|Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 39):|
OEM's tend to believe their products are good until they're forced into seeing otherwise. See, e.g., Boeing delays on 737MAX and 777X, which cost them orders. Airbus delay launching the A350XWB instead of A350 mk 1.
I don't buy that the delays on the 737MAX were tied to Boeing being deluded into thinking the 737 was too good to be replaced. Rather, the improvements to be gained from an entirely new platform (Y1/NSA) weren't going to be enough to justify the cost of a new program on their own and the engine technology wasn't going to be there until Pratt finally got the GTF
to be reliable enough and/or CFM cobbled together the pieces of LEAP-X.
And Airbus had an existing design in the A32X which allowed them to hang the larger GTF
engines from the wings with relatively limited modifications to the airframe design -- so they had a clear, quick path to market with the A32Xneo. The low stance of the 737 makes the PW1000 a poor match without extensive changes so it's actually quite fortunate for Boeing that LEAP-X gets as close in performance as it does given the constraints of the airframe's design.
Ironically, if Airbus had gone forward with the A350 mk1 (which is more or less the A330neo project), it likely would have sold quite well in light of the 787's extensive delays -- but that's not how the sales numbers were looking at the time of the XWB launch. I have held from the beginning that the guys running Airbus should have been very thankful that the customers were giving them grief about the A350 originally being a warmed-over A330. I think that the A350 in its current incarnation is likely to be far more successful than it would have been if it were competing head-to-head in capacity with the 787; as it currently stands, it has its own lucrative niche.
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):|
let us not forget the day they ordered 150 777Xs, they also ordered 50 A380s. If the 777-9 was able to do all their missions as efficiently or more efficiently, one would have expected an order for 250 777Xs and 0 A380s.
And even if DWC has more than enough slots for hundreds of 777-9 movements a day, that does not mean the rest of the network EK operates to has enough slots to handle the same. Even "secondary" airports are now seeing A380 services because the traffic growth is so strong.
Well, I think you've hit it on the head why it made sense for EK
to order more A380s along with the 777X. IMO DWC
as built-out won't require the A380 to address capacity constraints, but certain slot-limited airports and/or frequency-restricted bilaterals will continue to ensure a place for the A380 in the EK
fleet. Or there will be markets where the demand is right for a single A380 rather than two 779s. Or perhaps the more popular departure time/hub bank time for a route makes the A380 a better match.
But as a general rule, it still makes sense for the smaller aircraft to make up the lion's share of the fleet if it is as efficient (or nearly so) as the larger aircraft with comparable capability.