tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:53 am

Quoting Millenium (Reply 34):
Contrary whay others have said that is actually Airbus new target:
"Mr. Brégier said Airbus is trying to lower build costs so the break-even point can be achieved even if the company builds only around 20 of the planes a year."

I don't think I have read anything to say that Airbus isn't targeting making money at a lower rate. That would be foolish. What others, including myself, have questioned is whether or not they can at such a low rate. The fact that it is a 'target' tells me that they aren't sure either.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 35):
Or have we also forgotten the quotes from Boeing about the 787 flying in a few weeks at the roll-out.

What does that have to do with anything? I am just saying that we can't have it both ways: The 77X is niche! No one wants the added seats! Oh- yeah, we need to build a 77X - me-too-aircraft. JL is a poorly bred fool. Its not just marketing.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 35):
The 788 was first introduced so it cannot be the shrink.

What kind of logic is that? Look at the dimensions between the A332 and the A333 and the 788 and the 789. They are remarkably close. Yet we have no problem calling the A332 a shrink. It is a step smaller than optimal dimensions as is the 788.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 37):
It needed to be bigger to counter the per seat economics of the 35K.

It needed to be bigger to provide some growth to 77W operators who were looking for it and to give the 77X a space all its own while providing compelling economics.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 37):
The 778 not so much.

Agreed there. It is largely built for the ME3. Not sure it wouldn't have been built without them though - just a lot fewer orders.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 37):
What I m arguing is how quickly Boeing launched the program (the showpony of the 777 Classic was not even 10 years in service upon 777X launch)

Sure but programs are getting shorter and its still 4 years away from EIS. Sure it would have labored on longer if the A351 hadn't been launched but its future was written. The frame and most systems will have been in place for 16 years after all.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 37):
The 777X is not the 77W (yet) , and without the ME3 it may have not existed. EK is essential to the fate of the X program (not the 777 in general) and the A380.

Do you really believe that? The 77W has a very wide customer base. The 77X has to at least be the incumbant - the favorite to win most of the replacements for those aircraft vs training pilots and maintenance on a new platform. That is a very lucrative market that would certainly have existed without the ME3. Plus, why the hypothetical? They do exist, and they are very loyal 777 customers, hard to expect them not to replace 77Ws, 77Ls, and 77Fs with their 77X counterparts. The A351 is not exactly lighting the world on fire here.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 38):
the 777X is not that likely to get large orders outside of the ME3

Really? I don't see why CX won't operate 50 strong like they do their 77Ws. I have a hard time seeing AF/KL replaces its
50 strong 77Ws without a hefty share of 77Xs. TK seems to like their couple dozen 77Ws and I don't see them shrinking. Air China either. Several others. Not sure why you are suspect.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 38):
1 of the big EU3 airlines and none of the US3

Sure and one of the other 3 said they see it as a perfect fit to their fleet and the other is a basket case right now. I have a hard time seeing them staying pat.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 38):
My reasoning is that since it's larger, it narrows its appeal a little

Yep, 2.6m...2-3 rows of Y. We keep hearing that traffic is increasing and bigger aircraft will be needed yet, these 2-3 rows are just too much ?! Sure the 779 could not sell as well as the 77W but I do see the 77X outselling the 77W. I will change my opinion if the A351 starts selling more convincingly.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:09 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 27):
I do believe the A350-1000 is an aircraft ahead of it's time, however, and Airbus only has to tweak it to turn it into the next 777-300ER.

There will not be a "next" 777-300ER. What made the 77W so successful was that it was that it beat its only competitor (the A346) by such a margin that it emerged as the only aircraft to buy if you were flying very long routes (leaving the A380 out of it), as its capacity, economics, and range beat all others. There are now more options; the A350 family, the 787 family, and the 777X family are all offering very similar ranges and economics with a range of capacities. This is a situation that has never existed before, and it means that no one aircraft will dominate the long-range market as the 77W did again. The A350, the 787, and the 777X will all do well, but I do not think any one of them will eclipse the others.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):

Really? I don't see why CX won't operate 50 strong like they do their 77Ws.

At least some of those 77Ws will be replaced with A35Ks.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
I have a hard time seeing AF/KL replaces its
50 strong 77Ws without a hefty share of 77Xs.

A35Ks! Though more seriously, AF may prefer the A35K if their financial troubles continue, but that's a 'wait and see' one.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Sure and one of the other 3 said they see it as a perfect fit to their fleet

This was part of my 'until they order it it's not really an order' rant. Though I will add that the 'perfect fit for our fleet' statement was quite a long time ago now, and more recent statements have been more on the fence'. I still think they will order it, but I don't think a statement from 2013 really holds that much weight.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Yep, 2.6m...2-3 rows of Y. We keep hearing that traffic is increasing and bigger aircraft will be needed yet, these 2-3 rows are just too much ?!

That's why it narrows appeal a little rather than a lot! One reason I say this is that at the moment, the 777X's customer base has a lot of overlap with the A380s, if NH go through then it's just CX and the probably-going-to-happen ET that don't have. I just think that while not an unattractive proposition given that it's an upgauge for little no no extra cost, with the A350 around and most airlines being conservative, I think it just won't have the same impact or desirability as the 77W.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Sure the 779 could not sell as well as the 77W but I do see the 77X outselling the 77W. I will change my opinion if the A351 starts selling more convincingly.

You once agreed with me when I said that the bulk of 77W replacement is beyond 2020, both will likely take off (still no pun intended) once the 77Ws start getting old. 11 years is still young, and that's where the oldest 77W is. I'd say it's selling reasonably convincingly, it's got the kind of customer base that we both criticise the A330neo for not having. Stable, realistic and varied. I think it's just a matter of time.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 43):
Thai Airways

Would be a good long-term replacement for 77Ws. 9 abreast.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 43):
Vietnam Airlines

I don't think they're too interested in large, the A359 seems to be big enough.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 43):
Malaysia Airlines

I think this one could be a dark horse, MH are getting A350s, effectively as A380 replacements. If their recovery goes well, then A35Ks are the next logical step.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:16 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 48):
Thank you! Hopefully it's useful Do chime in on who you think would and wouldn't.

I could but I feared that this discussion may be straying too far from the topic at hand, the A350-1100 decision.

Just to quickly chip in with a couple: I'd put Air New Zealand in the middle group. Likewise, Virgin Australia. Both have mentioned about running the A350 vs. the competition for their fleet renewal plans which are still years away.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1892
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:08 am

If airlines are not willing to purchase the A380 in the VLA space than the next best option is the 777X.

Considering Boeing's more conservative VLA market forecast has a requirement for 20 aeroplanes in the A380 segment, Boeing could pick-up 20-40 777X orders per year simply because the A380 is no longer relevant.

At this stage it is looking like Boeing will be receiving quite a few free kicks!
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:21 am

Quoting Erebus (Reply 53):
Just to quickly chip in with a couple: I'd put Air New Zealand in the middle group. Likewise, Virgin Australia. Both have mentioned about running the A350 vs. the competition for their fleet renewal plans which are still years away.

I think a lot of us are expecting Air New Zealand to go 777X if they still need the capacity or if they even grow.

Virgin Australia, on the other hand, could. They have 9Y 777-300ERs that could be replaced perfectly with A350-1000s, and VS is said to be nearing an A350-1000 order as we speak. That could have repercussions to V-OZ.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
a320fan
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:56 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 55):
and VS is said to be nearing an A350-1000 order as we speak. That could have repercussions to V-OZ.

Doubt that will have any effect on VA, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other beyond sharing a branding. SRBs stake in VA is minuscule these days.
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A350-900, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300, Q400
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:25 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 52):
At least some of those 77Ws will be replaced with A35Ks.

You asked me which airline outside the ME3 would have a large fleet of 77Xs, not which one would also operate A351s. CX has 30 77Xs on order (inc. options). For the 77W they made 8 separate 77W purchases over the years. I find it hard to believe that the only order CX or LH or nearly any other 77X customer makes is 6 years before its EIS and nothing after it. That would be odd.

Plus it seems like CX could sell the seats if they had them now let alone down the road. Australia which limits frequency on not seats would be a solid target for a larger aircraft. Let alone their growing North America routes that they couldn't fly with their cargo demands and the A351s limitations.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 52):
A35Ks! Though more seriously, AF may prefer the A35K if their financial troubles continue, but that's a 'wait and see' one.

Well if you think that France will have a big airline in a decade from now then its kinda hard for me to see them operating aircraft no larger than the A351 which they don't have on order except for a dozen A380s they don't seem to care for. You can chose to believe they will shrink their fleet of ~40 77Ws (some with 440+ seats) down to ~375 seat A351s and train practically all of their pilots and mechanics on a new aircraft but I think believing they won't operate at least a sizable 77X fleet is a little hard to swallow.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 52):
Though I will add that the 'perfect fit for our fleet' statement was quite a long time ago now, and more recent statements have been more on the fence'. I still think they will order it, but I don't think a statement from 2013 really holds that much weight.

WW said 'at some point'. The demands of the airline hasn't seemed to change. The management hasn't. I see no reason to think its interest would change. Again they operate ~65 77Ws and 747s - hard to see them all downsizing to the A351 when their passenger numbers are increasing. I keep hearing about how LHR is the perfect VLA route because its slot limited...Even if you ignore WW's enthusiasm it just doesn't make sense that they would downsize and leave the passengers for other airlines. If the A351 was in for that tall of an order they would have ordered more than 18.

I am not saying all 77W customers will go to the 77X but to say that no customers outside the ME3 will have sizable fleets is hard to believe. If the A351 was the salvation for all of these operators it would have more orders even if it is 77W-replacement market premature.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 52):
One reason I say this is that at the moment, the 777X's customer base has a lot of overlap with the A380s

Right because those who tend to operate large aircraft tend to operate most large aircraft. Which is why most A351 customers will operate the 77X as well.

I think airlines like to have aircraft at different sizes so they can match the route with the aircraft. Some routes may be two 787s, some might be one A351, others will be a 779. Any airline that operates a large widebody fleet inevitably have a route structure where no single airplane is the right one for the job. LH is a great example of how they fit the plane to the mission. I think this is the right way to operate an airline an I think BA, CX, ME3, TK, DL, and others will continue to do this and when they do I think there will be a need for something above the A351 and it won't be the A380.

Maybe it could the A350-1100 but I don't think we will see that for awhile.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8856
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:09 am

It depends on what you want your A350-1100 to be. A full match in capabilities to the 777-8/9, in this case Airbus has lots of work to do, or a A350-1000 with more seats but less range. The second option is easy to do, especially if you do not stretch too much.

This plane would be no direct competition to the fantastic 777, but it would be low CASM workhorse for shorter routes. There are so many 777-747-A380 flying routes shorter than 5000nm each day, that the market for such a version could be real. It surely would be a force on many TATL routes and even for many routes in the ME3´s network or for routes in the Asia Pacific region.
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:17 am

I don't agree that a potential A350-1100 will cannibalize the -900. As for the theory that the smallest aircraft of the family will suffer as a result, that has already happened with the -800 which is pretty much dead on arrival.
Vahroone
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:23 am

Has anyone considered that the 779X's new wings and engines have been designed with a stretch built in?Seems to me they have.If I was concerned about the A380's future it would be that.Not that it would match the 380,s capacity (it won't) but would be one hell of an alternative.But timing wise such an aircraft could not be ready till circa 2025......
As for the A3511.One has to consider ( re list above) who are the most likely launch customers (IAG?) then ask yourself what optimal range they actually require for the roles envisaged.
If the recent IAG order for the 787-10 is any clue then the answer is not nearly as much as the 779 which is designed for the specific ME3 missions.Willie Walsh said as much.LH don,t need that range either they just got one hell of a deal piggy backing on the back of an already massive launch order and their requirements timing also matched (clever them).
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:23 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
You asked me which airline outside the ME3 would have a large fleet of 77Xs, not which one would also operate A351s.

I mentioned it because CX have around 50 77Ws, and 21 779s and 26 A35Ks on order, and while I'm not certain, I'd wager than the A35K will replace some 77W routes. They may go with more 779s, but how many more if the A35K also takes the role of 77W replacement? We should also define how large a large fleet is, because 20 seems fairly small to me, but that could just be that I'm being unfair and comparing it to the ridiculous numbers of the ME3.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):

Plus it seems like CX could sell the seats if they had them now let alone down the road. Australia which limits frequency on not seats would be a solid target for a larger aircraft. Let alone their growing North America routes that they couldn't fly with their cargo demands and the A351s limitations.

What are the A35K's limitations, do you mean size/cargo capacity?

If Australia's frequency was that limiting surely they'd order A380s AND 779s?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
Well if you think that France will have a big airline in a decade from now then its kinda hard for me to see them operating aircraft no larger than the A351 which they don't have on order except for a dozen A380s they don't seem to care for. You can chose to believe they will shrink their fleet of ~40 77Ws (some with 440+ seats) down to ~375 seat A351s and train practically all of their pilots and mechanics on a new aircraft but I think believing they won't operate at least a sizable 77X fleet is a little hard to swallow.

AF aren't in good shape now. Do I think they'll shrink their 777 fleet? They might, you see it happening with DL and UA replacing 744s with A350s, so why couldn't AF do it? The A35K offers a bit more flexibility, essentially the A380 argument at a smaller scale. Wasn't it suggested that they lose a lot of money on long haul routes?

I also think you overestimate the conversion costs: they have A320, A330, A340 and A380 pilots, with A350s to come. They could also order more 787s. If they thought that they were going to struggle to fill large aircraft then I don't think they'd hesitate to let the 777s go. Or A380s for that matter, but I don't think they'd jettison either before their time. SQ are doing it, they will have gone from from 77 777s to fewer than 30 (exluding a potential 779 order).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
WW said 'at some point'. The demands of the airline hasn't seemed to change. The management hasn't. I see no reason to think its interest would change. Again they operate ~65 77Ws and 747s - hard to see them all downsizing to the A351 when their passenger numbers are increasing. I keep hearing about how LHR is the perfect VLA route because its slot limited...Even if you ignore WW's enthusiasm it just doesn't make sense that they would downsize and leave the passengers for other airlines. If the A351 was in for that tall of an order they would have ordered more than 18.

The 77Ws are there for the forseeable future, their replacement hasn't been decided, and probably won't be for a while. But consider that 12 A380s, 18 A35Ks and 12 78Xs are the replacements for 40 744s, so the requirement would be for 20 779s, is it really that outrageous to suggest that 78Xs and A35Ks couldn't do the role? Or even a few more A380s (Blasphemy!).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
I am not saying all 77W customers will go to the 77X but to say that no customers outside the ME3 will have sizable fleets is hard to believe. If the A351 was the salvation for all of these operators it would have more orders even if it is 77W-replacement market premature.

It depends on how we define sizeable, as above. I think you're really underrating the A35K here, no one's claiming it's the salvation, people just think it's a good, competitive product, a very good 77W replacement (especially for 9 abreast users), and it's backed up by its varied, realistic and stable customer base. Though I should point out that earlier, you said:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
Time to stop expecting small airlines or those that are hurting for cash to put up deposits on an aircraft that they have to wait that long for.

Surely that applies to the A35K as well? The A350 is not available in huge numbers at the moment.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57):
I think airlines like to have aircraft at different sizes so they can match the route with the aircraft. Some routes may be two 787s, some might be one A351, others will be a 779. Any airline that operates a large widebody fleet inevitably have a route structure where no single airplane is the right one for the job. LH is a great example of how they fit the plane to the mission. I think this is the right way to operate an airline an I think BA, CX, ME3, TK, DL, and others will continue to do this and when they do I think there will be a need for something above the A351 and it won't be the A380.

I don't disagree that the 779 will have a role to play. I just don't see how it can have the same role outside of the ME3 that the 77W has/had given that some airlines have already chosen the A35K as a 744/77W replacement where the 779 is most likely to be targeted, and in the future,

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
They do exist, and they are very loyal 777 customers

I think I should go back to this and say that a lot of the A35K's orders come from very loyal 777 customers. And consider that a lot of 77W operators have A359s on order, so the commonality factor is narrowed.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:30 am

I also firmly believe that the A350-1000 and 777-9 are a complementary pair, rather than rivals. Half the airlines that have ordered the 777-9 thus far have the A350-100 on order as well. I'm wondering if Lufthansa will follow suit.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:42 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 60):
Has anyone considered that the 779X's new wings and engines have been designed with a stretch built in?Seems to me they have.

Absolutely. Here is a recent thread I started on the subject among others.

New Information About A Possible 777-10X? (by tortugamon Oct 17 2015 in Civil Aviation)

The A380 with its big wing and short body is really an ULH airplane that a simple stretch 777-10 could undermine for those that don't need the range nor the size.

Quoting parapente (Reply 60):
Willie Walsh said as much.LH don,t need that range either

In fact, 6/10 operators don't have any route where they need more than 7000nm range - something that I think is doable with the 777-10. And EK being one of the other had significant need that a dedicated fleet could make sense.

Right now I think the 779 is too small to really take too many orders from the A380 vs the A351 which I think has an ability to limit 779 sales in the near term. A stretch to the 779 gets it to within 15% of the A380 and then I think some carriers could consider it to completely replace the A380 and some carriers like CX and SQ who have a ton of short routes could even order more. Costs would be low.

People have expressed reservations about airport operation limitations.

tortugamon
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:30 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
I mentioned it because CX have around 50 77Ws, and 21 779s and 26 A35Ks on order, and while I'm not certain, I'd wager than the A35K will replace some 77W routes.

Well I see 40+ A330s that will need replacing as well and I don't see their replacements on hand either. Personally I see the A350s replacing 772s, A343s, 773s, and some A333s which is 65 aircraft in total (not all A333s will be replaced soon) so the 48+ A350s they have on order have a role.

With the expanding premium economy class and the increased chatter about going 10-abreast on 777s, it seems they are setting up for a new size of aircraft above the A350.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
because 20 seems fairly small to me

Dang that A380 with only one non-small A380 operator! 20 seems like a large order for a $400 million list airplane to me. Likewise I see SQ as a large A380 operator.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
What are the A35K's limitations, do you mean size/cargo capacity?

They have said that the 77Xs are for their longest routes with the largest cargo demands (north America). As other customers have said the A351 doesn't have the payload range.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
They might, you see it happening with DL and UA replacing 744s with A350s, so why couldn't AF do it?

Yet we see UA order 77Ws as well even though they are due A351s soon. The more solid rumor suggests 10-abreast in those which means they will be replacing the 744s in some fashion. DL - just not sure. However, AF is the first 77W operator and has been 10-abreast for a decade. Slightly different situation. They know if they can fill these aircraft profitably. If you're right they can't. I think there are some routes where they can and with such a large fleet I think 20+ 77Xs is in the bag.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
SQ are doing it, they will have gone from from 77 777s to fewer than 30 (exluding a potential 779 order).

I don't think AF has a history of retiring aircraft after 10-12 years. SQ does.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
The 77Ws are there for the forseeable future

I thought many of them were 10-12 year leases.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
But consider that 12 A380s, 18 A35Ks and 12 78Xs are the replacements for 40 744s

And if A35Ks and 78Xs weren't good 77E replacements (40+) then it would be a solid point. But aircraft can serve multiple purposes. No way IAG's fleet is that set in stone.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
If Australia's frequency was that limiting surely they'd order A380s

I think they consider it, along with LHR. But the 77X has other applications so the cost of the small fleet is not applicable.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
Surely that applies to the A35K as well? The A350 is not available in huge numbers at the moment.

Absolutely it isn't. But we have seen customers that have chosen to wait for the 77X instead of taking delivery of the A351 - EK, LH, NH, etc. Customers are choosing to wait for the 77X.

Oh and the A351 is EIS next year. Not really a reasonable comparison to something that has 50+ more orders (779 specifically) and isn't due to enter service until 2020.

No one can make the A351 customer base look good, not even JL. Most depressing order book for a new aircraft since the 77L.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
I just don't see how it can have the same role outside of the ME3 that the 77W has/had given that some airlines have already chosen the A35K as a 744/77W replacement where the 779 is most likely to be targeted, and in the future,

No one says it has to. I have said that I think the 77X family outsells the 77W not necessarily the 779. But the 77X has a growing industry to benefit it, the lack of a 747 and a dead A380 to compete against. The only competition is from below , the 778 sales are solid, and there is zero competition in terms of freighter. How can that not outsell the 77W?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 61):
I think I should go back to this and say that a lot of the A35K's orders come from very loyal 777 customers. And consider that a lot of 77W operators have A359s on order, so the commonality factor is narrowed.

Its outrageous to think that the 772, 77E and 773 won't be significantly replaced by the A350. It should be, the aircraft family is laid on top of them. Just like the 787 is for the A330. Should we document how many 787 customers are A330 operators to indicate that the A330 is dead? But I think the 787 has moved to take over Boeing's role in the 77E/773 world but I think we are talking about the 77W, in which case I think size and capability is important and many of them will consider the 77X and I think the A351 has not shown to be a significant player in replacing it (yet). JAL, some at SQ, maybe some at CX but we still have 800+ replacements more to go and I count EK, EY, QR, ET, CX, NH going to the 77X for 77W replacement. Momentum is not leaning toward A351 and I prefer to use data to support my opinions.

tortugamon

[Edited 2016-01-12 23:33:19]
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:40 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 63):
A stretch to the 779 gets it to within 15% of the A380

A380 is ~52% bigger than 777-9 by floor area. To get 777 within 15% of the A380 you need ~30% more capacity. That mean a ~315ft long plane. I'm all for considering a 777X stretch but anything more than 10% capacity increase seems unlikely.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8856
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:45 am

Imho a further stretch of the 777-9 would face the same problems as the 737-9, it would be rotation angle limited. There might be 2-3 meters to be had, but after that it will get complicated.

There is growth in the 777-9 but imho it will be higher MTOW with more range, not a longer fuselage. If they grow in this direction they would open the difference between the 777-9 and the A350-1100. In the end you might have more than a few airlines, who could be using both.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:28 am

Quoting StTim (Reply 6):
Airbus are not going to develop a whole new frame to beat the 777X The market isn't big enough. It would also further canibalise any A380 sales.

Except of course they cancel the A380-program. Than suddently this makes a lot of sense.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:49 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
What does that have to do with anything? I am just saying that we can't have it both ways: The 77X is niche! No one wants the added seats! Oh- yeah, we need to build a 77X - me-too-aircraft. JL is a poorly bred fool. Its not just marketing.

You are taking John Leahy's words way too seriously. That is what I am trying to show you. Both companies have made statements that are ridiculous in the extreme. Yet you seem to want to take his words as gospel without applying the standards to both companies, as you seem to be so fond of now. Realise that both OEM will continue to provide entertainment with their statements that we will relish on here, also realise that things change and airlines change their mind as well and the OEMs will change tactics due to the discussions with the airlines.

You haven't answered my question, if BA (as an example) asks Airbus for an option that is higher in the capacity than the A35K but not the A380, do you propose they just give the market to the 779?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
What kind of logic is that? Look at the dimensions between the A332 and the A333 and the 788 and the 789. They are remarkably close. Yet we have no problem calling the A332 a shrink. It is a step smaller than optimal dimensions as is the 788.

It is the kind of logic that looks at how the aircraft were designed and produced, not the optimal performance of each model, which you seem to be doing. The A332 is a shrink because it is a shrink from the A333. The A333 EIS was 1994 and the A332 was 1998. How could the 788 be a shrink from the 789 if its design and production came first? Or am I mistaken that Boeing designed the 789 first and then proceeded with the 788 design and production?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:08 am

The 788 was designed first and is by definition the base frame. The 789 is a stretch, followed by a double stretch called 78X.

Boeing originally wanted to enlarge the 789 wings to give the airframe better performance, but concluded it would be too expensive to do so.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:21 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):

789 must be a Boeing type stretch. ( MTOW raised and @1.5t / m a "heavy" fuselage extention )

7810 is a simple "range for capacity + weight penalty" swap. ( open what the per meter weight gain is )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:33 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 68):
You haven't answered my question, if BA (as an example) asks Airbus for an option that is higher in the capacity than the A35K but not the A380, do you propose they just give the market to the 779?

Pretty sure T'mon has answered this.

If BA, and *only* BA asked for this plane, then yes you leave the market to the 779. There wouldn't be a business case for building the plane just for BA.

If BA, LH, AF all asked for it but nobody else... whether it's worth it depends.

The point is that a business case for a stretch depends on the size of the market covered, and on whether sufficient ROI will occur with some share of that market.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 68):
How could the 788 be a shrink from the 789 if its design and production came first?

If you take a given fuselage width and wing area, there is a certain fineness ratio that is optimal. The 788 has lower fineness ratio and less capacity than is optimal for its wing area and fuselage width.

You seem to believe that temporal order determines whether a model is a "shrink." For this to be true, we'd have to assume that OEM's never realize the possibility of a shrink/stretch when defining an airliner family's parameters. That assumes a level of stupidity that can't be true (and isn't).

Instead, designers seek to set wing area, span, and fuselage width in a manner that maximizes the total value of the family. So it may be that both the "mid-size" and "shrink" versions of the family are compromised to accommodate each other.

This is, in fact, true of the 787. While the wing is too big and the fuselage too stubby for the -8, the wing is also a bit smaller than optimal for the -9. Nonetheless, the total mix of fineness ratio and wing span/area is more optimal for -9 than it is for the -8.

By calling the -8 a "shrink," T'mon is making the simple and valid point that, among several design choices possible, Boeing's decisions favored the -9 over the -8. Given these points, the temporal order of the models is irrelevant.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:47 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
No one can make the A351 customer base look good, not even JL. Most depressing order book for a new aircraft since the 77L.

Not sure if I would call CX, UA, QR, BA, JL, JJ, EY, OZ and ALC depressing customers. And now VS are knocking on the door.

If anything I'd say the A35K has a strong blue chip customer base.

[Edited 2016-01-13 03:49:58]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18307
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:22 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):
Just my opinion, but pushing the EIS of the A380neo out to 2024 or 2025 kills the program.

Sadly, I must agree.

Quoting chinmay17shetye (Reply 4):
But, is the new version of the A350 needed ?

With the 777X, is the market large enough to pay another $4 to $5billion USD that a new plane's development would cost over the costs of a A350-1100 development?

It is all the business case for Airbus. Also, the time to market for the A350-1100 will be much earlier than an all new plane. Which is worth more for Airbus?

Quoting StTim (Reply 21):
I recognise the 777X has a niche and it will be successful. I am just a tad sceptical that all the 777 classic operators out there will be lining up to but it as was implied by you.

It is a large enough market to be profitable. Without a near term A380NEO, Airbus is leaving the top of the market to Boeing without some development. If the A380NEO is a 2025 EIS, then Airbus needs something or every airline that wants a large plane will have to talk to Boeing.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
The fact that it is a 'target' tells me that they aren't sure either.

I too am skeptical that the A380's complex manufacturing process could be done at 20/year at a profit.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 72):
f anything I'd say the A35K has a strong blue chip customer base.

Agreed. The issue for the A35K is that the time to receive one is so far out that only the more financially healthy airlines can order.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:28 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
It needed to be bigger to provide some growth to 77W operators who were looking for it and to give the 77X a space all its own while providing compelling economics.

Very politically correct type of approach   Ok I can get with that, but I wasn't aware that current 77W operators where going : " Gee..if we can somehow make this plane bigger !"  (except for Sir Clark of course)

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Not sure it wouldn't have been built without them though - just a lot fewer orders.

Agreed.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Sure but programs are getting shorter and its still 4 years away from EIS

The overall 777 program has been around since the early 90s and of course would have to be replaced sooner or later , but the 772,77E,77A haven't been relevant since the early 00s and the 77L was the only solution for ULH after the A340NG was a stretch too far for the frame, The 77W though was in super swing mode when the 77X was launched. Call me pesimistic but that is not natural program evolution for me.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Plus, why the hypothetical? They do exist, and they are very loyal 777 customers, hard to expect them not to replace 77Ws, 77Ls, and 77Fs with their 77X counterparts. The A351 is not exactly lighting the world on fire here.

If you remember this whole "argument" started on whether or not the ME3 ( EK ) are a major part of the 77X program. They are and of course no hypothesis there. So let's just see where the backlog will end up. And of course I do believe that the 77X is not the 77W because now it has competition. Whether or not it will reign supreme is for the future to show us

[Edited 2016-01-13 04:31:29]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:48 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 71):
Pretty sure T'mon has answered this.

If BA, and *only* BA asked for this plane, then yes you leave the market to the 779. There wouldn't be a business case for building the plane just for BA.

If BA, LH, AF all asked for it but nobody else... whether it's worth it depends.

The point is that a business case for a stretch depends on the size of the market covered, and on whether sufficient ROI will occur with some share of that market.

He seems to want to argue John Leahy's statements. First he said the Leahy announced there is no market (protecting the A35K at 777X launch), now that Airbus is talking to airlines about adding more capacity he is saying it is a mistake as there is no market according to his past statements. If we are going to have arguments on here about what the OEMs said about each others products, it will be fun, but in the end pointless.

If there are airlines talking to Airbus about adding capacity then they will listen. With John Leahy at the company they have gone from a paltry 18% market to almost 50%. I think they can work out for themselves if there is a business case or not, we can only go on what they are saying. This is the first time they have openly talked about a stretch, you can be guaranteed that airlines have been talking to them for a while about this.

The problem seems to be more that arguments are made about how great the 78X will be and how much better it will be with improvements. If that is the case the same argument goes for the A350 stretch, only it competes against a 20 year old design (777) and not a new design as is the case for the A350 vs 787. You would think that the A350 would be even more superior to the 777 when at the same capacity, just like the 787 vs A330, but the 777 cannot get new engines as it already has them planned.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 71):
If you take a given fuselage width and wing area, there is a certain fineness ratio that is optimal. The 788 has lower fineness ratio and less capacity than is optimal for its wing area and fuselage width.

You seem to believe that temporal order determines whether a model is a "shrink." For this to be true, we'd have to assume that OEM's never realize the possibility of a shrink/stretch when defining an airliner family's parameters. That assumes a level of stupidity that can't be true (and isn't).

Instead, designers seek to set wing area, span, and fuselage width in a manner that maximizes the total value of the family. So it may be that both the "mid-size" and "shrink" versions of the family are compromised to accommodate each other.

This is, in fact, true of the 787. While the wing is too big and the fuselage too stubby for the -8, the wing is also a bit smaller than optimal for the -9. Nonetheless, the total mix of fineness ratio and wing span/area is more optimal for -9 than it is for the -8.

By calling the -8 a "shrink," T'mon is making the simple and valid point that, among several design choices possible, Boeing's decisions favored the -9 over the -8. Given these points, the temporal order of the models is irrelevant.

You are talking about optimised frames. I do not disagree with his or your point that the 789 is more optimised than the 788, for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that the 788 was the base design and the 789 was stretched from this design. Please see the posts above.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
Boeing originally wanted to enlarge the 789 wings to give the airframe better performance, but concluded it would be too expensive to do so.

You have to wonder whether the current talk about not losing efficiency due to the extra weight the new wing would have had is just marketing talk to ease the fact that they have a compromised wing on the design but they cannot afford to add the extras to the wing due to the financial hole they find themselves in with the 787? Either that or the engineers are idiots in that the best solution is the current one and they didn't think about it and were just adding weight to the design for no reason.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:15 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Well I see 40+ A330s that will need replacing as well and I don't see their replacements on hand either.

A lot of their A333s are new, less than 10 years old, and CX tend to hold on for a long time. 77Ws will replace some of their regional aircraft once the A35K and 779 arrive.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Personally I see the A350s replacing 772s, A343s, 773s, and some A333s which is 65 aircraft in total (not all A333s will be replaced soon) so the 48+ A350s they have on order have a role.

The 772, 773 and A343 will be replaced by A350s and transferred 77Ws, the A333s will start to be replaced by the A359, but the current order should cover most of their immediate needs. We'll probably see a top up A350 order or 78X order here.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Dang that A380 with only one non-small A380 operator!

I didn't mention the A380, I don't know why you need to bring it up to reinforce your point. For my money, I'd say that only SQ (outside EK obviously) has a large A380 fleet.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
They have said that the 77Xs are for their longest routes with the largest cargo demands (north America). As other customers have said the A351 doesn't have the payload range.

I thought the A35K had almost identical payload range as the 77W?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Yet we see UA order 77Ws as well even though they are due A351s soon.

Availability and discounts. They wanted something immediately, and the A35K is not immediate.They're still willing to wait for it!  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
However, AF is the first 77W operator and has been 10-abreast for a decade. Slightly different situation. They know if they can fill these aircraft profitably. If you're right they can't. I think there are some routes where they can and with such a large fleet I think 20+ 77Xs is in the bag.

Can they fill them profitably? AF is in really, really bad shape at the moment. They lose money on a significant number of long haul routes, and it's not just the A380. I think it might be 50% of their long haul routes.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
I don't think AF has a history of retiring aircraft after 10-12 years. SQ does.

AF's oldest 77Ws are 12 years old now, so unless they start chucking them now (I doubt it) it's more likely that they'll replace them well after 2020.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
I thought many of them were 10-12 year leases.

Some of them are, but I don't think they've settled on a replacement yet. They could also just extend the leases.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
And if A35Ks and 78Xs weren't good 77E replacements (40+) then it would be a solid point. But aircraft can serve multiple purposes. No way IAG's fleet is that set in stone.

If BA use the A350 and 787 as 77E replacements, it will likely be from an order they haven't placed yet. The 744s will be completely gone by 2023, and they need the A35K and 78X to replace them in the next 5 years, and the big money order should happen before too long. As before, 20 744s to replace between 2021 and 2023 is the likely requirement.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Absolutely it isn't. But we have seen customers that have chosen to wait for the 77X instead of taking delivery of the A351 - EK, LH, NH, etc. Customers are choosing to wait for the 77X.

Customers choosing to wait tells you that they as individual companies like the product and it fits them better, I don't get where you're going with this one, because airlines are willing to wait for A350s and 787s as well. I'm not sure it's really worth including EK here, EK order ridiculous numbers of large aircraft and are willing to wait for an A380neo. They're not a trend, they're an outlier with lots of money and specific needs.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Oh and the A351 is EIS next year. Not really a reasonable comparison to something that has 50+ more orders (779 specifically) and isn't due to enter service until 2020.

Also not really a comparison that the A350 has 2 models, one of which is very popular at the moment and has to share. The 777X's higher total orders is down to the ME3, who are not a trend. When more airlines order the 777X I'll sto going on about it, but we're dealing with hypotheticals here.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
No one can make the A351 customer base look good, not even JL. Most depressing order book for a new aircraft since the 77L.

10 customers, 181 units with 1 and 12 respectively on the way. Many highly-regarded airlines, I don't think you're really being fair here if you criticise the A330neo for not having reliable, stable, 'blue-chip' airlines. It has to compete with its smaller sibling which is taking up the majority of the slots by some distance. The 77L had nowhere near the same variety of customers or total number. It still doesn't.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
How can that not outsell the 77W?

The 77W had no competition. The 744 died in 2005, the 748 only took away 30 sales at most and the A380 was a niche aircraft. The A35K has a very well-established younger sibling, and itself has orders from loyal 777 customers.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
Momentum is not leaning toward A351 and I prefer to use data to support my opinions.

Why would there be momemtum if people are happy with their 77Ws in the meantime? The A35K will likely have 2 new customers in the last year (JJ and VS), but with the A359 well-placed and timed for replacement of 77Es and A340s, airlines have been taking up slots for that instead, a problem the 777X doesn't have with the 778 being a niche product.

You prefer to deal with data, but there are 7 (8) customers for the 777X compared to 10 (11) A35K orders, with a heavy concentration in the ME3. Surely the suggests an ME3 centred product? I don't thini it is, but that's what the current data suggests.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:19 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):
Just my opinion, but pushing the EIS of the A380neo out to 2024 or 2025 kills the program. There's realistically enough of a backlog to get the A380 out to 2019, but I honestly cannot see who would order another 100 to 150 of the current model to take production out to 2024.

"Only" 50-60 would suffice, if Airbus can get A380 production break even to around 20/year, as Bregier is pushing for. Still, I think 2024-25 is too late, 2022-23 would be better (but no earlier, because good enough engines would not be available yet).

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 36):
Given these dynamics, however, where should Airbus invest? On what projects should it occupy its engineers, so that its workforce remains up to speed?

Who says they must occupy them? That may be good for the long term strategy, but bad for quarterly results, and guess which matters more nowadays. More and more engineering is subcontracted out anyway. Know-how is no longer valued as much as it used to be.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:39 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
As other customers have said the A351 doesn't have the payload range.
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
I thought the A35K had almost identical payload range as the 77W?

Both aircraft carry their maximum payload over similar lengths. B789, A359, A35K, B779 etc all have a MZFW range of some 5,500 nm. The customer referred to its size, B779 is larger and has room for four additional LD3 containers over the A35K. It carries more payload over the same length, just as an A359 carries more payload than an B788.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:48 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
This was news to me. Just 2-3 months ago the date was 2023 so this is another push back.

Then I guess you have missed the following discussion:

Airbus CEO: No A380 NEO Until After 2022 (by rotating14 Nov 19 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Either way, Airbus never launched the A380neo, so we can not really call it 'a push back' as there was never a fixed EIS date.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:16 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 77):
Who says they must occupy them? That may be good for the long term strategy, but bad for quarterly results, and guess which matters more nowadays. More and more engineering is subcontracted out anyway. Know-how is no longer valued as much as it used to be.

Yes they can reduce their engineer capacity a LITTLE and they've done this already.

However, with the A320neo finished (from the design point, not production engineering), the A330neo well underway and the A350(-1000) also finsihed (design-wise) and the A380neo poponed (indefinitely?) there is nearly NOTHING on the drawing board in a few month. They can't fire ALL aircraft designers and all the simulation guys (fluid dynamics, structurall dynamics etc.) for basic design. They allready joned Aerion to dispence some capacity.

But their has to be SOMETHING and it's not a pure re-engining (there is anyway nothing to re-engine beside the A380). The same holds true for Boeing and the MOM. Actually the situation is more severe at Airbus, because all their products are further/ready and they are not as flexible to layoff staff as Boeing regarding European rights (you can't easily fire engineers/workers if you make big profits).
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:28 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 45):
As I always have said, a launch of a 2025 A380neo is the smartest. I love Matt6461's A380NG but I don't see that happen sadly. What Airbus will do now is right, to reduce production cost to make 20 units a year break even. Lower oil prices will help the aircraft too and perhaps more aggressive sales to push something like 3 aircraft for a large carrier as a trial to see how they work. I can't see why further PIPs cannot boost efficiency by around 5% over the next 5 years. By 2025 the A380neo will be a generation ahead of the 777-X, I think will have enough global demand to justify it, and will come as a stretched -900 version.

I think this analysis is spot on!  
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3225
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:42 pm

I think the only piece of serendipity on early 787 designs was that the wing for the 8 turned out to outperform expectations, and was almost optimal for the 9. If this is correct it is only with hindsight that the 8 becomes the shrink.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:45 pm

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 82):

Staying with the -8 wing was decided by "no time, no money". "outperform expectations" is wagging the dog.

The 254t MTOW 787s could definitely gain from lower wingloading.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:59 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 65):
A380 is ~52% bigger than 777-9 by floor area. To get 777 within 15% of the A380 you need ~30% more capacity. That mean a ~315ft long plane. I'm all for considering a 777X stretch but anything more than 10% capacity increase seems unlikely.

Yeah you are kinda right here. I took 400 seats and adding 15% to get to ~460 and when you add 15% to that you get 529 which is about where Airbus has been marketing the aircraft. Obviously not the most technical of analysis nor does it take into account the validity of Airbus deflated seat numbers in its original marketing. However, I do contend that its close enough to really take some orders from the VLA, to the extent there is any.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 68):
You haven't answered my question, if BA (as an example) asks Airbus for an option that is higher in the capacity than the A35K but not the A380, do you propose they just give the market to the 779?

Of course they listen to their customers and do what they can but not at the expense of their profitability. If JL is right and no one wants more seats then he shouldn't be taking those calls all that often. Or he should admit the market is bigger than he thought it was. I bet neither are reality.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
Boeing originally wanted to enlarge the 789 wings to give the airframe better performance, but concluded it would be too expensive to do so.

Well I've read that they concluded that the additional weight was not fully compensated by the additional lift so the 788 wing was shown to be optimal. Hadn't heard about cost but that is true too. Still the 789 has the most optimal features out of any family member. The 788 was the least. Its the shrink.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 71):
By calling the -8 a "shrink," T'mon is making the simple and valid point that, among several design choices possible, Boeing's decisions favored the -9 over the -8. Given these points, the temporal order of the models is irrelevant.

Dang you are a good writer, must be all that lawyering.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 72):
Not sure if I would call CX, UA, QR, BA, JL, JJ, EY, OZ and ALC depressing customers. And now VS are knocking on the door.

If anything I'd say the A35K has a strong blue chip customer base.

Clearly solid customers but depressing order totals for an aircraft about to EIS. Maybe we have been spoiled by other recent product launches and I just figured that was the new norm. In historical standards, not recent ones, the A351 order book is just fine.

I can't help but think though that if Airbus launches an A350-1100 its an admission that the A351 isn't enough to take on the 777. I honestly thought it was, but they know best!

tortugamon
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:09 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 83):
Staying with the -8 wing was decided by "no time, no money". "outperform expectations" is wagging the dog.

The 254t MTOW 787s could definitely gain from lower wingloading.

You say this, but gate spacing is a serious concern. So more wingspan for a little fuel burn doesn't fly when it reduces gate availability.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:16 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):

63m would not fit anywhere?
is that because everything in the US is cut to fit a 757 ?  
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:24 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
I can't help but think though that if Airbus launches an A350-1100 its an admission that the A351 isn't enough to take on the 777.

There is a reason why Boeing went bigger on the B779. Because the B77W would in a renewed version not be good enough to the A350-1000. If Airbus feels they need something in that segment of the market too, that still says nothing about the A351 not being enough against the B777. Since that it clearly is.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:24 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 73):
Without a near term A380NEO, Airbus is leaving the top of the market to Boeing without some development. If the A380NEO is a 2025 EIS, then Airbus needs something or every airline that wants a large plane will have to talk to Boeing.

Right. This definitely improves the 777X's prospects. The A380 has, after all, sold a few frames. It would have taken ~300 more 77W's to replace the ~180 A380's currently operating. That's ~38% of 77W deliveries so far. The absence of an A380neo - until 2025 or forever - could compensate for most of the orders lost to the A35K.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 75):
I do not disagree with his or your point that the 789 is more optimised than the 788, for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that the 788 was the base design and the 789 was stretched from this design.

Then I think your concept of a "base design" is essentially meaningless. As far as I can tell, it means the first one finalized in a detailed manner. That's not what I and T'mon (I think) are talking about. We're talking about design compromises that impact one or the other plane disproportionately. When the compromised plane is smaller, it's best to call that plane a shrink.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 80):
However, with the A320neo finished (from the design point, not production engineering), the A330neo well underway and the A350(-1000) also finsihed (design-wise) and the A380neo poponed (indefinitely?) there is nearly NOTHING on the drawing board in a few month. They can't fire ALL aircraft designers and all the simulation guys (fluid dynamics, structurall dynamics etc.) for basic design.

Right, this is what I was thinking. To what use can any of these people be put?

-A320 replacement? - Nope. Airbus is sitting pretty here.

-A330 replacement? Seems that the A330neo is a good, cheap solution for a big market.

-A350 replacement? Obviously no.

That leaves the space above A35K and the A380 replacement. I think these should be combined. A smaller double decker is going to be efficient enough to be near any A350-1100 in trip cost. Meanwhile there's no business case for competing against the smallest feasible double-decker with a bigger plane. Just not a big enough market. An optimized double-decker kills the 777-9 and ensures Airbus a monopoly at 350 seats for years.

One big problem with this proposal, as with the A380X, is the bitter pill of jettisoning the A380 as a failed program. Perhaps Airbus isn't ready to even consider swallowing that pill.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
However, I do contend that its close enough to really take some orders from the VLA, to the extent there is any.

No doubt. I'm just defending the VLA turf for my quixotic agenda.
           
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:12 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 74):
I wasn't aware that current 77W operators where going : " Gee..if we can somehow make this plane bigger !"  (except for Sir Clark of course)

Well the ones that want a smaller 77W have the A351. Like I mentioned, I am sure some would like a little growth and it provides a little separation from the competition. Not entirely based on seat economics in my opinion.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 74):
The 77W though was in super swing mode when the 77X was launched. Call me pesimistic but that is not natural program evolution for me.

Agreed it is unusual and certainly the A351 played a role but we also saw a launch about 7 years before EIS which is unusual for a non-new program - even for a new program!, and we also had a very motivated and impatient very large customer (EK). Those were compelling.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 75):
ow that Airbus is talking to airlines about adding more capacity he is saying it is a mistake as there is no market according to his past statements. If we are going to have arguments on here about what the OEMs said about each others products, it will be fun, but in the end pointless.

And if you didn't point out their hypocrisy we'd be idiots.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 75):
You are talking about optimised frames. I do not disagree with his or your point that the 789 is more optimised than the 788, for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that the 788 was the base design and the 789 was stretched from this design.

I am also talking about optimized frames. A shrink is an aircraft that is slightly smaller than its optimized counterpart. The 788 is the shrink of the 789 which is optimized.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
Can they fill them profitably? AF is in really, really bad shape at the moment. They lose money on a significant number of long haul routes, and it's not just the A380. I think it might be 50% of their long haul routes

I think you would agree that a large part of AF's problems are its out of control costs and a large part of it is labor-related. LH and IAG have restored their profitability in the face of similar financial issues not by reducing size of aircraft but by reducing headcount and attacking excessive costs in the operation. I personally think AF needs to do the same. 10-abreast 77Ws have to be one of the most efficient aircraft in operation and most everyone seems to print money with them. They certainly would be profitable if it wasn't for the work stoppages and labor disputes. Regardless they don't need to replace 77Ws with 77Xs 1:1 to have a large fleet.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
If BA use the A350 and 787 as 77E replacements, it will likely be from an order they haven't placed yet.

Why? I could easily see them transitioning their A350s and 787s over to that role and take an opportunity to introduce another sized aircraft to the family to better fit route demand with aircraft size. I don't see why that is unrealistic.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
Customers choosing to wait tells you that they as individual companies like the product and it fits them better, I don't get where you're going with this one, because airlines are willing to wait for A350s and 787s as well.

Sure but if you say that the reason the A351 isn't selling well is because of availability yet there is a clear trend of some operators choosing to wait for the 77X when the A351 is clearly available, doesn't that kinda take away from the availability argument? Sure we need to wait for more of a trend but one certainly seems apparent.

Doesn't the fact that they are looking to launch an A350-1100 also instill some doubt in the A351?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
I thought the A35K had almost identical payload range as the 77W?

Well there have been enough customers that have said that they question that. The latest being ET:
http://aviationweek.com/awincommerci...000-order-wants-better-performance

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
The 77L had nowhere near the same variety of customers or total number. It still doesn't

I said 'since the 77L', not including it. Just saying that we have had a lot of successful launches recently with impressive backlogs: A320neo, MAX, 788, 789, A359...didn't the A380 even have more than 200 orders at EIS? The A351 is just different.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 76):
You prefer to deal with data, but there are 7 (8) customers for the 777X compared to 10 (11) A35K orders, with a heavy concentration in the ME3. Surely the suggests an ME3 centred product? I don't thini it is, but that's what the current data suggests.

One EIS next year the other EIS is years down the road yet. Only well capitalized airlines and the ones growing the fastest are in the 77X order book as of yet. Certainly is highly dependent on ME3, they are the ones buying large aircraft, but there certainly will be large customers elsewhere.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18307
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:30 pm

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 82):

I think the only piece of serendipity on early 787 designs was that the wing for the 8 turned out to outperform expectations, and was almost optimal for the 9. If this is correct it is only with hindsight that the 8 becomes the shrink.

It was finding out how much the 789 MTOW could be increased and accepting worse long haul economics in trade for a lower development budget and better mid-haul economics. The 788 wing hurts 789 hot/high, fixed by thrust increases, and initial cruise (higher than optimal wing loading).

We now have competing with the A359 a 789 and 78X with different optimization than the original plan. Initially the 789 was to have A359 like hot/high and cruise performance. Now the 789 has better climb performance and is thus more optimal for a shorter mission. But because the 789 is still good for longer missions, it will be used for them still. But engine maintenance, short field and cruise is better on the A359. So as with the 737NG vs. a320 you will see both continue to sell well with airlines buying the plane most economical for their missions.

But Airbus will take a page from the same book for the A350-1100. They will sacrifice short field and cruise performance for low development costs, quicker time to market, and better mid-range economics. Airlines will compare and buy on the economics.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:48 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79):
Then I guess you have missed the following discussion:
Airbus CEO: No A380 NEO Until After 2022 (by rotating14 Nov 19 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Maybe I am missing something Karel but that thread said that it will be 2023 before A380neo EIS, now the info is even that is too early and we should be looking closer to 2025. That qualifies as new information to me. Hard to see how the A380ceo can last a decade. Impossible actually.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79):
Either way, Airbus never launched the A380neo, so we can not really call it 'a push back' as there was never a fixed EIS date.

Sure, call it what you will. The date that mgt is giving for a possible EIS is now later than it was 3 months ago. I agree this is all preliminary at this point and nothing has been launched (nor does it seem it will be this year or next).

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 87):
If Airbus feels they need something in that segment of the market too, that still says nothing about the A351 not being enough against the B777.

Well, it kinda does. Why launch an A350-1100 if it doesn't take sales away from the 77X. By launching the aircraft it is admitting that the 77X will capture more sales at the expense of the A351 than Airbus is comfortable with.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 88):
The absence of an A380neo - until 2025 or forever - could compensate for most of the orders lost to the A35K.

Its hard to picture really. A 777 as the largest aircraft available. Seems inevitable though - at least for a period of time.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 88):
That's not what I and T'mon (I think) are talking about. We're talking about design compromises that impact one or the other plane disproportionately. When the compromised plane is smaller, it's best to call that plane a shrink.

Dead on. Hear hear!

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 88):
That leaves the space above A35K and the A380 replacement. I think these should be combined. A smaller double decker is going to be efficient enough to be near any A350-1100 in trip cost.

Have to admit to you starting to convince me. Especially if they can get the A350-1100 demand that they are looking for as well. I do think the A350 is a good program to launch an A350-1100 when A350 sales begin to falter and they can do it in conjunction with a neo/refresh. But I do think that Boeing would be the most scared of a new clean sheet VLA positioned 15-20% above the A351 and stretching to two family members and maybe even a freighter.

Of course the chances of it happening are tiny.  
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 88):
No doubt. I'm just defending the VLA turf for my quixotic agenda.

Keep beating that drum Eric, I am sure Bregier reads what we have to say  

tortugamon
 
LSZH34
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
Clearly solid customers but depressing order totals for an aircraft about to EIS. Maybe we have been spoiled by other recent product launches and I just figured that was the new norm. In historical standards, not recent ones, the A351 order book is just fine.

Maybe the same reason why the A330 is still selling even in times of a B787. Availabilty seems to favour the B77W and is preventing the A35K from getting more orders. BR, CI, LX, CZ and even UA (despite having A35K on order) come to my mind. They all ordered the B77W, although the A35K would have been available "only" 2-3 years later. I guess orders will come once the aircraft is steadily in production.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:12 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
Of course they listen to their customers and do what they can but not at the expense of their profitability. If JL is right and no one wants more seats then he shouldn't be taking those calls all that often. Or he should admit the market is bigger than he thought it was. I bet neither are reality.

You are being very selective on what you are choosing to believe from Leahy. Either you believe everything he says, so now you have to believe there is demand from airlines, or you can choose to selectively believe his quotes as it seems you are doing.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
You say this, but gate spacing is a serious concern. So more wingspan for a little fuel burn doesn't fly when it reduces gate availability.

And another reason for the wing decision...anyone care to add some more?

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 88):
Then I think your concept of a "base design" is essentially meaningless. As far as I can tell, it means the first one finalized in a detailed manner. That's not what I and T'mon (I think) are talking about. We're talking about design compromises that impact one or the other plane disproportionately. When the compromised plane is smaller, it's best to call that plane a shrink.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 89):
I am also talking about optimized frames. A shrink is an aircraft that is slightly smaller than its optimized counterpart. The 788 is the shrink of the 789 which is optimized.

So in your eyes the 77W is the base design and once the 779 is out it will be the base design? So the 77W will be the shrink in 7 years, right?

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 92):
Maybe the same reason why the A330 is still selling even in times of a B787. Availabilty seems to favour the B77W and is preventing the A35K from getting more orders. BR, CI, LX, CZ and even UA (despite having A35K on order) come to my mind. They all ordered the B77W, although the A35K would have been available "only" 2-3 years later. I guess orders will come once the aircraft is steadily in production.

Boeing sells because they only produce quality products...Airbus only sells because of give-away prices and availability...don't you know?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6932
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:26 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 89):
Well there have been enough customers that have said that they question that. The latest being ET:

ET have a particular hot and high requirement.
Particular enough that their preference is the 777-8X, not the 777-9X.
Who are the other "enough customers" who have been asking for more performance?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
You say this, but gate spacing is a serious concern. So more wingspan for a little fuel burn doesn't fly when it reduces gate availability

I don't really get this.

The A350, 77W and A330NEO all seem to be selling just fine on 64-65m spans.
It doesn't put them in a different code to the 60m span of the 787 or A330CEO.

Rgds
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:56 pm

Quoting LSZH34 (Reply 92):
Availabilty seems to favour the B77W and is preventing the A35K from getting more orders. BR, CI, LX, CZ and even UA (despite having A35K on order) come to my mind.

Solid thought and I think this has a ton of merit and just makes good horse sense. 77W availability and competitive pricing would look very intriguing to some customers over waiting for the A351. While the same is definitely not true in the 77E/A359 space. Solid point.

What I would say though is that 77W deliveries are being dominated by opportunistic customers, customers that don't typically order years in advance, and the end of order deliveries from bigger customers that are just finalizing the receipt of their final top up orders. I am not sure these orders would be the exact same as those that would normally be placed for the A351. In other words, I don't know if UA's 77W order would have manifested itself in more A351 orders if the 77W wasn't available, I think that order would have been a 789. LX maybe.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 93):
You are being very selective on what you are choosing to believe from Leahy. Either you believe everything he says, so now you have to believe there is demand from airlines, or you can choose to selectively believe his quotes as it seems you are doing.

Its JL that has the data, not me. Either he was wrong when he said there was no market or he is wrong when suggesting that the A350-1100 will need to be launched soon with an EIS not too far behind the 779. Both can't be true.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 93):
So the 77W will be the shrink in 7 years, right?

The 779 is a new aircraft. Its dimensions are optimized around the 779. The 778 is a shrink of the 779 even if the 778 entered service first.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 94):
Who are the other "enough customers" who have been asking for more performance?

EK and QR have both said, even after the A351 improvements, that it is not a 77W. I don't think they are asking for much more now, in fact I think the improvements could have lead to EK's cancellation, but there are a decent amount of operators out there suggesting that the A351 isn't the same as a 77W from a performance perspective. No real surprise as you know these newer aircraft have shallower payload range curves and every kilo added to payload impacts range more than that same kilo added to a previous generation aircraft like the 77W. That should carry over to the 779 I suspect otherwise its extra weight will be a gigantic liability.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
Its JL that has the data, not me. Either he was wrong when he said there was no market or he is wrong when suggesting that the A350-1100 will need to be launched soon with an EIS not too far behind the 779. Both can't be true.

So there is no chance that both may be true at their particular point in time? As an example, when the shell rolled out for the 787 and the quotes were that they were expecting it to fly in a few weeks, do you believe they lied and should go to jail, or that is the information they had at the time?

It could be that John Leahy believed there wasn't a market for a larger aircraft than the A35K without going to the A380. He may have been avoiding the talk with the airlines as he didn't have a product to offer them at the time, but now that he sees the market is there they are actively discussing the possibility of a stretch.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
The 779 is a new aircraft. Its dimensions are optimized around the 779. The 778 is a shrink of the 779 even if the 778 entered service first.

How do you see the 779 as a new aircraft? Isn't any model of a family then a new aircraft? So then there is no stretches or shrinks regarding production and design, only "base" models that are the most optimised and any other model of the family, whether smaller or larger being the shrink.

Is the 78X the shrink of the 789 then?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:02 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
No real surprise as you know these newer aircraft have shallower payload range curves and every kilo added to payload impacts range more than that same kilo added to a previous generation aircraft like the 77W. That should carry over to the 779 I suspect otherwise its extra weight will be a gigantic liability.

I would disagree with this. The new planes fly farther on a kilo of fuel, so that when you have to limit load to stretch the range you have to limit it less for a given range extension than you did for previous generations of aircraft. What is really relevant is the range at maximum payload. And to increase that range usually you have to add weight to the aircraft (bigger tanks, bigger wings, bigger engines.) And that does affect their efficiency flying shorter range routes.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17675
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:31 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 64):
No one can make the A351 customer base look good, not even JL. Most depressing order book for a new aircraft since the 77L.

Seriously?  Wow!   

Eighteen months to go and it already has significantly more orders than the 77W had at EIS.

How do airlines like BA, SQ, CX, UA, EY, QR, JL (and apparently VS soon) make a bad looking customer base? Are you Richard Aboulafia in disguise?   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Decision On A350-1100 In 2016; If 380 Neo EIS 2025

Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:54 pm

Quoting chinmay17shetye (Reply 8):
A very wise strategy instead of pushing to the A380neo in my opinion.

I have to agree, the 3511 has more profitability potential than an A380neo. Might as well build it, why let Boeing have all the VLA leftovers? It will just be a tough engineering job if they want to do it quick, might be another Boeing 764.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 20):
I'm going to say yes, and here's why. Because there are no examples I can think of where an aircraft family that had three or more models, each differentiated only by length alone, had the shortest model sell in any large numbers, I can expect the same to happen to the A350-900. The A318, A319, A319neo, 737-600, 737-700, 737 MAX 7, 767-200, and possibly the 787-8, now that the 787-10 is being offered, are perfect examples. Airlines will natural migrate to larger models because they carry more for the same operating cost, thereby being more efficient.

Only thing I can say is I believe the 359 is the optimal model for the line, was squarely targeted on the 77E, and will continue to lead that rather large replacement market. The one at the most risk is IMHO the higher end, the 3511. It could be more a346, just a wee bit too much strech. Not optimal, but may have some use cases that make the project worth it.

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