350 for a possible -1100. The A350's future is bright as it is anyway, and will be a success story with or without further stretches.
The A380 is a different story however. I truly believe that a number have airlines wouldn't have ordered the A380 if they had the choice for the 777-9 earlier (MH, TG, CZ and AF come to mind). So, to keep these kind of airlines interested in the A380, Airbus must launch an A380neo. EK and QR (thanks for the link, Karel) want it, and I think it would be a success. On contrast, I don't think many airlines have been very vocal about desperately wanting the A350-1100 (but I could be wrong of course).

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 49): MTOW must be increased by 5%. So as (induced) drag scales proportionally with W and drag equals thrust, average thrust must be 2.5% more. And so must fuel burn...

50% of a MTOW increase to account for OEW increase is a high percentage that I am not sure is realistic. 2.5% thrust increase does not mean 2.5% more fuel burn.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 52): the 7779X is pushing the airframe and engine design up to its limits (no other reason for GE to mull over water injection),

GE is increasing the size of the fan and significantly dropping the thrust from the -115Bs but the engine design is at its limits?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 54): I imagine that Airbus would build the -1100 and hang RR Advance on it if EK asked them real nice as stealing the 150 aircraft order would shoot the 777-9 in the head, and it would kill it.

EK/QR are looking for 109 777Xs before the end of 2025. I personally do not see Airbus launching the new derivative, RR launching the new engines, and Airbus dedicating that many production slots to two customers and forgoing sales of the A351 and the A359 in order to match that. I think the 787-10 would sell extremely well on availability in that time period if it were to happen.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56): With the Trent XWB engine, it would. But BoeingVista is suggesting the RR Advance engine, have a look at this article:

I usually agree with Scott but I had a hard time with that article sited. I don't see the same Advance engine on an A350-1100 as an A380neo or an A330neo; it would require a different fan and thrust profile and would have to be an expensive derivative engine at best.

tortugamon

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 58): Thinking about it, Boeing could create a 787-10ER with the same range as the -9 by just applying the RR advance engine - destroying the A350-900....

If it would fit, the 787 seems to be a little low to the ground, then sure it might crimp future sales of the A350-900 but the -10 won't be availible for several years after the A359 and the A359 already has 600 odd orders which probably already puts the project into the black. The 777X situation is a bit different in that

A) First delivery is not expected for 5-6 years around the same time as a theoretical A350-1100

B) The 777X only currently has 66 firm orders which is kind of the point of this thread.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 58): Thinking about it, Boeing could create a 787-10ER with the same range as the -9 by just applying the RR advance engine - destroying the A350-900....

Such scenario will make the 787-10ER heavier than the A350-900, not a good idea.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59): I usually agree with Scott but I had a hard time with that article sited. I don't see the same Advance engine on an A350-1100 as an A380neo or an A330neo; it would require a different fan and thrust profile and would have to be an expensive derivative engine at best.

Sure, Airbus could wait a few years and do the A380neo first.

The A350 family requires 79,000 to 97,000 lbf thrust which is within the range of the Advance.

[Edited 2014-05-13 10:32:23]

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61): Such scenario will make the 787-10ER heavier than the A350-900, not a good idea.

The 787-10 would still have a revenue advantage from it's larger size and that has been shown to be enough to justify the extra weight to operators of other competing models (A380 vs. 748, 77W vs 77E, A333 vs. A332).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62): that has been shown to be enough to justify the extra weight to operators of other competing models (A380 vs. 748, 77W vs 77E, A333 vs. A332).

Not entirely. The aircraft you mention have like 50 to 100 additional seats over the smaller aircraft while the 787-10 only offers 9 additional seats (314 vs 323). This is more a A330-300 vs 777-200ER situation.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59): GE is increasing the size of the fan and significantly dropping the thrust from the -115Bs but the engine design is at its limits?

Yes, at it's limit to meet SFC promises and lb thrust as currently designed, the GE90X is was not designed to be a 115k lb engine, you know this.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59): EK/QR are looking for 109 777Xs before the end of 2025. I personally do not see Airbus launching the new derivative, RR launching the new engines, and Airbus dedicating that many production slots to two customers and forgoing sales of the A351 and the A359 in order to match that.

Well, the engine is launched already it is just without an application. 109 airframes over 5 years is an extra 2 per month this should be doable, if it meant depriving Boeing of 150 777X and compromising the business case strategically it might be worth doing but no, the derivative is not launched, nor I doubt it will be launched at Farnbourough.

Having said that it must have crossed Tim Clarks mind that the theoretical A350-1100A would allow him to fly 50 passengers essentially for free over the 777-9X and thats the kind of thing that really appeals to him. The kind of thing that does not appeal to him is standing around while another airline gains a CASM advantage.

If the A350-1100A does happen it will be taught in business school as an example of unintended consequences, if RR were allowed onto the 777-9 in the first place they would not be casting around trying to find somewhere to hang the Advance engine..

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 52): I don't agree, if the few percent is obviously there then just agree to what EK wants and cash the cheque.

I believe it is, and it is a case of how much time and money Boeing will invest chasing it. My point is that in order to keep both LH and EK happy (which I believe Boeing must do) they will put in the extra effort to get there. Engineers can always improve a project; if it was up to them no product would ever make it into production, because they would still be improving it. It is the manager's job to say when good enough is perfect. I am saying that in this case Boeing may have to wait a bit longer before they call time.

Frankly, EK is big enough for them to take 150 777-9s and 150 A350-1100s. Maybe that is why they're still holding on to the A350-900 instead of converting them to the A350-1100...  

Plus if the Advance is such a "miracle worker" (ala Captain Montgomery Scott), you think EK would have twisted Boeing's arm to have it on the 777X...   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66): Plus if the Advance is such a "miracle worker" (ala Captain Montgomery Scott), you think EK would have twisted Boeing's arm to have it on the 777X...

Nobody claims it's a miracle engine. Both GE90X and Advance engines come with a 5% lower SFC than the current Trent XWB engine so they are in the same ballpark. The only thing the Advance would do is giving the A350-1000 stretch the same range as the -900 and -1000 without requiring a new wing, which was the point of the Leeham article.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61): Such scenario will make the 787-10ER heavier than the A350-900, not a good idea.

I thought we were ball parking a mature A359 as about 5t+ heavier than a 781? Those engines aren't that heavy are they?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61): The A350 family requires 79,000 to 97,000 lbf thrust which is within the range of the Advance.

I can't see an A350-1100 stretch needing only 4k of additional thrust to match A351 range. I know Ferpe is coming out similarly. I don't think the A330neo nor the A380neo will need 79k either.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64): Yes, at it's limit to meet SFC promises and lb thrust as currently designed, the GE90X is was not designed to be a 115k lb engine, you know this.

If you meant the GE90 then it was designed for that. If you mean the GE9x then I am not sure how it could be up against its design limit when it won't even reach firm design configuration for at least another year. Anything RR can do with the Advance surely GE is similarly capable with a much larger budget and a viable expense account to work off of.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64): Having said that it must have crossed Tim Clarks mind that the theoretical A350-1100A would allow him to fly 50 passengers essentially for free over the 777-9X and thats the kind of thing that really appeals to him.

With their fleet of A332s, 77Ls, and A345s and 778s on order it sure seems like EK likes shrinks with range and fleet flexibility rather than dedicated regional aircraft. They already view the A351 as a 10-hour or less aircraft, how much range would a simple stretch have in EK's mind, 6-7 hours? With the heat and EK's cargo interest I am not sure they would have much interest in a simple stretch and I don't see a ~400-seat aircraft being made without EK's blessing after the 748i case study.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): I thought we were ball parking a mature A359 as about 5t+ heavier than a 781?

We have, assuming the 787-10 comes with a T1000 / GEnx engine. The Advance engine will be heavier, it's designed for a 777 sized aircraft, and would also require more structural support (wing / landing gear etc). It would easily add weight to the 787-10ER.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): I can't see an A350-1100 stretch needing only 4k of additional thrust to match A351 range.

I'm not sure where you are getting the 4k lbf from, the Advance thrust range goes to 105k lbf. So it could give the -1100 an additional 8k lbf thrust, double the figure ferpe is projecting.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): A330neo

It doesn't look like the Advance will be fitted on the A330neo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): A380neo

Current A380 thrust range is 78 - 80 klbf; the Advance thrust range starts at 75k lbf. One of the Advance family members will be tailor made for the A380neo is you ask me, even if that aircraft requires a bit less thrust due to the lower weight.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): They already view the A351 as a 10-hour or less aircraft

This is weird: the A351 has more design range than the 777-9 and most of the 777X on order are for the latter one. Obviously Clark only needs a handful aircraft with the capabilities of the 777-8.

I did some research, this "10-hour" quote dates from 2011 and was based on the original design of the A350-1000 (which had even less range than today's 777-300ER):

http://aviationweek.com/awin/airbus-...oms-key-customers-want-more-thrust

[Edited 2014-05-13 14:41:12]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): and 778s on order

Were is the order?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): I can't see an A350-1100 stretch needing only 4k of additional thrust to match A351 range. I know Ferpe is coming out similarly. I don't think the A330neo nor the A380neo will need 79k either.

I believe this is what we (you) call fuzzy maths, lol

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): If you meant the GE90 then it was designed for that. If you mean the GE9x then I am not sure how it could be up against its design limit when it won't even reach firm design configuration for at least another year. Anything RR can do with the Advance surely GE is similarly capable with a much larger budget and a viable expense account to work off of.

The GE9X was not designed as a 115k lb engine and you know it. Boosting power will steal SFC, and:

A) It is not a given that GE and RR can come to the same SFC level given their radically different approach to engine design (2 shaft v 3) at every level of technology.

B) It not really the engines fault here, the 777-9 is 20t+ heavier and here comes our old friend physics again.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69): We have, assuming the 787-10 comes with a T1000 / GEnx engine. The Advance engine will be heavier, it's designed for a 777 sized aircraft, and would also require more structural support (wing / landing gear etc). It would easily add weight to the 787-10ER.

Maybe maybe not, RR has stated that a carbon fan saves about a tonne of weight per engine.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): They already view the A351 as a 10-hour or less aircraft, how much range would a simple stretch have in EK's mind, 6-7 hours?

The Leeham article clearly answered that:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67): Nobody claims it's a miracle engine. Both GE90X and Advance engines come with a 5% lower SFC than the current Trent XWB engine so they are in the same ballpark. The only thing the Advance would do is giving the A350-1000 stretch the same range as the -900 and -1000 without requiring a new wing, which was the point of the Leeham article.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69): I'm not sure where you are getting the 4k lbf from, the Advance thrust range is 75 - 105 klbf.

I attributed your quote above to the Advance but you were referring to the XWB, my bad.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69): The Advance engine will be heavier, it's designed for a 777 sized aircraft, and would also require more structural support (wing / landing gear etc). It would easily add weight to the 787-10ER.

I am sure it would add weight but 5t in engines and strengthening is a lot.

I have a hard time picturing four 777-sized engines on an A380neo. Its hard to imagine that the engine could be ideal for both an aircraft that requires ~75k X 4 as well as one that would need ~100 X 2. Its hard to believe there wouldn't be a compromise somewhere.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69): This is weird: the A351 has more design range than the 777-9 and most of the 777X on order are for the latter one.

I have the A351 as a ~8000nm bird and the 779 as 'greater than 8200nm'. I agree its a weird quote from him but if it was nearly anyone else I would disregard but Sir Tim Clark is not one to mince words.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69): I did some research, this "10-hour" quote dates from 2011 and was based on the original design of the A350-1000 (which had even less range than today's 777-300ER):

I have him saying it in 2012 after the re-design as well.

Quote: He said the competing jet proposed by Airbus, the A350-1000, will have its own market niche but "doesn't quite stack up" against Boeing's so-called 777X update, planned for the end of the decade....Clark said the delivery timetable of the Airbus jet is questionable. He also predicted that the 777X will outperform it. "They're different airplanes," he said. The 777X "has greater legs, greater range, greater lift." The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said. That currently encompasses 80 percent of the Emirates route network, he said, but the airline plans to shift more "into the 13-to-18 hour mission range." "That's, frankly, where it doesn't quite stack up," Clark said.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...echnology/2017651815_boeing03.html

Maybe it is a dated quote in the article or maybe he is going to pack more people in then Airbus estimates or maybe he was referencing its performance before the redesign, I don't know. If he still feels that way then it is hard to see him being interested in a simple stretch A350-1100 in my opinion.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 71): The GE9X was not designed as a 115k lb engine and you know it.

I do, and Boeing is in deep do-do if they need 115k out of it.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 71): A) It is not a given that GE and RR can come to the same SFC level given their radically different approach to engine design (2 shaft v 3) at every level of technology.

And GE is multiple generations into a carbon fan and starting more advanced ceramic work for higher temperatures which RR is not up to speed on. There are tradeoffs but I feel pretty confident that as they are being produced in similar time periods that the results will also be similar. If RR could have beaten the GE9x then I think Boeing would have given them at least a chance when they were deciding on engines. I can't see them saying that they purposely want the worse engine.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 71): B) It not really the engines fault here, the 777-9 is 20t+ heavier and here comes our old friend physics again.

Don't get me wrong, I think Airbus and RR can do it, I just don't think it would be cheap, it will sacrifice production slots that can already be sold at solid margin, and ultimately isn't the best use of resources in the near term. They would need to launch immediately and I have been saying all along that if this 400 seat market is big enough (not sure it is) then there will be time post 2020 to launch it not unlike the 77W vs the 77E.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 71): The Leeham article clearly answered that:

...and I clearly had an issue with his conclusion which is what I am mentioning above.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): And GE is multiple generations into a carbon fan and starting more advanced ceramic work for higher temperatures which RR is not up to speed on.

These 2 technologies have now been gated by RR for inclusion in the Advance, this is partly where the large jump from the TXWB comes from, with significantly reduced weight.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): There are tradeoffs but I feel pretty confident that as they are being produced in similar time periods that the results will also be similar.

You kind of admit that they are at different technology insertion points as is always the way with high tech, so comparitive performance tends to be elastic from one product range to the next, Intel v AMD microchips would be a good example.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): ...and I clearly had an issue with his conclusion which is what I am mentioning above.

No, you seem to be deciding what Tim Clark would think based on his comments from before the A350-1000 redesign, but if you want to state on the record that you think the A350-1100 will be an aircraft with 6-7 hours of range here's your opportunity....

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): If RR could have beaten the GE9x then I think Boeing would have given them at least a chance when they were deciding on engines. I can't see them saying that they purposely want the worse engine.

Boeing did give RR a chance to pitch their engine but thats not really the arguement here though since you brought it up even if the Advance outperformed the GE9X by a percent or 2 Boeing may still have legitimately decided on GE for other commercial reasons, plus its not as if RR could use the (maybe more efficient maybe not) engine on another platform and compete with the 777X in the 400 seat market now is it... Ah...

[Edited 2014-05-13 18:41:39]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): I have him saying it in 2012 after the re-design as well.

Reading the article, I can't find the "10 hours" quote? He is just saying the 777X is in the "13-to-18 hour mission range" and that includes the 777-8 as well.

The A350-900 is already going to fly 12 hours missions in the Qatar Airways fleet and the A350-1000 has a bit more range. I can only conclude the "10 hours" quote dates from the original A350-1000, which had 600 nm less range.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): I have the A351 as a ~8000nm bird and the 779 as 'greater than 8200nm'.

The design range is 8,400 nm for a three-class cabin, and 8,000 nm for a two-class cabin.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): Its hard to imagine that the engine could be ideal for both an aircraft that requires ~75k X 4 as well as one that would need ~100 X 2.

Well, there will be multiple engines, not just one. The lower thrust variant could be fitted on a quad while the higher model could be fitted on a twin jet.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): Its hard to believe there wouldn't be a compromise somewhere.

There are always compromises in aviation. But, if that compromise comes with a 10% fuel burn reduction, it might be worth going for.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61):Such scenario will make the 787-10ER heavier than the A350-900, not a good idea. I thought we were ball parking a mature A359 as about 5t+ heavier than a 781? Those engines aren't that heavy are they?

I don't think so either. I have trouble believing that an enigne which would work like a magic wand for an A350-1100 would be a bad idea for a 787-10ER:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 56): http://leehamnews.com/2014/05/05/log...usions-airbus-wide-body-decisions/ Quote:The Advance works like a magic wand on this viscous circle. More efficient and lighter then the Trent XWB, it enables a 2020 EIS of a 400 seat A350 which weighs fractionally more than today’s A350-1000. It means no new wing, no new landing gear, etc, just a fuselage stretch married to Advanced engines and you have your 400 passengers flown the distance asked for.

The amount of work for hanging the RR Advance engine on a 787-10 shouldn't be that more complicated than it would be for an A350. Only issue I see could be ground clearance, but you can fit a smaller diameter fan which would reduce weight as well. Of course this also means some compromises in efficiency, but it would still be a superior airplane to the the current A359.

Anyway, this is probably all hypothetical, for both A350 and 787 with their current product line up the problem will be production capacity, not lack of sales....

As for firming up the 777X Mou's by EK and QR, it will probably be just the last details that need to be resolved. Both are far enough to back out of their 777X commitments, even if Airbus announces an A350-1100. And I think Airbus knows this as well.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): As for firming up the 777X Mou's by EK and QR, it will probably be just the last details that need to be resolved. Both are far enough to back out of their 777X commitments, even if Airbus announces an A350-1100. And I think Airbus knows this as well.

We can all have our opinion if EK and QR will firm up the MOUs regarding the 777-X, but we still should keep to the difference between an MOU and an order. I think that the possibility of this MOU moves to an order is very high, but it is not a done deal yet, and also the numbers can still change. The 34 frames MOU from Lufthansa became 20 orders and 14 options.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): The amount of work for hanging the RR Advance engine on a 787-10 shouldn't be that more complicated than it would be for an A350. Only issue I see could be ground clearance

Another issue would be does Boeing want a 787-10 to eat into the 777-8 business case.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): As for firming up the 777X Mou's by EK and QR, it will probably be just the last details that need to be resolved. Both are far enough to back out of their 777X commitments, even if Airbus announces an A350-1100. And I think Airbus knows this as well.

You don't think that Airbus launching a plane that would allow competitors to fly an extra 50 PAX for free would have ANY effect on EK firming up this order? Any competent businessman would take a pause to evaluate such a major change in the marketplace before he committs billions of dollars.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): I have trouble believing that an enigne which would work like a magic wand for an A350-1100 would be a bad idea for a 787-10ER:

There is no such thing as magic wand, it all comes down to weight.

The 777-9 is being estimated to be 30 tons heavier than the A350-1000. Obviously, an A350-1100 would be much lighter. A stretch would add some 15 to 20 tons additional weight, making it some 15 to 10 tons lighter than the 777-9. Similar difference like the A340-500/600 versus 777-300ER.

In case of the 787-10 versus A350-900, the weight difference is much smaller, in the 5 tons ballpark. Not much wiggle room there, so if the -10ER exceeds the A359 weight, it might have a disadvantage. Now Boeing will of course do whatever they can to remove weight, but so will Airbus.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): Of course this also means some compromises in efficiency, but it would still be a superior airplane to the the current A359. Anyway, this is probably all hypothetical

Sure, many of the discussions on this forum are hypothetical.

So in that same hypothetical scenario, one would put the Advance engine on the A359 as well.

[Edited 2014-05-14 04:13:26]

Regarding a A350-1100. It is a hypothetical frame not even on paper yet.

I think if one talks competition one should look at the A350-1000 versus the B777-X. The size difference is either not there (B777-8) or small enough (B777-9) that an airline can decided to by either.
As a A350-1000 can replace a B777-300 in size, airlines could move from B777-300 fleets to A350-1000 fleets without a reduction in carrying capacity.
We are here perhaps talking about the one customer, Emirates, were the size increase could be the main consideration, of course at similar CASM. Everybody else could choose the A350-1000.

Economically how would a 777-9X compete with a 350-1100ADV?

How would a A350-1100ADV compare with a A380 ADV? Would Airbus be wise just to skip the A380 Re-engine and do the A350 - 1100 ADV instead?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73): You kind of admit that they are at different technology insertion points as is always the way with high tech, so comparitive performance tends to be elastic from one product range to the next, Intel v AMD microchips would be a good example.

Sure but I wouldn't say that RR has any advantage now. At least on the Trent 1000 the GEnx appears to have a small lead on fuel burn (especially on long haul) but the 3-spool does negate it on short haul. It is my personal belief that they are very evenly matched and I don't see a reason for that to change.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73): Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): ...and I clearly had an issue with his conclusion which is what I am mentioning above. No, you seem to be deciding what Tim Clark would think based on his comments from before the A350-1000 redesign, but if you want to state on the record that you think the A350-1100 will be an aircraft with 6-7 hours of range here's your opportunity....

I was referring to my belief that the same Advance engine won't be ideal for both the A380 and the A350-1100. And the article I quoted was from 9-months after the redesign, not before. I may or may not be brilliant but I believe it is unwise to disagree with Sir TC.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73): Boeing did give RR a chance to pitch their engine but thats not really the arguement here though since you brought it up even if the Advance outperformed the GE9X by a percent or 2 Boeing may still have legitimately decided on GE for other commercial reasons, plus its not as if RR could use the (maybe more efficient maybe not) engine on another platform and compete with the 777X in the 400 seat market now is it... Ah..

If RR had the technology to beat the GE9x I don't see why Boeing wouldn't give them a chance at exclusivity or at the very least offer two engines. Please name these other factors that could make Boeing ignore 2% when they are only promising 10% to begin with.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74): Reading the article, I can't find the "10 hours" quote?

I quoted it above: "The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said."

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74): Well, there will be multiple engines, not just one.

There would have to be. And maybe they can do similar cores and different size fans and other not insignificant modifications.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74): There are always compromises in aviation. But, if that compromise comes with a 10% fuel burn reduction, it might be worth going for.

I don't think they want to compromise either program if they can help it. Too much $ on the line. I see the engine working for one and not the other.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 75): I don't think so either. I have trouble believing that an enigne which would work like a magic wand for an A350-1100 would be a bad idea for a 787-10ER:

It does seem like there is a double standard there.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 77): Another issue would be does Boeing want a 787-10 to eat into the 777-8 business case.

I don't think it is part of the consideration at all. If you are in the market for that sized airplane and you don't need to fly more than 7knm or more than 5.5knm+ with a belly full of cargo then I don't think you are buying a 778 regardless and no version of the 781 is going to change that. Any 781 improvement that result in more demand will come at the expense of the Airbus models in my opinion.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78): In case of the 787-10 versus A350-900, the weight difference is much smaller, in the 5 tons ballpark.

Sure but the 787-10 is lighter and larger which is significant. I don't believe anyone has the A350-1100 as being the same size or larger than the 777-9.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): I quoted it above: "The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said."

Perhaps the article recycled the previous quote. It is impossible for -1000 to have less capabilities than the -900 while having more design range. That doesn't add up.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): Sure but I wouldn't say that RR has any advantage now. At least on the Trent 1000 the GEnx appears to have a small lead on fuel burn (especially on long haul) but the 3-spool does negate it on short haul. It is my personal belief that they are very evenly matched and I don't see a reason for that to change.

You work from a point of logic where only GE could possibly have an advantage, I wonder why all these stupid airline executives keep buying RR engines..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): I was referring to my belief that the same Advance engine won't be ideal for both the A380 and the A350-1100.

Belief again.. CFM56 hangs off of A340's and 737's, RR BR 700's hang off of Boeing 717's and Gulfstream 650's, engine manufacturers have always tuned a family of engines for different airframes.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): If RR had the technology to beat the GE9x I don't see why Boeing wouldn't give them a chance at exclusivity or at the very least offer two engines. Please name these other factors that could make Boeing ignore 2% when they are only promising 10% to begin with.

Cosy working relationsip with GE on 777 / 737
GE being a risk sharing partner on 777X
GE being incumbant on 77W/L
GE being risk sharing partner on 777W/L
Engine price
Airframe Integration cost
Belief there was no competing airfame in 400 seat sector to punish them for dropping 2% SFC

The list of possible factors is long.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): I don't think it is part of the consideration at all.----Blah--- Any 781 improvement that result in more demand will come at the expense of the Airbus models in my opinion.

Loling.. back to your world view of nobody could possibly want to buy an airbus.. Nobody who might buy a 778 for range rather than capacity would be tempted to switch to a longer range 787-10, only somebody that would buy an Airbus could possibly want to switch to a 787-10.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): I don't believe anyone has the A350-1100 as being the same size or larger than the 777-9.

Leeham article had the -1100 at 400 seats so thats someone.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 76): The 34 frames MOU from Lufthansa became 20 orders and 14 options.

I believe that remains a.net speculation as I don't believe anything from LH have stated they changed their intent from 34 firm orders to 20 firm orders and 14 options / purchase rights. My personal speculation is that they did the first 20 because they had 20 purchase rights for the 747-8 that they could immediately transfer to the 777-9 and that they're working on financing for the whole deal that will then allow them to firm the final 14.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): Any 781 improvement that result in more demand will come at the expense of the Airbus models in my opinion.

And what if Airbus improves the A359 as well? Which I'm sure they will do.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82): Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81): I quoted it above: "The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said." Perhaps the article recycled the previous quote. It is impossible for -1000 to have less capabilities than the -900 while having more design range. That doesn't add up.

Here is a AW article from June 2013 regarding Clark's comment.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...on/emirates-sees-major-demand-777x


'By contrast, Clark sees the Airbus A350-1000 as an aircraft for 10-12 hour missions. “It does not have the legs of the 777X,” he says."

Quoting mffoda (Reply 86): By contrast, Clark sees the Airbus A350-1000 as an aircraft for 10-12 hour missions.

Thank you, just as I thought. The original A350-1000 was a 10-hour aircraft while the improved A350-1000 is a 12-hour aircraft.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 83): You work from a point of logic where only GE could possibly have an advantage, I wonder why all these stupid airline executives keep buying RR engines..

I don't have that logic at all. I actually don't have an opinion on which OEM is better. It sounds like you might but I was just referring to the Trent 1000 where they offer competing products.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 83): back to your world view of nobody could possibly want to buy an airbus.. Nobody who might buy a 778 for range rather than capacity would be tempted to switch to a longer range 787-10, only somebody that would buy an Airbus could possibly want to switch to a 787-10.

Again, not my World view. I stated the circumstances where a 778 would be competitive but outside of those very few circumstances the A351 is the best aircraft in that segment. I don't think the 781 can take too many orders from the A351 because it lacks both capacity and capability. For airlines that need both there really is only one aircraft to buy and nine airlines have done just that.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85): And what if Airbus improves the A359 as well? Which I'm sure they will do.

You miss my point; its not that the 781 will win all orders, its that the 781 can't compete with the limited market that the 778 competes in so I don't see them really going head-to-head in any RFPs and I don't see the 781 taking too many 779 or 789 orders (at least without a range bump) so any orders the 781 gains has to come at the expense of an Airbus product. Just how many orders will greatly depend on Airbus' execution and improvements to the A350 and to a lessor extent, the A333neo.

tortugamon

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24): Quoting travelhound (Reply 23): Am I right in suggesting deposits would be paid at order stage? They would likely have paid some form of deposit when they signed their MoUs committing them to buy the plane. Boeing has noted that 737 MAX commitments have a deposit so it stands to reason so would 777X commitments. There is probably an additional deposit paid when the MoU is firmed.

Is it normal for orders to be firmed up before an aircraft's design has even been finalized?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 89): Is it normal for orders to be firmed up before an aircraft's design has even been finalized?

It is at least the "new" normal since the A380, 787, 747-8, A350 and 737 MAX all had firm orders before they reached firm configuration.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): and I don't see the 781 taking too many 779 or 789 orders (at least without a range bump)

   I'm sorry to have to say this but you always seem to be a little behind the conversation, you / we are talking about hanging Advance engines on airframes including the 781, that would give the 781 a significant range bump.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): I don't have that logic at all. I actually don't have an opinion on which OEM is better. It sounds like you might

No, I say

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73): so comparitive performance tends to be elastic from one product range to the next

Quoting Stitch (Reply 84): I believe that remains a.net speculation as I don't believe anything from LH have stated they changed their intent from 34 firm orders to 20 firm orders and 14 options / purchase rights.

Nope, reports at the time stated that the order was for 20 firm and 14 options

Quote: The Lufthansa order for the Boeing 777-9X, is the first one for the new version of the successful mini-jumbo with new wings and engines. The order includes 20 firm and 14 options which needed to be reconfirmed at a later date. The order is conditional on Boeing launching the aircraft, which is widely expected to happen at the Dubai Air Show in November 2013.

http://airguideonline.com/2013/09/19...7-9x-and-airbus-a350-900-aircraft/

[Edited 2014-05-14 17:15:04]

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 89): Quoting Stitch (Reply 24): Quoting travelhound (Reply 23): Am I right in suggesting deposits would be paid at order stage? They would likely have paid some form of deposit when they signed their MoUs committing them to buy the plane. Boeing has noted that 737 MAX commitments have a deposit so it stands to reason so would 777X commitments. There is probably an additional deposit paid when the MoU is firmed. Is it normal for orders to be firmed up before an aircraft's design has even been finalized?

What's normal?

I'd suggest with the delivery of these planes so far out the airlines are not willing to pay a full(?) deposit. You would also think, considering these planes are still in the development stage there would be a performance aspect to the contract that would need be confirmed before a final price is firmed.

I am not aware of the format of these contracts, but I can see reasons why it could be advantages for these airlines to delay signing of contracts.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 91): Nope, reports at the time stated that the order was for 20 firm and 14 options

Thanks for that. All the PR and management statements from LH at the time stated 34 orders (no mention of options or purchase rights) so that was part of the confusion.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 91): Nope, reports at the time stated that the order was for 20 firm and 14 options Quote: The Lufthansa order for the Boeing 777-9X, is the first one for the new version of the successful mini-jumbo with new wings and engines. The order includes 20 firm and 14 options which needed to be reconfirmed at a later date. The order is conditional on Boeing launching the aircraft, which is widely expected to happen at the Dubai Air Show in November 2013. http://airguideonline.com/2013/09/19...7-9x-and-airbus-a350-900-aircraft/

Not all of the early reports were consistent.

Some suggest, even more.... Like this AW piece?

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...thansa-commits-777-9x-and-a350-900


"the first 777X is expected to arrive in the Lufthansa fleet in 2020. Lufthansa says it has the flexibility through options and purchase rights to increase the 777X order to 64 units"

But I'm sure that what ever LH says is really inconsequential for this conversation.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 93): Thanks for that. All the PR and management statements from LH at the time stated 34 orders (no mention of options or purchase rights) so that was part of the confusion.

Like you though I also wondered if the 20 firm had anything to with 748 options, I can't seem to find up to date information about these options do Boeing still show them?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 94): "the first 777X is expected to arrive in the Lufthansa fleet in 2020. Lufthansa says it has the flexibility through options and purchase rights to increase the 777X order to 64 units" But I'm sure that what ever LH says is really inconsequential for this conversation.

1) Purchase rights are not the same as options.

2) A lot of the retail press use short hand to describe what we know to be more complicted situations, often mixing / combining firm orders and options into 'orders' for clarity to their readers who can only cope with one number.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 83): Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):I don't think it is part of the consideration at all.----Blah--- Any 781 improvement that result in more demand will come at the expense of the Airbus models in my opinion. Loling.. back to your world view of nobody could possibly want to buy an airbus.. Nobody who might buy a 778 for range rather than capacity would be tempted to switch to a longer range 787-10, only somebody that would buy an Airbus could possibly want to switch to a 787-10.

It's not that "nobody could possibly buy an airbus." What is that about? It's that an increased-range 787-10ER is likely still not going to have the legs/capability of a 778. If someone doesn't need the range of the latter, why would they buy it? So, if they are kicking tires then it would likely be a 778 or 781ER vs [fill in Airbus model here] and not 778 vs 781ER.

-Dave

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 91): 'm sorry to have to say this but you always seem to be a little behind the conversation, you / we are talking about hanging Advance engines on airframes including the 781, that would give the 781 a significant range bump.

Even a 781ER isn't going to take share from 778. We can talk about it when it gets above 8knm range which I personally do not see ever happening. Until then the 778 is larger and fills a different market. If you don't need the 778 range airlines should go with the A351. If they don't need the range and are not positive about filling the A351 then the 781 is great. If Boeing launches the 781ER then it complicates the equation.

This isn't complicated even if you are up on the conversation: an aircraft that is 10+% smaller and offers 35% less range isn't going to compete with the other. There is no RR/GE/Hand-of-God-Engine that is magical enough to change that equation.

Unless you think the 778 is competitive on sub 5knm routes then we have more to worry about then following the conversation and we have to start wondering about aptitude.

tortugamon

[Edited 2014-05-14 19:22:03]

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97): If someone doesn't need the range of the latter, why would they buy it?

Maybe we should ask SQ why they flew 777's around Asia for a decade when they were probably not the right aircraft for the job, they didn't need the range, before switching to the A333.

[Edited 2014-05-14 20:10:29]