A350 Stretch May Be Launched At Farnborough - Pt 2

scbriml · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:35 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
But didn't Leahy concede the ME3 market as lost?

Only for the 77W replacement. Airbus is still in the running for the expected EK regional fleet order. I'd also point out that they've already sold over 140 A350s to two of the ME3 already.

Quoting crimsonchin (Reply 49):
I'll be surprised if Airbus launches anything at Farnborough.

They won't. Leahy already said expect some news at Farnborough and a launch by year end if they decide to go ahead.

Quoting crimsonchin (Reply 49):
Would be apt for your 948598698 A380 threads/borderline obsession.

You might think that. Oh look, this is what he wants...

[Edited 2016-03-03 02:44:44]

Matt6461 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:39 am

Quoting crimsonchin (Reply 49):

Would be apt for your 948598698 A380 threads/borderline obsession.

Great. Let's criticize how I make too many a380 threads by making a non-a380 thread about a380 threads.

Hattip: scrimbl

Matt6461 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:59 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 48):

Although the customer base will be small, aircraft with crippled range should sell 'reasonably'

Makes sense. Larger airlines can better tailor aircraft capabilities to aircraft route. Thus capability-limited frames will be purchased disproportionately by large airlines who have proportionately less need to "misuse" frames on their residual hours left over after the routes for which their max capabilities were purchased.

Wasn't saying that "overbuying" should be found from mismatch on a particular route. It would be a system-wide tendency not to optimize for lower overall capability. Driven, for example, by excessive expectations of long haul success. That's a big ego/prestige thing at which few airlines are great, and which has sent many to the corporate grave.

mjoelnir · Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:46 am

Let us say Airbus makes a A350-1100. Sells 100 birds and takes therefor that part of the market from the 777, still better than the 777-200LR did and I expect the 777-8 to be doing.

EPA001 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:31 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
Let us say Airbus makes a A350-1100. Sells 100 birds and takes therefor that part of the market from the 777, still better than the 777-200LR did and I expect the 777-8 to be doing.

Well, that is all speculation at this time. Let's wait with what kind of stretched A350-1000 Airbus will come up with. It might land more then 100 birds if they get it right. And why shouldn't they not get it right?

olle · Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:43 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
t us say Airbus makes a A350-1100. Sells 100 birds and takes therefor that part of the market from the 777, still better than the 777-200LR did and I expect the 777-8 to be doing.

This might fly shorter compared to the 779 but if it can have its life when it is time of an 350Neo in 15 years time it will be there.

zeke · Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting olle (Reply 55):
This might fly shorter compared to the 779 but if it can have its life when it is time of an 350Neo in 15 years time it will be there.

If it initially can do 6000 nm air nautical miles with decent revenue payload, it will be very attractive IMHO. That will cover the majority of the trunk long haul city pairs. It would cover the majority of routes out of IST or PEK for example.

RIX · Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:34 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):

Let us say Airbus makes a A350-1100. Sells 100 birds and takes therefor that part of the market from the 777, still better than the 777-200LR did and I expect the 777-8 to be doing.

764 is probably the right comparison here. 77L and 778 are "the opposite" of 35B.

I expect 35B to sell more than 100 frames. Don't forget though quite a few of them will take 35A sales.

Stitch · Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:39 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45):
If Airbus does not increase the MTOW, this A350-1100 would have about the same MZFW range as the 787-10. And we know Emirates wants more power out of the 787-10.

But as I understand it, Emirates wants that power due to the high wing loading on the 787-10 impacting performance out of DXB during summer temperature peaks.

The A350's wing loading is lower so I would think the A350-1100 even with 97k engines would not be as impacted. And if RR does improve the thrust - either overall or via a "thrust-bump" option like on the GE90-11xB series - that should give them even more headroom at 308,000kg.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
Let us say Airbus makes a A350-1100. Sells 100 birds and takes therefor that part of the market from the 777, still better than the 777-200LR did and I expect the 777-8 to be doing.

Don't forget that it would also be exponentially better than the A350-900ULR.

Seriously, I don't think Airbus would do this for 100 sales, even if every one was at the expense of the 777-9 (in an RFP between them). I would think they would need to be in fear of losing many hundreds of A350-1000 sales to the 777-9 (in an RFP between them) before they went with it.

[Edited 2016-03-03 07:40:16]

seahawk · Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:02 pm

I wonder who would buy this plane.

Asiaflyer · Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:17 pm

Sorry for long story but this just caught my eyes on Reuters.

Alerts History
* 03-Mar-2016 17:13:00 - AIRBUS PLANS NEW 400-SEAT JETLINER, PROVISIONALLY DUBBED THE A350-8000; SEEKS AIRLINE SUPPORT -SOURCES

EXCLUSIVE-Airbus touts 400-seat 'A350-8000' jetliner - Reuters News

03-Mar-2016 17:13:45

By Tim Hepher
PHOENIX, March 3 (Reuters) - Airbus is seeking
airline support for a new 400-seat jetliner provisionally dubbed
the A350-8000 as competition escalates with Boeing over
the world's largest two-engined jets, airline and aviation
industry sources said.
After talking up the possibility of a new member of its A350
family, the European planemaker has swung into an active
pre-marketing phase as it responds to a recent upgrade in the
competing Boeing 777 series.
While Boeing has scored successes in the Gulf with its
biggest ever twin-engined jet, the 406-seat 777-9, Airbus is
expected to aim its design at airlines that do not always
require the performance needed for extreme Gulf conditions.
"It would have similar capacity and range (as the 777-9) and
substantially lower seat-mile costs," Airbus sales chief John
Leahy said in an interview. "We are showing it to airlines right
now."
The project is the latest move in a game of leapfrog played
by Airbus and Boeing over the past decade in the market for big
twinjets, valued at about $1.9 trillion over 20 years.
It marks a shift in priorities after the collapse in oil
prices eased pressure on Airbus to upgrade its larger
four-engined A380, output of which is declining because of slow
sales.
Two of the airlines whose feedback could be decisive in
whether Airbus launches the new jet are Singapore Airlines
and British Airways .
Singapore took delivery of its first smaller A350-900 model
this week and has long been weighing up the 777-9, while putting
pressure on Airbus to offer it a choice.
Both airlines declined to comment.
Airbus planemaking president Fabrice Bregier was visiting
Singapore on Thursday for a delivery ceremony, at which a
company spokesman declined to comment.
The A350 XWB (Extra Wide Body) family was launched after a
string of setbacks in 2006 to compete with Boeing's mid-sized
787 Dreamliner and the larger 777. [nL6N0U50HH]
Boeing responded to the all-new jet by upgrading its
existing 777 series to include the 777-9, which has outsold the
A350-1000 by about 40 percent but has entered a lean period
since its launch with big Gulf orders in 2014.
Boeing has disclosed 306 sales of 777-9s and a similar
variant, while Airbus has sold 181 of its A350-1000s.
"It is clearly an airplane that is on its own in the
marketplace and the airplane is selling very well," Boeing
marketing chief Randy Tinseth told the Istat Americas air
finance conference, referring to the latest 777 model.

KEY DECISIONS
The new, bigger A350 would use a derivative of the latest
Rolls-Royce Trent XWB planned for the A350-1000. One
person briefed on the plans said it would boost thrust from the
current 97,000 pounds to about 100,000 pounds.
A Rolls-Royce representative was not immediately available
for comment.
To give it more capacity and compete with the 777-9 on long
trips, engineers are likely to examine design tweaks to boost
the maximum take-off weight to a little more than 319 tonnes,
compared with 308 tonnes on the Airbus A350-1000, the person
said.
However it would sacrifice some range compared with the
8,000-mile A350-1000.
Airbus says it has not made a final decision on whether to
launch the longer new plane and will provide an update at the
Farnborough Airshow in July. [nL8N1685XU]
Meanwhile, it has been weighing up what to call the new
member off the A350 XWB family, reflecting deeper decisions on
market positioning that can affect billions of dollars in sales.
It needs to strike a balance between protecting sales of the
A350-1000, by emphasising differences without weakening its
long-held mantra of commonality between related aircraft.
Until now, the possible new model was widely known in the
industry as the A350-1100, continuing a sequence from the
276-seat A350-800 to the 315-seat A350-900 and 366-seat
A350-1000.
Now, sources say it is being pre-marketed with a surprise
new identity, the A350-8000, though a final decision has yet to
be taken. An earlier working title was A350-1000 XL.
Leahy confirmed that Airbus was reluctant to ratify the
industry's nickname of A350-1100 but declined to give details.
"You don't want it so close to the 1000 that it is an
either-or decision. You have the 1000 and another airplane, with
equal gaps of 40 seats between the 900 and 1000 (models), and
then whatever this becomes."
Eight is a number widely used by planemakers and is seen as
a symbol of success in a key battleground for sales: Asia.
"Eight is a very nice number out in Asia, but we are not
going to comment until we launch the programme," Leahy said.

TP313 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:27 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
The new, bigger A350 would use a derivative of the latest
Rolls-Royce Trent XWB planned for the A350-1000. One
person briefed on the plans said it would boost thrust from the
current 97,000 pounds to about 100,000 pounds.
A Rolls-Royce representative was not immediately available
for comment.
To give it more capacity and compete with the 777-9 on long
trips, engineers are likely to examine design tweaks to boost
the maximum take-off weight to a little more than 319 tonnes,
compared with 308 tonnes on the Airbus A350-1000, the person
said.

Finally we have some numbers.

So it will be a simple stretch, with a MTOW increase and a thrust bump to compensate for the growth in OEW.
Range should be above 7000nm... not bad.

[Edited 2016-03-03 08:30:51]

Bambel · Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:29 pm

So it seems that a lot of a.net speculation was right and they really work on something. BTW: everyone saying that all these speculative threads make no sense forget that you can link to old posts and say "told you so"

On the other hand i don't buy this naming thing. Airlines get much deeper information on aircraft than the name thus they can decide how close the new model is to the existing ones.

b.

parapente · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:10 pm

Thanks Asiaflyer.Great spot/post.

Well looks like it's a done deal (not that many doubted it).

That will keep Airbus plenty busy.
First the 320NEO family launch inc the new 321LR,then the 350-1000 launch,then the 330NEO family launch and finally the '8000'.
No wonder the 380NEO is on the back-burner at the mo'.

seahawk · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:11 pm

The 777X has already secured this market. Just look at the sales.

TP313 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:19 pm

To add some detail to my previous post, since there is a MTOW+thrust bump
to compensate the OEW increase, this variant´s payload range performance
will be close to that of the 350-1000.

Now if we suppose it carries 396 pax, instead of 366 on the -1000,
there will be a decrease in range of about 600 nm.
At 366 pax, the -1000 flies 7900 nm (per Airbus), so I estimate the range
of this stretch will be about 7300 nm.

Stitch · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:29 pm

So it will not have an 8000nm design range, yet they are calling it the A350-8000...

I guess the conspiracy folks will assume it has an "8" to appeal to Chinese airlines.

MrHMSH · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
The 777X has already secured this market. Just look at the sales.

Has it? It's got a large number of sales, but the customer base is narrow, because the majority of 77W replacement has yet to begin. In fact it's a stretch to say it's begun at all! It's got the ME3, LH, CX, NH and possibly ET. That's only 7 airlines. BA, AA, UA, AF, SQ, TG, KE, MU, CA, CZ, JJ and TK are all airlines that operate 77Ws, and a lot of those don't use the plane near the limit in terms of range. 8 of those also have A350 orders.

But even then: 2 of the ME3 have A350s on order, and a 'regional' A350-1100 could be very appealing, it could also be appealing to EK with their regional aircraft requirement. CX could also use it for intra-Asian routes (their 77Ws fly short and long), so that's a sizeable chunk of potential. A potential A350-1100 as described by Asiaflyer in reply 60 wouldn't be a direct 779 competitor, it wouldn't have the payload/range capabilities. But for an airline who doesn't need the range, and especially those with A350 orders, this plane could be a real winner.

Amiga500 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Quote:
Now, sources say it is being pre-marketed with a surprise
new identity, the A350-8000, though a final decision has yet to
be taken. An earlier working title was A350-1000 XL.
Leahy confirmed that Airbus was reluctant to ratify the
industry's nickname of A350-1100 but declined to give details.
"You don't want it so close to the 1000 that it is an
either-or decision. You have the 1000 and another airplane, with
equal gaps of 40 seats between the 900 and 1000 (models), and
then whatever this becomes."
Eight is a number widely used by planemakers and is seen as
a symbol of success in a key battleground for sales: Asia.
"Eight is a very nice number out in Asia, but we are not
going to comment until we launch the programme," Leahy said.

f**k me. :rolleyes:

For all those that say airlines make rational, well reasoned, evidence based decisions after significant number crunching and weighing of possibilities when choosing aircraft.... apparently they don't.

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:44 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
DUBBED THE A350-8000

That's just a weird name.

I understand 8 is a lucky number, hence Airbus skipped A370 for the A380. But the for A350 family, who cares. Even the best selling A350-900 does not have the number 8 in its name.

Just name it A350-1100, at least the sequence would be logical.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
One person briefed on the plans said it would boost thrust from the current 97,000 pounds to about 100,000 pounds.

Which is about the thrust we discussed on this forum.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
maximum take-off weight to a little more than 319 tonnes

That's a little below the 328t we discussed on this forum. It would put the MZFW range a little above the 787-10.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
Two of the airlines whose feedback could be decisive in
whether Airbus launches the new jet are Singapore Airlines
and British Airways .

It's getting more interesting. Sounds like Airbus will design this 'A350-8000' just like some key customers around the globe want to have it.

[Edited 2016-03-03 09:48:48]

WIederling · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:50 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
The 777X has already secured this market. Just look at the sales.

Nothing around that says large order cancelations are "Airbus only".

Though note:
7779x only makes sense when you can fill it up and fly max range routes.
( it is a capabilities plane not a master of efficiency )
Anything below that narrow crest could be turned into Airbus territory.
Then wait for the A330 effect to take hold.

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:55 pm

Quote:
Airbus isn’t interested in swaying the Persian Gulf carriers that have accounted for the bulk of Boeing’s 306 orders for the 777X. “Let’s give up on that. They already won,” Leahy said. “Let’s optimize an airplane for the Uniteds, the British Airways of the world who don’t need all that performance and then come up with a much more efficient airplane.”

This is weird too. Airbus designed the A350-900 as an 8,000 nm plane, and later on increased the A350-1000 range to match the capabilities of the smaller jet. On the A330 MTOW will go up again because airlines keep asking for more lift. How do you suddenly defend a jet with crippled range?

Quoting TP313 (Reply 65):
To add some detail to my previous post, since there is a MTOW+thrust bump
to compensate the OEW increase, this variant´s payload range performance
will be close to that of the 350-1000.

Now if we suppose it carries 396 pax, instead of 366 on the -1000,
there will be a decrease in range of about 600 nm.
At 366 pax, the -1000 flies 7900 nm (per Airbus), so I estimate the range
of this stretch will be about 7300 nm.

I suppose it will be the A330-300 / A330-900 of the A350 family.

[Edited 2016-03-03 09:57:27]

mat66 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 60):
Now, sources say it is being pre-marketed with a surprise
new identity, the A350-8000, though a final decision has yet to
be taken.

Really!!! How many is the Sultan of Brunei ordering this time around?

Stitch · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
This is weird too. Airbus designed the A350-900 as an 8,000 nm plane, and later on increased the A350-1000 range to match the capabilities of the smaller jet. On the A330 MTOW will go up again because airlines keep asking for more lift. How do you suddenly defend a jet with crippled range?

British Airways and United don't need 8000nm design range for their route structures. The A350-8000 would be perfect to replace their 747-400s on TATL and TPAC (EU-PAC in the case of British Airways).

As JL noted, the 777-9 is going to have the advantage on the ULR missions the ME3 have ordered it for (so, unfortunately for WIederling, the ME3 will not be cancelling their 777X orders) and if they try and optimize the frame for those missions, they'll give up the advantage they could have across the rest of the market.

zeke · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:22 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
I understand 8 is a lucky number, hence Airbus skipped A370 for the A380. But the for A350 family, who cares. Even the best selling A350-900 does not have the number 8 in its name.

A major market for the aircraft would be China, e.g. PEK-LAX 5,432 nm, PEK-LHR 4,414 nm PEK- DFW 6,057 nm, PEK-JFK 5,942 nm, PEK-AKL 5,617 nm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
How do you suddenly defend a jet with crippled range?

The majority of the air travel growth going forward in the next 10-20 years will be in Asia, and that aircraft will nicely do Asia to Europe, Asia to Australia, Europe to USA, and Eastern Asia to USA. It wont do LAX-MEL, DXB-SYD, DXB-LAX, however they are at the outer fringe of city pairs. The bulk of the long haul city pairs are under 6000 nm.

a380787 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:25 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 74):

The majority of the air travel growth going forward in the next 10-20 years will be in Asia, and that aircraft will nicely do Asia to Europe, Asia to Australia, Europe to USA, and Eastern Asia to USA. It wont do LAX-MEL, DXB-SYD, DXB-LAX, however they are at the outer fringe of city pairs. The bulk of the long haul city pairs are under 6000 nm.

It's exactly that reason why the 333 has sold so well, and I predict the 787-10 to eventually sell in the high hundreds as well.

My only small concern would be whether such a "350-1100" would be too long that it starts to run issues that has plagued the 346 or 739 before it.

TP313 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:27 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
I suppose it will be the A330-300 / A330-900 of the A350 family.

Sort of... anyway in my worst case scenario, where the stretch loses 25 nm per passenger,
one still gets 7150 nm for 396 passengers. While not being ideal is not bad at all...

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:40 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
British Airways and United don't need 8000nm design range for their route structures.

Yet both airlines ordered the A350-1000 with 8000nm design range.

One wonders why Airbus designed the A350 with so much range in the first place. Or Boeing with the 787. These planes have some 7,000 - 8,000 nm design range, and the majority of the airlines doesn't need the range?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
As JL noted, the 777-9 is going to have the advantage on the ULR missions the ME3 have ordered it for

Nitpicking perhaps but I believe ULR missions are for the 777-8. The 777-9 comes with similar range as the smaller A350-1000, both being LR planes.

Quoting zeke (Reply 74):
A major market for the aircraft would be China, e.g. PEK-LAX 5,432 nm, PEK-LHR 4,414 nm PEK- DFW 6,057 nm, PEK-JFK 5,942 nm, PEK-AKL 5,617 nm

Thanks.

Quoting zeke (Reply 74):
It wont do LAX-MEL, DXB-SYD, DXB-LAX, however they are at the outer fringe of city pairs.

And for those routes one can order the smaller A350-1000.

I can see Airbus selling this combo just like Boeing sells the 787-9 and 787-10 (smaller jet for range and larger jet for capacity).

MrHMSH · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:51 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):

Yet both airlines ordered the A350-1000 with 8000nm design range.

To be fair, the only candidates for 744 replacement when they ordered were all long-ranged, unless you include the 78X (which is a bit small, but both have ordered it for different purposes).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
One wonders why Airbus designed the A350 with so much range in the first place. Or Boeing with the 787. These planes have some 7,000 - 8,000 nm design range, and the majority of the airlines doesn't need the range?

Some airlines do need the range, not just the ME3. Having extra range also allows full payload over the distances the vast majority of airlines fly.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
I can see Airbus selling this combo just like Boeing sells the 787-9 and 787-10 (smaller jet for range and larger jet for capacity).

Exactly. I think we could see pitches for A350-1000/A350-1100 and 787-10/777-9 combos, or similar.

parapente · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:51 pm

I wonder when we will start hearing about the 777-10.you know the 450 seater with ohh about 7K range?

seahawk · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:52 pm

I think the market for this plane is hard to define. A healthy number of airlines have committed to the the 777X, other have already signed up for the smaller A350s. But all those orders seem to have been for planes with quite a lot of range. The 787-1000 on the other hand has not sold so well, yet.

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:52 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 75):
My only small concern would be whether such a "350-1100" would be too long that it starts to run issues that has plagued the 346 or 739 before it.

It's a good question, rotation angle remains an unknown entity.

We know engine thrust can be increased, main landing gear design can handle higher weight, wings are good enough to support another stretch and a 5th exit door is already part of the A350-1000 design. The only thing we don't know is the runway performance, rotating angle etc. It would be interesting to know.

Devilfish · Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:58 pm

Quoting mat66 (Reply 72):
Really!!! How many is the Sultan of Brunei ordering this time around?

My first thought as well. Hope this doesn't have a similar fate. Could it be why delivery of his replacement 748i is delayed?

Was wondering about the shelved A350-800 getting the extra "0" instead and being resurrected as a souped up performance machine!

Guess this is aimed at the heart of the 77W market.

[Edited 2016-03-03 11:04:38]

enzo011 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:05 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
This is weird too. Airbus designed the A350-900 as an 8,000 nm plane, and later on increased the A350-1000 range to match the capabilities of the smaller jet. On the A330 MTOW will go up again because airlines keep asking for more lift. How do you suddenly defend a jet with crippled range?

Are you not getting wrapped into design range instead of the range it will actually fly with pax and cargo? We have already seen that design range numbers were massaged to be nowhere near what airline are actually doing. So the real number is closer to 6000nm to 6500nm at a stretch. Otherwise as tortugamon helpfully has pointed out before that most of the EK routes are less than 4000nm. I think if the airlines get serious about efficiency they will start right sizing frames for flights. If you are searching for pennies for profits it doesn't make sense to fly around excess weight if you don't need it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
Yet both airlines ordered the A350-1000 with 8000nm design range.

One wonders why Airbus designed the A350 with so much range in the first place. Or Boeing with the 787. These planes have some 7,000 - 8,000 nm design range, and the majority of the airlines doesn't need the range?

Didn't Airbus design more performance for the A350-1000 to match the 77W? It may just be that they realise they may have made a mistake and it is better to grow into better performance, like the A333. As we have seen with arguments for the 78X and how it will cause all sorts of headaches for the A359, you would expect this new variant to eventually come very close to 100% of missions that the 779 can perform. Then Boeing will have the 779 at more performance but excess weight and the 778 at even more performance but only excess weight against the A35K. Surely advantage Airbus in the mystical Nav30 market of a 400 seat twin? Or am I missing something?

mat66 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:06 pm

Even if they target 319t, most (all?) aircraft in recent history end up with a MTOW bump at EIS, anyway. Not to mention different VW at a later date. Our 328t plane is still possible.
As pretty much every one here agrees with, 7000+nm is plenty. If they get there at 319t it only underscores the excellent potential of this variant and the program as a whole.

I don't want to obsess about the name and it is still a rumor and apparently Airbus hasn't decided jet, but what about a future optimized -800? It's a mess, that's all. And now I shut up about it

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:14 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 67):
It's got a large number of sales, but the customer base is narrow, because the majority of 77W replacement has yet to begin. In fact it's a stretch to say it's begun at all! It's got the ME3, LH, CX, NH and possibly ET. That's only 7 airlines. BA, AA, UA, AF, SQ, TG, KE, MU, CA, CZ, JJ and TK are all airlines that operate 77Ws, and a lot of those don't use the plane near the limit in terms of range. 8 of those also have A350 orders.

But a few of those airlines operate their 777-300ERs with a 10-abreast economy cabin.

Obviously, Leahy stated that the A350-8000 (strange name

) would be targeted at BA and UA, which both have the -1000 on order, so that's assuming that the type is being targeted at A350-1000 customers. Chine is supposedly a battleground, so I'm assuming especially CA to be targeted as well.

BA and UA are being targeted, and SQ, TG, KE, TK, CA and CZ have 777-300ERs that are 9-abreast economy class, so I would expect all these carriers to take a look, though KE has always been a reliable buyer of Boeing's biggest jets, so they could go for the 777X rather than the A350-8000.

AA, AF, JJ, MU have 777-300ERs that are 10-abreast economy. Not sure about MU, but I fully expect AA and AF/KL to order the 777-9 in the years ahead. JJ probably won't do anything for awhile.

The A350-8000 is what I expected. A stretch, with perhaps a few mods to the wing and uprated engines, while sacrificing range. Despite all the fanfare, the 777X still would have a grasp on some key markets while still being superior with payload and capacity, all while going farther. We all knew that the 777X would be reliable above a certain point, and I think Boeing realizes that, but in terms of economics, I still see the 777X as safe.

[Edited 2016-03-03 11:32:08]

KarelXWB · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:18 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 79):
I wonder when we will start hearing about the 777-10.you know the 450 seater with ohh about 7K range?

You'll wonder why Boeing did not stretch the 777-9 beyond those 2.8 meters in the first place. Perhaps rotating angle would have been an issue. Will be interesting to see how Airbus addresses this (potential?) issue.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 85):
I still see the 777X as safe

It better be, otherwise you'll need another nickname

zeke · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:23 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 85):
vastly superior

It would have to be someone called Boeing778X to use Randy talk. Its a bigger heavier aircraft that burns more fuel over the same sector length compared to any A350, so I agree it has a vastly superior price tag to purchase and operate. The real question is, does the revenue side have the corresponding increase for the additional capital risk ?

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
It better be, otherwise you'll need another nickname

Now that you mention it, I keep wanting the creators of A.net to create a "change your username" option, where if you change your name, it has to stay that way for at least 6 months or so, because I do want to change my username.

But, I digress.

Quoting zeke (Reply 87):
Its a bigger heavier aircraft that burns more fuel over the same sector length compared to any A350

But it's payload and seat number, as it stands, is greater than that of the A350-1000. If Airbus does do the A350-8000, it may be a lot closer. Numbers don't lie.

Don't get me wrong, the A350-1000 and A350-8000 would probably a hugely efficient pair, but the things that the 777 will still have going for it are payload, range, capacity, not to mention commonality for some carriers, and that's not a bad thing.

The beautiful thing about the 777X is that I don't necessarily see it as a direct A350 competitor, though the A350 is for the current 777.
The A350-1000 and 777-8, though seating the same, have different range capabilities, and the 777-9 is larger.

What you'll see eventually is the 787 and A350 taking up the majority of the worldwide widebody fleet, while the 777X and A380 taking the rest.

[Edited 2016-03-03 11:39:51]

scotron11 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:39 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 85):
But a few of those airlines operate their 777-300ERs with a 10-abreast economy cabin.

|So what?? Doesn't mean every single 777-300er operators are going to do the same........geez! You would thing reading rhese threads that the only plane out there is the 777ER

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:41 pm

Quoting scotron11 (Reply 89):
Doesn't mean every single 777-300er operators are going to do the same........geez! You would thing reading rhese threads that the only plane out there is the 777ER

No no, that's a good point! The A350-8000 would also be ideal to replace A340-600s and 747s, as well as 777ERs.

But seeing as the A350-1000/-8000 are sized as the 777-300ER/-9, that's where most of this discussion lies.

Stitch · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:46 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
British Airways and United don't need 8000nm design range for their route structures.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
Yet both airlines ordered the A350-1000 with 8000nm design range.

And both took the 777-300ER, which has (effectively) an 8000nm design range, as well.

Does anyone know if BA's birds (and UA's to come) are all rated at the maximum values for their operating weights?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
One wonders why Airbus designed the A350 with so much range in the first place. Or Boeing with the 787. These planes have some 7,000 - 8,000 nm design range, and the majority of the airlines doesn't need the range?

I think the structural weight penalties are low enough that airlines would prefer to have the flexibility. You're looking at around 10,000kg difference between the 777-300 and 777-300ER (in Boeing OEM configuration), yet the 77W can lift a similar payload over 60% farther.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
Nitpicking perhaps but I believe ULR missions are for the 777-8. The 777-9 comes with similar range as the smaller A350-1000, both being LR planes.

At design range, you are quite correct. However, the ME3 will be using the 777-9 from their Gulf hubs to the western edge of North America with block flight times closing on 16 hours. That's effectively a ULR mission in terms of both block time and stage length.

Quoting parapente (Reply 79):
I wonder when we will start hearing about the 777-10.you know the 450 seater with ohh about 7K range?

The 777-9 needed every extra seat it could fit in order to be competitive on a seat-mile cost to the A350-1000 (much less the A350-8000). If Boeing could have made the plane longer than 76.5 meters, they would have done so. As such, I see no real chance for an 80m (or longer) model.

Quoting scotron11 (Reply 89):
So what?? Doesn't mean every single 777-300er operators are going to do the same (and go to 10-abreast)...

But it is clear that the majority are doing so.

The A350-1000 cabin is effectively a 1:1 replacement on a seat-count basis for a 777-300ER configured at 1-2-1 in First, 2-2-2 in Business, 2-4-2 in Premium Economy and 3-3-3 (or 2-5-2) in Economy.

The only reason I can see an airline wanting an A350 with more capacity is because they operate the 777-300ER at a higher row density in at least Economy (if not also Business Class) and want an A350 that can offer effectively a 1:1 replacement on a seat count basis, as well.

[Edited 2016-03-03 11:53:00]

scbriml · Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:56 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 80):
A healthy number of airlines have committed to the the 777X

Six to be precise. It currently has less customers than the A380.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 80):
other have already signed up for the smaller A350s

All of whom could be customers for a larger A350. It would be a beast for TATL and most Asian flying, being significantly lighter than the 77X and cheaper to operate.

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:16 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 92):
Six to be precise. It currently has less customers than the A380.

So? The A380 has had 15+ years to get where it is with 13 customers, with several others backing out, with the VS order at high risk.

The 777X is doing just fine

fcogafa · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:19 pm

Flightglobal has an article stating that Airbus are having issues selling A350s to China due to the backlog. This timescale would infer that any stretched version would therefore be 6+ years away

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-slot-constraints-pose-challenge-for-airbus-in-c-422672/

enzo011 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 91):
And both took the 777-300ER, which has (effectively) an 8000nm design range, as well.

In Boeing configuration with 60's seats and configuration it is a 8000nm machine. It is nowhere near this in modern configuration. Even Boeing states the 77W has a design range of 7370nm and the only frame that has more than 8000nm is the 778. The others are more like 7600nm design range machines.

scbriml · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 93):
So?

Just putting claims that the 77X has the entire market and all customers sewn up in perspective. Clearly, that's not the case.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 93):
The 777X is doing just fine

Don't disagree.

jacobin777 · Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:57 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 80):
The 787-1000 on the other hand has not sold so well, yet.

Its sold only 19 less than the A350-1000 and has been in the market for a much less amount of time.

I expect to see a lot of forward B787 sales for either the B789 or B787-10. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some conversions to the -10 either.

Stitch · Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:58 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 95):
In Boeing configuration with 60's seats and configuration it is a 8000nm machine. It is nowhere near this in modern configuration.

It will still fly farther than a 747-400 at real-world loads, which is the crux of KarelXWB's and my discussion.

WIederling · Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:04 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 83):
Are you not getting wrapped into design range instead of the range it will actually fly with pax and cargo?

That was a longstanding Boeing issue. They were forced to fix it in recent times.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net