Quoting Stitch (Reply 99): Not sure they have the floor space for 550 seats, at least in a usable configuration of pitch and width. Type A doors are also heavy (over 500kg). As such, I would not be surprised if Airbus also went with a Type C like the 777-9.

While I tend to agree with you, I don't see how John Leahy would be able to get his "higher capacity", even only on paper, if that is what they end up doing.

Quoting RIX (Reply 82): A and B themselves don't care about decreasing each other's sales. They care about increasing their own.

And that, by definition in a duopoly, means your competitor cannot make that sale.

Quoting RIX (Reply 82): Preferably without having to design overlapping / competing airframes.

Are you referring to the A330 & A350? There's clearly sufficient differentiation between the two that some airlines see the need to purchase both. Or maybe you're referring to the 777 & 787?   

Quoting Erebus (Reply 94): Can you be a little more specific here. Higher rate than what exactly?

Referring to base line RR Total Care package?

Pricing is dynamic, pre and post operation.

Pre. For instance, Qantas A380 TC engine pricing was (but re-visited after the engine issue?) higher than for the standard version. Presumably Emirates has negotiated a zero premium on the same model, offset by an operating environment surcharge (Dubai sand).

Post. How the operator actually uses the engine.

Operators can mitigate fees by using engines conservatively, and/or accepting higher rates of performance decay.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79): Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 23): Any ideas on an engine? I hear the XWB-97 is maxed out so if an A350-1100 needed more thrust RR would be looking at another derivative with a bigger fan. Not entirely correct, the XWB-97 engine does have some margin built in.

This from Lowbank last year in the 'New A350-1100 Details' thread: -

Quote: I heard 6 months ago there was a request for a more powerful engine which was obviously for a -1100. The 97 k could not be pushed to that power so a new engine will have to be done. I have not seen any concepts yet so no idea what might be incorporated.

I don't doubt there's a margin left - but maybe not enough?

Quoting Aither (Reply 76): I must disagree on that. Airlines are not chasing growth but profits in priority and the traffic can be adapted, in particular on the large markets (that's revenue management) If I'm looking for something bigger than our 77W of course I would look at the 779. However the cost of the additional capacity is rather high and the flexibility is less compared to the A350-1000. So I may opt for the A350-1000 even if it means lower traffic. I may also opt for an A380 or consider another frequency if possible if I've been spilling many passengers or have new ambitions, partnership etc.. But the A350 stretch can be the right spot if I can have these additional seats for a very low additional trip cost. If the 779 is killing the A380 as you said well a stretch A350 would do even more harm and in particular if it takes the number of A380s in the fleet below a certain limit. You can see with my example all these aircraft are clearly competing between each other.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): So the 779 takes orders from an A380 but an A350 stretch would only take orders from the 779? Some very twisted logic there. Lets try to remain objective.

In reply to both, if the market for the A380 is at a potential number, X, and with the introduction of the 779 the market shrunk by 50% due to the lower costs and general attractive prospects of the 779. You are now telling me that the market will reduce again due to a 779 competitor? Its not like the 779 is booked out for a decade from EIS and a new frame is needed to take up the slack. If an airline wanted to choose between the A380 and 779 and decided on the 779, how does the A350 take a sale away from the A380 if they obtain that sale instead?

It seems like those that are saying this model will hurt the A380 want to count double against the A380 (no surprise there I suppose). The 779 is already in a market of its own, taking sales from the A380. If a 779 competitor arrives it will compete against a frame that has already taken sales from the A380. It cannot take sales from the A380 that it wasn't going to get due to the 779.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): It is possible Airbus could be worried that Singapore could go with the 777-9 over the A350-1000 if SQ decides to retrofit their current 777-300ERs at 10-abreast, as well as other large 10-abreast 777-300ER operators could favor the 777-9, as well.

What was determined is that current 777-300ER operators who have 9-abreast Y are seen as more likely to go for the A350-1000, with those who operate with 10Y, the 777X.

I'd say SQ could go for the 777-9, but I expect them to go for the A350-1000 a bit more.

Airlines like JL and SQ were always likely A350-1000 customers.

AA, AC, AF, and other 10Y 77W airlines seem like they'll go for the 777X

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 103): I heard 6 months ago there was a request for a more powerful engine which was obviously for a -1100. The 97 k could not be pushed to that power so a new engine will have to be done.

Well if we are to believe (a) certain poster(s) in another thread then they could just hang the GE9X from the A350. Its the right size and timing seems to be in-line. I am sure GE will just offer it up to the competing aircraft no questions asked!

By the way this is sarcastic.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 100): I don't see how John Leahy would be able to get his "higher capacity"

I've given up taking him seriously. If it was Mr Brégier it would be pique my curiosity.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 104): In reply to both, if the market for the A380 is at a potential number, X, and with the introduction of the 779 the market shrunk by 50% due to the lower costs and general attractive prospects of the 779. You are now telling me that the market will reduce again due to a 779 competitor?

I assume this isn't going to be a 779-me too? It will sell on its own merits presumably? Different fuel burn, commonality, cargo, and seat width in Y is soo critical I hear so there is that major difference - and all will come at the expense of the 779 and not the A351 nor the A380? Give me a break.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 105): What was determined is that current 777-300ER operators who have 9-abreast Y are seen as more likely to go for the A350-1000, with those who operate with 10Y, the 777X.

I don't think anything has been 'determined'. Its a larger capacity jump from 9 to 10 abreast but for some operators they may be ready. Maybe to consolidate frequencies or to take over for larger aircraft like the 747 or the A380.

tortugamon

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 103): I don't doubt there's a margin left - but maybe not enough?

RR could probably get more power by increasing fan diameter without changing much else but you are still building a new fan case which is expensive (because of strength requirements to hold a titaniam blade in blade out situation), unless they go for composite / titanium which I believe they have now flight tested.

But you are still going to end up with 3 engines for 3 varients which is not ideal, they should have bitten the bullet and increased fan size for the TXWB-97.

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 70): The A380 testbed allows for high altitude testing. Of course they can't do testing without mounting it on an aircraft first. Bit silly to say actually.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 69): Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 68):

Thankyou both for your answers. One little point, the 84 was altitude tested before being mounted on a wing for in flight testing. This was done in the US at some special facility.

Ruscoe

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106): Well if we are to believe (a) certain poster(s) in another thread then they could just hang the GE9X from the A350. Its the right size and timing seems to be in-line. I am sure GE will just offer it up to the competing aircraft no questions asked! By the way this is sarcastic.

I don't know why you are getting your underwear in a twist. GE will not offer the GE9X as they have exclusivity with the 777X. At the same time I doubt RR will offer the XWB to the 777X as it is the same the other way. You should know this. If either company were to develop a new engine all bets are off though. You should know this.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106): I've given up taking him seriously. If it was Mr Brégier it would be pique my curiosity.

I am sure he is devastated that you aren't taking him seriously....ever thought the reason Boeing is a bit of a pickle with the MOM is that they haven't taken Airbus or their staff seriously for a few decades?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106): I assume this isn't going to be a 779-me too? It will sell on its own merits presumably? Different fuel burn, commonality, cargo, and seat width in Y is soo critical I hear so there is that major difference - and all will come at the expense of the 779 and not the A351 nor the A380? Give me a break.

Make your choice, either the A380 has a market and this new potential competitor will take sales away. Or it has limited sales to only a couple of airlines (maybe only EK) and this will have no impact at all. You are all for consistency when it suits your argument. Be consistent now. Just like the MOM, we will ultimately have to wait and see what, if anything, Airbus puts out there. If it is a straight competitor and "me too" of the 779 then the market will not all of a sudden grow because there is 2 models out there. It will stay the same, but split between the 2 models. The A380 is way off in the distance, trying to survive where its only competitor is slowly drowning in its own troubles.

A sale for Airbus is a sale for Airbus. Whether this be the A380, A350-1000 or A350-1100. Or do you honestly think the 779 has a number of sales already written in stone (over and above their current orders) and anything else will need to be scraps from the table for Airbus? Its that kind of thinking that had Boeing trying to convince us there is no issue with the 739 vs A321, all will be well and no action is needed.  

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 102): Referring to base line RR Total Care package?

Alright but I'm looking at the big picture. If the RR TC contract is unfavourable in terms of price, what other alternatives to the A350 do you evaluate and is it any better?

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 104): If an airline wanted to choose between the A380 and 779 and decided on the 779, how does the A350 take a sale away from the A380 if they obtain that sale instead?

You are assuming the products are "nested" : if Boeing offers a blue car (77X) and Airbus is launching a yellow car (A350 stretch) you assume this would not impact the demand for the yellow truck (A380). But that's not the reality.


If today after evaluating the 779 vs.A350-1000 an airline is likely to prefer the A350-1000 it would continue to consider the A380 for other markets. If the airline is evaluating the 779 vs. A350 stretch an airline is likely to take the A350 stretch and would probably no longer consider the A380 as the A350 stretch would be "good enough" to cover missions of both the A350-1000 and A380.

In addition on the large markets these aircraft are targeting you are comparing combination of aircraft : does 1 A380 +1 787 work better than 2 779 or 2 A350 stretch ? Does the seat cost of the A350 stretch is so great that I would rather add one additional frequency than put an A380 ? etc.
Again A350-1000, 77X and A380 are different aircraft but for the same markets. Add any other long range product between 350 and 600 seats it would eat up in this market as well.

[Edited 2016-02-17 18:35:07]

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 109): GE will not offer the GE9X as they have exclusivity with the 777X.

No different than what I proposed with the MoM. Glad you came around and we are in agreement.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 109): Make your choice, either the A380 has a market and this new potential competitor will take sales away. Or it has limited sales to only a couple of airlines (maybe only EK) and this will have no impact at all.

My choice is irrelevant to the faulty logic you presented.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 109): You are all for consistency when it suits your argument. Be consistent now. Just like the MOM, we will ultimately have to wait and see what, if anything, Airbus puts out there. If it is a straight competitor and "me too" of the 779 then the market will not all of a sudden grow because there is 2 models out there.

But if the 779 market is just the ME3 then what is the point of offering a me-too version?

Quoting Erebus (Reply 110): Alright but I'm looking at the big picture. If the RR TC contract is unfavourable in terms of price, what other alternatives to the A350 do you evaluate and is it any better?

The 77X and the 787 are options

tortugamon

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 104): If a 779 competitor arrives it will compete against a frame that has already taken sales from the A380. It cannot take sales from the A380 that it wasn't going to get due to the 779.

        
An A350-1100 may actually make the A380 more attractive in a whole fleet sense
It would compete on capacity with the 779, but won't have the same range. If economics are good enough, they may squeeze the 779 out of a fleet plan by reducing the 779 subfleet to a point where it is more attractive to send an A35K where capacity matters, forgo a bit of revenue and send an A35J where the extra range is needed and the A380 where range and capacity are needed.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112): But if the 779 market is just the ME3 then what is the point of offering a me-too version?

With a 1000nm or so less range it is hardly a me2. More like a "I can handle 90% of its routes for 90% the trip cost, 100% of the routes at 90% revenue or 100% of the routes at 140% revenue" family. Oh, and all can be flown by the same pilot pool.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): So the 779 is only going to be an ME3 machine and those orders are largely in-hand...yet Airbus wants a me-too version? This stretch doesn't fit with the rhetoric.

That is the point. Airbus won't create a Me 2 with this -1100. To do so would be stupid. According to Leahy they want more seats than the -9X and only slightly more thrust than the -1000. Sounds like the 787-10 vs A359 analogy to me!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 108): answers. One little point, the 84 was altitude tested before being mounted on a wing for in flight testing. This was done in the US at some special fa

Therefore the engineers are confident the engine that is over 80% shared in parts doesn't need to go through the same rigmarole beforehand. Makes sense really.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 113): An A350-1100 may actually make the A380 more attractive in a whole fleet sense

Any A380neo that has same or better trip cost than the A350-1100 will in fact make the two planes complimentary. For this reason we will see the majority of fleets diversified with the A350 and 777X or A330 and 77W or the 787 and 777X etc. Nothing is cannibalising the other. Indeed a sale for a company is not a sale for the other and that is what an oligopoly wants to do in this market.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106): Quoting speedbored (Reply 100): I don't see how John Leahy would be able to get his "higher capacity" I've given up taking him seriously. If it was Mr Brégier it would be pique my curiosity.

And it was Mr Brégier how said "[...] it will essentially be a clean-sheet. [...] and we won't call it A350-1100 [...]"

So a simple stretch - more or less in line with the 787-10 - isn't on the table for this plane. Whatever the reason - I think the communicated needs and requirements of the Airlines which Airbus is talking to wouldn't be the worst bet - they have seem to come to the conclusion that this plane not only has to be in the size of the 777-9, but also has to meet it's capabilities or 95% of them.

Quoting Aither (Reply 111): If today after evaluating the 779 vs.A350-1000 an airline is likely to prefer the A350-1000 it would continue to consider the A380 for other markets.

You said it, other markets for the A380. While they are in the same ballpark regarding the markets they can serve (due to their high capacity, we aren't talking A330 vs A380 here), they do serve different markets.

Quoting Aither (Reply 111): In addition on the large markets these aircraft are targeting you are comparing combination of aircraft : does 1 A380 +1 787 work better than 2 779 or 2 A350 stretch ? Does the seat cost of the A350 stretch is so great that I would rather add one additional frequency than put an A380 ? etc. Again A350-1000, 77X and A380 are different aircraft but for the same markets. Add any other long range product between 350 and 600 seats it would eat up in this market as well.

BA could do just this, instead of 3 77W they could use 2 A380s to LAX. If the 779 was available would it have changed their mind? The extra capacity of the A380 offsets the need for the extra flight. The extra capacity of the 779 will only be around 30 seat more (as per the new Boeing figures), so the extra 140-170 seats that the A380 provide puts it in its own niche.

No-one is saying there are endless routes the A380 can fly. They are saying that there is a market, but it is small and it is pressured by the competition from the 779. Adding another competitor doesn't change this market or the difficulty Airbus has in selling the A380.

Using the A380 as a truck example, if you need to buy a truck you will buy a truck. If you are looking at a new vehicle you will consider all the options. There aren't a lot of people that need to buy trucks though.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112): No different than what I proposed with the MoM. Glad you came around and we are in agreement.

I honestly don't know what you are on about here. Somehow you are focusing on one program only to support your view on another. Those are discussions we can have on the MOM thread and not on here.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112): My choice is irrelevant to the faulty logic you presented.

Okay, look forward to your views on the A380 in future though and the market it has. It will be interesting to follow, you know being consistent and everything. Happy you will be arguing for a A380 market though.  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112): But if the 779 market is just the ME3 then what is the point of offering a me-too version?

You really are obtuse when it suits you. Both Airbus and Boeing have said crazy things about each others products. We can line them up actually. The A330 doesn't need to be updated against a plastic plane. The A321 is only catching up to the 739. We laugh about the quotes and move on to what the companies are doing, which in this case is a possible response to the 779. I would have thought you would be happier that you were right and there is a market for the 779. Seems as though Boeing fanboys are just bitter that Airbus dares to answer with a design of their own.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106): I assume this isn't going to be a 779-me too?

The 777X pair is a "sqeeze the cheese" type offering.
IMU it is the mini ( needed ), more or less max ( available leeway ) change
to produce an offering that just tops the smaller A350-1000 on seat mile cost.
( still wonder were they will sink all that extra oew )

a well done further stretch to the A350 would IMU produce a significantly
more efficient frame and one would be back into the A350-1000 (20+%) vs. 777-300ER
runoff.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 113): It would compete on capacity with the 779, but won't have the same range.

So bigger than 779 with less range ?... so it has to be a large route not too far : LHR-JFK, LHR-MIA, CDG-IAD, PRG-DXB, SIN-PVG, HND-SIN, ICN-BKK, ICN-HKG, etc. etc. on all these markets there is a potential 77X, A350-1000 or A380.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): Why does an A350-1100 stretch lose less range vs the A351 than the 78X loses vs the 789?

Because the A350-1000 is more capable to begin with and the A350-1100 will be able to see a MTOW increase, that the 787-10 will not see because it has more limitation like a maxed out MLG.

Quoting Aither (Reply 118):

Some routes you list like SIN-PVG are only 5 hours. The 779 will be a decent 13-14 hour plane at full payload. The A330-900 type of payload which can cover US west coast to Asia is good enough without encroaching on the 777X territory or the A380 and smaller A350s. This gets a good 11 hours and can cover 80% of today's 77W routes which provides room for growth over the next decade as fleet renewal take place.

I believe it makes more sense for Airbus to build a A350-1100/-1200 that is a little bit longer than the 777-9 (accomodating 3-4 more Y rows to compensate for the 9 abreast in Y) and actually matches the range/payload of the 777-9.

If they build a plane that can't fully compete with the 777-9 they are better off not doing it.

I see this project from a portfolio point of view. With the current line-up, many airlines are forced to look at the 777-9 and this opens the door for the 787.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 93):

On the 3 shaft design fan speed the fan is still limited by the LPT speed. And afaik this is already at the limit for the XWB. You can not go slower without losing efficiency, which means you can not use a larger fan without having it turn faster, but the fan already turns faster on the 97 version.

Thanks Seahawk. On this issue of using a larger fan for the Trent XWB 97+, you make an interesting point. But my memory told me to look up in Wiki the 1998 RR very large Trent, the 8104. Wiki tells us that an even larger proposed 8115 was to compete with what became the GE90 for the current 777-300. The 8104 got up to 110,000 lbs of thrust on the Derby test bed, and had a 110 inch fan. The proposed 8115 was going to have 120 inch fan. The current XWB 97 has a fan of 118 inches.

I guess that on these 3-shaft engines, the rotational speeds of the Fan to LP turbine shaft can be re-designed and re-engineered (with revised fan blades and revised LP turbine blades etc) to match the required optimum rotational speed of each fan size, within certain limits? This is the advantage of 3 shaft design, as I currently understand it?

Quoting Egerton (Reply 122): On the 3 shaft design fan speed the fan is still limited by the LPT speed. And afaik this is already at the limit for the XWB. You can not go slower without losing efficiency, which means you can not use a larger fan without having it turn faster, but the fan already turns faster on the 97 version.

Actually the 3 shaft design allows to adjust the needed fan speed by adjusting the LPT. It is exactly not dependent on the intermediary shaft speed. So you go to a smaller fan and speed it up with adjusting the LPT or you can move the same amount of air with a larger fan and again adjust the LPT to the slower speed. That is exactly the big advantage of the three shaft design.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 89): Well the 779 is supposed to end up just over 3m short of the 80m box limit so Airbus ought to be able to make a -11 a bit longer, if they really want to, and squeeze in a few more rows of seats.

At 80 meters the A350-1100 would offer similar capacity as the 777-9. Now the Bloomberg article says Airbus would offer a product with more capacity than the 777-9. If we stick within the 80 meters box, it can only be achieved by going 10-abreast.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): At 80 meters the A350-1100 would offer similar capacity as the 777-9. Now the Bloomberg article says Airbus would offer a product with more capacity than the 777-9. If we stick within the 80 meters box, it can only be achieved by going 10-abreast.

It may however have a little more floor space to play with, e.g. stay at 9-abreast but with a smaller pitch [than the 777-9 at 10-abreast]. This is also done on the A320 to bring it closer to the 737-Max with an more-or-less equal comfort level (depending if your more large and thin --> better have more pitch or if your short but wide --> better have more seat-width lol).

I don't expect them to go beyond the 80m. What I expect is close to 80m + new wing with folding wing-tips and the same or very close to the same capacity as the 777-9 (range, payload) while being lighter.

Quoting Egerton (Reply 122): I guess that on these 3-shaft engines, the rotational speeds of the Fan to LP turbine shaft can be re-designed and re-engineered (with revised fan blades and revised LP turbine blades etc) to match the required optimum rotational speed of each fan size, within certain limits? This is the advantage of 3 shaft design, as I currently understand it?

Sure, if you work on the LPT you can also work on the fan. I just wanted to point out that RR probably would need to do more than just use larger fan blades to achieve a larger fan.

Personally I believe the rumours that the XWB97 is having a bit of thrust reserve that could be used without any modification.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 85): The 80*80 box is a thing of the past

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): Agreed. Airports will adapt. This isn't going to be a mainstream aircraft anyway.

More complicated certification and airports needing to make adjustments. That's a lot of trouble for just a simply stretch. I cannot see that happening. There's a reason why Boeing went for folding wing tips on the 779, they want to fit the 777X into existing 777 parking stands. And I'm pretty convinced Airbus wants to have any A350-1100 fitted at those gates as well.

The 80 meter box may disappear when Boeing or Airbus design their next clean-sheet widebody.

Boeing and Airbus have often a funny way to look at a competing aircraft. It could very well be that Leahy compared the 350-1100 to a 9 abreast 779 when talking about more capacity. Strange but possible. A better number is 35-40 more seats than the 35k Airbus mentioned before.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): At 80 meters the A350-1100 would offer similar capacity as the 777-9. Now the Bloomberg article says Airbus would offer a product with more capacity than the 777-9. If we stick within the 80 meters box, it can only be achieved by going 10-abreast.

I agree with you when we're looking at real-world seating configurations but I still think that Airbus could squeeze in a notional "max capacity" that exceeds that of the 777-9, even if it rarely, if ever, gets used in reality (which is the case with almost every large aircraft).

I guess we'll have to wait and see, assuming they do go ahead, whether they decide to add a type-A door or a type-C.

I do not expect bigger wings on a potential A350-1100.

The A350-1000 has a far lower wing loading than a 777-300ER. I assume Airbus can increase the MTOW for the A350-1100 from the 308 t to 330 t without doing anything to the wing. Let have a bit longer take off run than the A350-1000.

Regarding the passenger numbers, would it be possible to stretch the cabin more the the whole length? Changing the empennage or the position of the pressure bulkhead to add an extra row.

More like Spaceflex toilets Ver. 3 option.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 130):

They could give it a "super conny" fuselage  

As a "panel liner" airbus A350 must not be stuck with a fixed or even constant fuselage diameter  
the -1000 seems to already get bespoke frames for a range of stations.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): It will already need an additional door as is.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 100): While I tend to agree with you, I don't see how John Leahy would be able to get his "higher capacity", even only on paper, if that is what they end up doing.

As long as they don't exceed 440 seats, four exit doors are enough.

Boeing last year revised their performance numbers and markets the 777-9 now as an 349-seater in three-class, and 400 seats in two-class. I suppose Airbus can market the A350-1100 as an 380-seater in three-class and 430-seater in two-class if they find a way to squash in 30 additional seats.

Remember, we also have Space Flex cabin option coming to the A350 that could add some 20 additional seats:

http://leehamnews.com/2015/01/28/a35...seats-we-analyse-the-consequences/

Quoting mat66 (Reply 128): Boeing and Airbus have often a funny way to look at a competing aircraft.

Ding ding, we have a winner.

Quoting mat66 (Reply 128): A better number is 35-40 more seats than the 35k Airbus mentioned before.

More like 30 seats as the stretch would be smaller than 10 meters.

The Airbus handling of the issue of how big will be the A350-1000+ is a sight to behold.

It is an inexpensive and fun way of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt at Boeing. I suspect the real attack will be via a 1000+ with a payload range curve below that of the 777-9. Meantime, all the talk of head-on blood baths of similar payload range or bigger payload range resemble the Military Intelligence's skills with past subterfuge. For instance where will the real D-Day landings take place?

With the strategic outcome of the conflict already decided, Airbus keeps kicking the opposition while they are down, just like the military try when they can.

Quoting Egerton (Reply 134): For instance where will the real D-Day landings take place?

Quote: In the airliner business, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies

I may have miss quoted Churchill there.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 135):

Quote:
In the airliner business, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies

Brilliant, well done young man.

Thank you for calling me young!

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 88): Can you please explain the business case for the 747-8 then? Don't forget to take into account that Boeing had been stating in the years after the A380 program launch that the market for VLAs was tiny.

To sell some airframes, even on a tiny market (which it is)... What else?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 101): And that, by definition in a duopoly, means your competitor cannot make that sale.

Absolutely. But it's not the goal. Nor a means/way to reach it. It's its side effect or whatever you can call it.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 101): Are you referring to the A330 & A350?.. Or maybe you're referring to the 777 & 787?

I mean any case when possible overlapping of own designs is caused by need to counter competition. Which, again, is not the latter's goal but a consequence of it trying to develop and sell its own product.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): it can only be achieved by going 10-abreast.

If true less range, less comfortable... are we really sure it's for competing against the 779?

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 113): With a 1000nm or so less range it is hardly a me2. More like a "I can handle 90% of its routes for 90% the trip cost, 100% of the routes at 90% revenue or 100% of the routes at 140% revenue" family. Oh, and all can be flown by the same pilot pool.

While I dispute some figures, well said. I would be very interested to hear what EK thinks on this subject. Hard to see the launch of a 400+ seat aircraft without their support.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 117): a well done further stretch to the A350 would IMU produce a significantly more efficient frame and one would be back into the A350-1000 (20+%) vs. 777-300ER runoff.

Sure and if you read what I have said on the subject I do think they should build the aircraft but not in a regional version and not until A350 production slots aren't in the demand that they are. Its just interesting to read the comments about this being a good idea while at the same time suggesting that the 779 has a small market. Talking out both sides of their mouths as it were.

I don't see production going past 14/month and I think the A359/A351 can handle that with ease. I do think launching an A350-1100 now cuts the A351 at its knees when it needs all the support it can get. Upward conversions will happen.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): At 80 meters the A350-1100 would offer similar capacity as the 777-9. Now the Bloomberg article says Airbus would offer a product with more capacity than the 777-9. If we stick within the 80 meters box, it can only be achieved by going 10-abreast.

Agreed.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133): As long as they don't exceed 440 seats, four exit doors are enough.

There are operators of the 77W that already exceed 440 seats like NH, AC, AF, etc. A stretch of this size that can't accommodate that number of seats could be an issue. Even EK is up against that figure on their 77Ws and definitely expect to exceed it on their 779s. Not sure they would both advertise that they fit more seats than the 779 while retaining only 4 doors.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140): I don't see production going past 14/month and I think the A359/A351 can handle that with ease. I do think launching an A350-1100 now cuts the A351 at its knees when it needs all the support it can get.

Then production rate would go to 18/month. Whats the matter? It is a safe bet that the A350 as a platform will see such rates. It is easier to cover a huge demand with a single family.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140): Its just interesting to read the comments about this being a good idea while at the same time suggesting that the 779 has a small market.

The 779 market obviously is decent as long as it belongs Boeing alone. Once an A350-1100 would be offered, the 77X business case immediately looks less rosy, especially in the light of the "2/3 of a clean sheet"-investment.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 119): Quoting tortugamon (Reply 92): Why does an A350-1100 stretch lose less range vs the A351 than the 78X loses vs the 789? Because the A350-1000 is more capable to begin with and the A350-1100 will be able to see a MTOW increase, that the 787-10 will not see because it has more limitation like a maxed out MLG.

And with a strech wich have simmilar lenght and weights (The weight differense per meter of the 787 and A350 tubes/fuselages are not very big?) the larger (The one using more fuel) aircraft should always take a smaller range hit.

As an example lest say both add 10 ton of OEW for the same x meter strech then range @ mtow decreases acordingly. The 789 uses about 5,4 ton per hour and the A35K about 6,4 and they have the same cruice speed of mach 0.85 so 1 h flight time is the same relative distance on both aircrafts. (The fuel burn figures are ones i have heard here on A-net that i use for the sake my example below).

-10 ton fuel for the 787-9 means losing (10/5,4=) 1,85h flight time.
-10 ton fuel for the A35K means losing (10/6,4=) 1,56h flight time.

And if the A350 is a little heavier:

-11ton fuel for the A35K means losing (11/6,4=) 1,71h flight time.
(Still less then the smaller 789 loses)

Then one just needs to translate h flight time into Nm all the time asuming still air ranges.

(Then they loose som more to drag of the longer fuselage etc. etc.)

-10 ton on a 738 type aircraft would devestate its range while on a 744 type it would hardly be noticeable it in conparison.

Regards

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 141): Then production rate would go to 18/month. Whats the matter? It is a safe bet that the A350 as a platform will see such rates. It is easier to cover a huge demand with a single family.

I don't think that will happen in the midterm future. 13/month is already a phenomenally high rate for a widebody aircraft and I just don't think the vendors will support a 38% increase above that. I am aware that others disagree with me but I just don't see it.

tortugamon

Quoting Millenium (Reply 142): And with a strech wich have simmilar lenght and weights (The weight differense per meter of the 787 and A350 tubes/fuselages are not very big?) the larger (The one using more fuel) aircraft should always take a smaller range hit.

The 787-10 will have nearly the same MTOW as the 787-9, 1,000 Kg increase. That is the reason for the hefty range hit. To increase the MTOW the 787-10 would probably need a new MLG to start with.

The A350-1000 has a big MLG and a low wing loading. A simple stretch with an increase in MTOW without touching wing or MLG and even keeping the same engines is well possible. That would give less range hit than on the 787-10.

[Edited 2016-02-18 12:52:47]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144): The 787-10 will have the same nearly the same MTOW as the 787-9, 1,000 Kg increase. That is the reason for the hefty range hit. To increase the MTOW the 787-10 would probably need a new MLG to start with. The A350-1000 has a big MLG and a low wing loading. A simple stretch with an increase in MTOW without touching wing or MLG and even keeping the same engines is well possible. That would give less range hit than on the 787-10.

Yes this to, you are absolutely correct.

A simple strech of the A35K measuring 5,5 meters like the 789 to 78K with simmilar weight gains will not hit the A35K strech on range as much as the 78K. Just saying, not a big deal to me  

Regards

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143): I just don't think the vendors will support a 38% increase above that.

So only Boeings vendors can do that?

I just wanted to say that if demand is larger than the production capacity, the latter will be adjusted. The backlog is so big, that the sales team anyway can sell like there is no tomorrow, because whatever volume they sell, there is time to cope with the production rate. IMO we see such an effect with the NEO.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144): The 787-10 will have nearly the same MTOW as the 787-9, 1,000 Kg increase. That is the reason for the hefty range hit.

The 78X is getting a 7% engine thrust boost for the 78X. Lets see how much thrust they are going to get out of these XWB engines.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 146): So only Boeings vendors can do that?

Come on man. Do we have to?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 146): I just wanted to say that if demand is larger than the production capacity, the latter will be adjusted.

Certainly it can be adjusted...and it has. I personally don't see it increasing nearly 40% above the current highest expectation. Sure it could be supported for a couple years probably but then back down and the vendors are stuck with excess capacity. I think the 13 figure has been well thought out and developed and sure there could be some wiggle room I just don't think that much. Its not like they will be the only ones producing aircraft in this space unlike the 77W which is being produced at 1/3 of the rate you propose.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 147): I personally don't see it increasing nearly 40% above the current highest expectation.

Might be that 13/month sufficiently cover the demand of A350-900, 1000 & 1100. Then fine. But if the market for this combination supports more -> production capacity will follow.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 147): Sure it could be supported for a couple years probably but then back down and the vendors are stuck with excess capacity.

Sure. Is that a big deal? Not when I look at the history of 777 production volumes per year. That number within short periods went up (and down) more than the percentages you claim as unlikely. Thats why I asked whether "only Boeing vendors could cope with that".

I have a gut feeling that through 2015 Leahy's team was tasked to sell NEOs, as if there would be no production limit for delivery times past 2020.

And from the sales they achieve that way, they could then define the production rate, that matches the real "value" of the NEO on the market.

This is a hypothesis but such mechanisms must exist, because over mid terms the yearly production output of many planes saw changes even much bigger than the 40% you mention. It is not credible IMO, that significant business opportunities would stay untapped just because the currently envisaged production rate does not support it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140): While I dispute some figures, well said.

yeah, they are out of thin air just to clarify my thinking.

best regards
Thomas