Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42): Maybe we can throw in which OEM has the best logo into this pissing contest! Come on fellas, just a little objectivity is a good thing.

When you see fit to try to lecture someone else on quality of debate you can stick your definition of objectivity.....

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49): If he isn't looking at regional aircraft then why is he looking at the 78X?

Because the majority of any airlines route network is within that aircraft range, as is the A350. New York and Sydney are example of routes beyond 6000 nm which I have consistently not been advocating for the A350-1000 or the "A350 Stretch".

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49): Never said such a thing.

So you are backtracking because you have been shown to be wrong about the 77W capability compared to the current A350-1000 ? The quality of the posts are an absolute joke, as much backbone as a jellyfish.

Gentlemen, This debate is becoming tedious. Tortugamon has his viewpoint, and as always he is going to stick to it through hell and highwater. It is just a waste of time responding to his viewpoint, as there will never be a consensus. Sad but true. Can we please move on to discussing the A350 Stretch, its likely capabilities, and our reasons for same?

Quoting Egerton (Reply 52): Can we please move on to discussing the A350 Stretch

Are there already some Renderings of the -8000 out there?

Something like this, showing the "short" A350-1000?

Source: Airbus

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45): Right, for the regional missions.

I don't know what he is looking for now honestly. Looking back at Tim Clark's quotes he is lamenting the A350 for not having enough range or enough capacity. But then the perceived thoughts on the EK cancellation of the A350 orders were that the A35K was changed too much for EK's liking to be too close to the 77W. Tim Clark was looking not for a 77W replacement, which the A35K now is, but a capable aircraft for "regional" missions.

So why did he complain about the A35K and the need for more range? I thought he cancelled the order because it had too much capabilities for the perceived missions it was intended for? At the same time he is quoted as looking for 340 seat aircraft, which the A35K is at the regional missions. He did say it is a 10-12 hour aircraft, which it is according to him and it is at the right density.

So what we have is the following. Tim Clark was lamenting the A35K not having enough range or passengers. Then we have the conventional a-net wisdom that he cancelled the A350 order because the changes in capabilities was not what he was looking for. But Airbus added range and performance, which he was looking for, so why did he cancel the order? The A35K is actually the aircraft he is looking for, it only flies for 12 hours at most (EK regional surely) and it will have more than 320 seats as well. Why did he cancel the order?

I think we can start forming a picture that Tim Clark will get the best deal he can for his airline. He will make huge orders to get bulk discounts, he will negotiate in public and will contradict himself when he needs to, to get what he wants. You don't cancel a 70 aircraft order at prices negotiated at bulk if you intend to order it later, IMO. I think he is dangling the A350 as an option to get better pricing from Boeing. Why would he look at the A359 when it doesn't have the capacity or the range requirements he wants? Why would he look at the A35K when he has lambasted it for not being capable enough and too capable now?

I am actually surprised you haven't brought this up before as you like to hold executives to a standard of consistency. Or is this only highlighted when it is Airbus executives are involved?

Tim Clark talks a lot, imho he wanted out of the A350 contract. Maybe because he was not satisfied with the A350, maybe because he wants the 787 or maybe because he ordered more planes than he needs and his hub can handle.

He had two requirements, one of them was filled with the 778 and 779, for which he said the A350 didn't have the legs.

He also has a regional aircraft requirement, and he cancelled the original order because Airbus added range to the A350k, making it unsuitable for regional routes.

Hence him appearing to say the A350 has too much range/no enough range, when what he actually said was it didn't have enough range for one mission and too much for the other.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 56): He had two requirements, one of them was filled with the 778 and 779, for which he said the A350 didn't have the legs. He also has a regional aircraft requirement, and he cancelled the original order because Airbus added range to the A350k, making it unsuitable for regional routes. Hence him appearing to say the A350 has too much range/no enough range, when what he actually said was it didn't have enough range for one mission and too much for the other.

He placed the A350 order in 2007. He had time to influence the design of the A350 and this is what is said on the forums. However once Airbus decided to go with a full on 77W competitor, which it seems is what Tim Clark was asking for as well at one time, asking for more range and payload. Then when it didn't reach the specifications he wanted exactly (or Boeing was discussing the 777X with him and giving him exactly what he was looking for), he had his reason to cancel the 20 A35Ks he had on order along with the 50 A359s as well. Surely he should have known his 20 orders doesn't give him carte blanche on the design requirements for what the other 30 airlines that may be interested.

This is a side track to the discussion for the A350 stretch, but it is interesting to see how one CEO has two different views for the same aircraft in the space of a few years. So maybe we shouldn't be too enamored with CEO words as they are also done as a snapshot in time of what they need at that time. It may be that Boeing gave a great deal to EK to order 150 777Xs and it came at a time that Airbus was open to the cancellation of the A350s and an order for more A380s at the time. Lets not get too wrapped up in CEO quotes about what an aircraft can or cannot do as it may have been said with a specific purpose in mind.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 55): Tim Clark talks a lot, imho he wanted out of the A350 contract. Maybe because he was not satisfied with the A350, maybe because he wants the 787 or maybe because he ordered more planes than he needs and his hub can handle.

I believe he got what he wanted with the 777X and he didn't need the A350 any longer. I don't think it had much to do with the A350 performance, more that Boeing listened to what he wanted and he went with that. He has both OEMs by the balls at present. The 777X has half its orders from EK and the A380 is in the same boat. So both Airbus and Boeing will have to put up with EK.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 56):

When EK ordered the A350 in 2007, the 777X wasn't an option. Having subsequently ordered 777Xs in 2013 to replace EK's 77W fleet, the A350 order was somewhat redundant and was converted to an order for 50 more A380s.

In the mean time, EK has realised they'd benefit from a regional fleet. Many thought the 787-10 was a slam-dunk for this fleet. Surprisingly, EK said they would take another look at the A350 as part of this RFP. Many expected EK to announce an order at the Dubai air show last November, but EK said they were still looking.

Things seem to have gone very quiet and I wonder if the current low cost of fuel is again changing EK's thinking.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58): In the mean time, EK has realised they'd benefit from a regional fleet.

The requirement is not that new - several years ago they had a MoU with Airbus for 30 x A333s, to replace their A332 fleet, which never came to fruition. Then they placed the A359 / 3510 order, which "lapsed", but is now being re-tendered, and MAY now involve the anticipated stretch.

Yup all the above is true - at different times!
He still needs the aircraft and any of the above aircraft may get it.What you can be certain of is that he will get one hell of a deal either way!
As stated above.I wonder what the timing is?He can't wait for ever on this one.

Separate question.Is there a reason that Emirates does not offer Y+?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42): "By contrast, Clark sees the Airbus A350-1000 as an aircraft for 10-12 hour missions. “It does not have the legs of the 777X,” he says."

We have been over this before. With 777X he refers to the 777X family, including the 777-8. As we all know, 777-9 and A350-1000 have similar range capabilities.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42): I thought the redesign added about 500nm of range with some wing work and the 4,000 lbs of thrust but that doesn't sound like something that is going to take it from a 10-hour bird to a 15-hour one using STC assumptions. Given his payloads and temperatures and his recent dialogue about the 78X and literature about it having trouble reaching BCN from DXB, I can't say I am surprised.

I do want to point out the A350-900 is a 14-hour capable plane. And the A350-1000 is being marketed with even more range capabilities than the smaller A350. By definition, that makes the A350-1000 at least a 14-hour capable plane too.

The 10-12 hour plane is a reference to the original A350-1000 design.

The 777-9 will probably be able to fly one hour further because the CFRP A350 and 787 planes have steeper payload range curves compared to the 777 and A330 planes. It will certainly not fly 4-5 hours further. Otherwise the A350-1000 would be a 787-10 in disguise.

[Edited 2016-03-09 09:12:41]

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 57): This is a side track to the discussion for the A350 stretch, but it is interesting to see how one CEO has two different views for the same aircraft in the space of a few years. So maybe we shouldn't be too enamored with CEO words as they are also done as a snapshot in time of what they need at that time. It may be that Boeing gave a great deal to EK to order 150 777Xs and it came at a time that Airbus was open to the cancellation of the A350s and an order for more A380s at the time. Lets not get too wrapped up in CEO quotes about what an aircraft can or cannot do as it may have been said with a specific purpose in mind.

  

Emirates used the change done to the A350-1000 increasing its capabilities over and above the frame he ordered, to cancel the order. Airbus had to be very satisfied as Emirates ordered 50 A380 instead.
It is well possible that the reason Emirates used to cancel the 70 A350 was used, because it was acceptable in using an agreed on clause in the contracts between Emirates and Airbus regarding the 70 A350, rather than being the real reason behind the cancellation, like for example a change in fleet strategy.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 59): Things seem to have gone very quiet and I wonder if the current low cost of fuel is again changing EK's thinking.

Any chance EK considering the A338/A339 or is the race set to be only between A35X and 77X?

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 64): Any chance EK considering the A338/A339 or is the race set to be only between A35X and 77X?

Doubtful, the A330 is too small.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): I do want to point out the A350-900 is an 14-hour capable plane.

QR is flying the A359 daily on DOH-PHL (QR727) which is often comfortably over 13-hours - 13h19 today, 13h45 on 1st March.

Relevant comments from a Leeham article:
https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/09/boeing-says-airbus-widebody-strategy-mess-a330neo-dead-arrival/

=========================

John Plueger, president of Air Lease Corp., believes there is a market for the A350-1100. (Although media reports have variously called the stretch the A350-1100, the A350-1000 XL and the A350-8000, Leahy said no name has been settled.)
“There is [a market] because of the 777X,” said Plueger in an interview with LNC at ISTAT. The size of the market? “That’s a tougher one. The whole idea of the A350-1100 is to cast about 40 more seats that the 777-9.”
This came as a surprise; Airbus’ John Leahy, chief operating officer-customers, told LNC the stretched A350-1000 would be the same size as the 777-9, although he added that more passengers could be accommodated depending on the number of classes on the airplane. Plueger said an A350 that is 40 seats larger than the 777-9 would require a new engine.

=========================

Somebody told me to look at that video when thinking about how Airbus could achieve the seats in the A350-1000+.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ybF6zbFao

or at that pic

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthansa/Airbus-A340-642/0591519/M/

There is some double decker experience at Airbus and the cargo capacity of even the A350-1000 is already considered as "more than enough".


So the answer might be that it could have 40 more seats than the 777X if you are willing to trade under floor space for those.

[Edited 2016-03-09 10:10:26]

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 50): When you see fit to try to lecture someone else on quality of debate you can stick your definition of objectivity.....

This is further deteriorating the conversation. Can we at least try not to attack? Lets talk about the seriousness of number of orders as in indication of market share if you feel so strongly that it is better than revenue or aircraft deliveries.

I personally think revenue and deliveries is better because it indicates "the portion of a market controlled by a particular company or product." - which is the definition of market share. Present tense. I think orders are an indication of what might happen in the future hence why I think 2018/2019 may be different. I also think by looking at orders you have to gauge the value of the order. Airbus provides list price backlog value and Boeing does net price backlog value so that is hard to compare. Also both OEMs have orders in their books that some would think are suspect. For Airbus I would highlight 110 A321neo orders, or the AirAsia X A330neo orders, or the Amadeo A380 orders. There are many for Boeing as well but, that is just it, uncertainty and it goes to two different strategies. I do think Airbus doubles up the same production slot more than Boeing does as a result of different sales strategies. Either way, revenue is pretty objection. Actual deliveries is too. They are recognized in the industry. When Airbus delivered more aircraft it was referred to by the press as the largest aircraft manufacturer now its Boeing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 51): Because the majority of any airlines route network is within that aircraft range, as is the A350

More than the majority its 85% that are less than 8.5 hours I believe. But STC has said this aircraft is for regional missions.

Quoting zeke (Reply 51): So you are backtracking because you have been shown to be wrong about the 77W capability compared to the current A350-1000 ?

I don't think I am backtracking personally. I think the A351 lacks legs under EK conditions. EK says they can take a 30 ton payload on a 77W from DXB-LAX. I look for a non-Airbus marketing slide to determine if the A351 can do that.

Here is Steven Udvar Hazy: "While these changes look to address that, former International Lease Finance chief Steve Udvar-Hazy...does not yet view the A350-1000 as a genuine 777-300ER rival. "There is some overlap, but I see it more as a replacement for the operators of the Airbus A340," he said."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-through-thrust-and-design-357740/

And Emirates complaints about the A351:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...irbus-a350-as-boeing-stalls-on-777

Quoting Egerton (Reply 52):

Remind me on how the 77X is going to be a complete failure for both Boeing and GE and it is going to bankrupt them? I am very comfortable being in disagreement with anyone who harbors such thoughts.

Quoting parapente (Reply 60): He still needs the aircraft and any of the above aircraft may get it.What you can be certain of is that he will get one hell of a deal either way! As stated above.I wonder what the timing is?He can't wait for ever on this one.

I personally believe that they canceled the A350 order (1) because they could without penalty, (2) they realized they could fill every 77W and A380 they could get their hands on, (3) they really didn't need these aircraft much before 2025 when they move to DWC anyway (4) they really could use those A350 deposits for the 50 A380s they bought at the same time they canceled the A350s their by ensuring a large dividend check to Dubai so they could start building the DWC and (5) the 78X was the leader in this race - something I am not so sure of at the moment.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): We have been over this before. With 777X he refers to the 777X family, including the 777-8. As we all know, 777-9 and A350-1000 have similar range capabilities.

He refers to the 778 as a 20-hour plane. I don't think he was talking about the 778.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): I do want to point out the A350-900 is a 14-hour capable plane. And the A350-1000 is being marketed with even more range capabilities than the smaller A350. By definition, that makes the A350-1000 at least a 14-hour capable plane too.

Not with EK payload/conditions. Maybe for some operators with different conditions.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): The 10-12 hour plane is a reference to the original A350-1000 design.

Well it was a 10 hour plane and the articles I posted above came after the redesign.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): Otherwise the A350-1000 would be a 787-10 in disguise.

Ding ding ding. I am not saying you are right with this but I don't think the A350-1000 improvement package is all that meaningful. 400nm of more range from when STC called at 10-12 hour aircraft. And when you fly at 566 nmph adding 400nm of range doesn't get you to a 14-hour aircraft; it doesn't get you to 13 hours.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 68): So the answer might be that it could have 40 more seats than the 777X if you are willing to trade under floor space for those.

I really like this idea. Maybe that is how they are going to do it. Lavatories and galleys in the hold. Would really enjoy seeing that and to me it makes a lot of sense. Airbus has done it before.

tortugamon

[Edited 2016-03-09 12:07:32]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69): Not with EK payload/conditions. Maybe for some operators with different conditions.

It is daily for QR and I don't see their payload/conditions being much different to EK's.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69): Well it was a 10 hour plane and the articles I posted above came after the redesign.

You may want to check your dates, at least on the last two links. The quotes from Tim Clark was done in November 2010 before the updates to the A350-1000 in June 2011. Seems a little dishonest to include quotes about needing more range and asserting this was done after the update when it is clearly before the updates to the A35K.


Also as the quotes from Tim Clark has shown he has asked for 2 things from the A35K. He wanted more range and more payload, but then he wanted less range and less payload for the same aircraft. Don't take his words as gospel, he wants what is good for Emirates, not Boeing and not Airbus. If Boeing will sell him the 788 at $25 million each he will order them and find routes for the frames if it benefits his company, less than 300 seats or not.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69): I personally think revenue and deliveries is better because it indicates "the portion of a market controlled by a particular company or product." - which is the definition of market share.

We have had this discussion. Revenue is one metric, although when both companies use a different accounting method it is open to everyone's own personal interpretation of the numbers. The metric you could suggest using is one that neither OEM can manipulate (i.e. move deferred production cost in the future when the other doesn't), so either deliveries or orders. Airbus cannot lie about orders and the deliveries are what is being delivered.

But at the same time this doesn't tell the whole picture. Boeing is at the tail end of the 787 production, the highs of the 777 and ramping up with the 737. Airbus is equal to Boeing with the A320, but it is still ramping up the A350. So it also doesn't tell the full picture. There isn't a perfect method to measure who has it better right at this moment, so don't get upset if you get called out on the method you use.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69): He refers to the 778 as a 20-hour plane. I don't think he was talking about the 778.

Do you have the quote for this? The range that Boeing gives the 778 is 8700nm. And as you so helpfully pointed out that the OEMs use no payload and only passengers in their range assumptions we can assume that this is true for Boeing. So the 778 has the same range as the A359LR which will fly for 19 hours. Unless you magic some extra range from somewhere I guess.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 57): The 777X has half its orders from EK and the A380 is in the same boat. So both Airbus and Boeing will have to put up with EK.

But somewhat for the A380 it means his demise, and for the 77X its the opposite. (according to some people here in Anet) In time we will see.

TRB

Quoting scbriml (Reply 70): It is daily for QR and I don't see their payload/conditions being much different to EK's.

The A359? I have zero doubt that the A359 is an extremely capable aircraft. Its the stretch version that I am questioning.

Not you scbriml but for anyone else looking for Emirates comments about the A351 after the redesign here are two articles on the subject suggesting it does not have legs even after the redesign which came in 2011.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...on/emirates-sees-major-demand-777x
http://www.seattletimes.com/subscribe/offers/?pw=redirect

And for anyone looking for Emirates suggesting the 778 is a a 20-hour plane it was also posted above but some don't seem to want to read anything linked:
"“The 777-8X can fly Sydney-Rome,” says Clark. “That’s a 20 hour flight.”
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...on/emirates-sees-major-demand-777x

Quoting theredbaron (Reply 72): But somewhat for the A380 it means his demise, and for the 77X its the opposite. (according to some people here in Anet) In time we will see.

And for some having virtually the same number of orders 16 years after the launch of the aircraft vs 2.25 years of the other aircraft despite being similar in price and half a decade difference in availability; for some they can somehow see similarities in fortune. I do not wonder which perspective is more based in reality.

We are supposed to be talking about an A350-1000 stretch, shall we?

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45): Not a lot of 400 person aircraft being purchased outside the ME3 as others are quick to note.

Yes:

Quoting theredbaron (Reply 72): Quoting enzo011 (Reply 57):The 777X has half its orders from EK and the A380 is in the same boat. So both Airbus and Boeing will have to put up with EK. But somewhat for the A380 it means his demise, and for the 77X its the opposite. (according to some people here in Anet) In time we will see.

The 777X is the top ME3-only aircraft of our time. The A380 seems to be truly universal in comparison. We have barely 20% non-ME3 777X orders, so we can say the 777X exists at the grace of the ME3 carriers (and we can find the personal opinion whether that's a good thing or not for all of you guys in the A380NEO threads).

And to be honest I don't see the factors that could change in the future what will change that determination for this aircraft. Remember, the A380 order book was much better balanced between ME3 and non ME3 since the beginning.

So IMO tortugamons statement might just need a small correction to show the whole picture:
Not a lot of 400 person 777X aircraft being purchased outside the ME3.

And, if adding the A350-1100 to the picture:
The 777X could be the ME3 400 person aircraft and the A350-1100 could become the non-ME3 400 person aircraft.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 73): So IMO tortugamons statement might just need a small correction to show the whole picture: Not a lot of 400 person 777X aircraft being purchased outside the ME3.

LH, CX, ANA are pretty big statements against ME3-specificity. And then next customer has to wait 6+ years for an aircraft. If I were ET, VN, UA/AA, AF/KL, QF, etc I wouldn't tie up deposits for that many years. We won't know for years what the mass market will want. We are all speculating. The A351 has been around for 10+ years and isn't a resounding success. Hard to see how a stretch of it is going to change that dynamic drastically.

Not a lot of 400 person aircraft have been purchased outside of the ME3 recently.

tortugamon

Ordering a 777X is now makes little sense. The first slots are still a good 6 years away, the big launch customer discounts are probably gone. Now you can wait until the design is finalized or even until the plane flies.

However the current customer base the 777X is already a vote of confidence. It has the ME3 and with LH one of the airlines most vocal about the "emiratisation" of airplane designs.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): The A359? I have zero doubt that the A359 is an extremely capable aircraft. Its the stretch version that I am questioning. Not you scbriml but for anyone else looking for Emirates comments about the A351 after the redesign here are two articles on the subject suggesting it does not have legs even after the redesign which came in 2011. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...on/emirates-sees-major-demand-777x http://www.seattletimes.com/subscribe/offers/?pw=redirect And for anyone looking for Emirates suggesting the 778 is a a 20-hour plane it was also posted above but some don't seem to want to read anything linked: "“The 777-8X can fly Sydney-Rome,” says Clark. “That’s a 20 hour flight.” http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...-777x

Ok, I see your angle now. Airbus ranges will be met with skepticism and a dose of reality will be added to them. Boeing ranges are taken as a given and there is no need to subtract any range from their calculations as what they say is true.

When Tim Clark issued that quote the stated range of the 778 was still 9400nm. This has been revised to 8700nm by Boeing themselves. We know that Airbus ranges aren't the true real world ranges. Does this count for Boeing as well?

I know you are a Boeing fan and possibly shareholder, but you need to take off the fanboy shades once in a while. Actually, seeing the quotes from the other thread where a Boeing official declares the A330neo dead on arrival I am tempted to think you are this official as it mirrors your view as well.

On the A35K being a 12 hour plane, look at the timing of his quotes. Boeing was discussing the 777X with Emirates. He was waiting for the Dubai Airshow to announce his order for the 777X, but you can be sure that the deal was already there for the 150 aircraft order. The same way we have to take the opinions of the A33neo from a lessor of the A330neo with a pinch of salt we have to take his opinion of the 777X with the same pinch. This is not me saying the 777X is a terrible design and will cost Boeing in the end. This is me applying consistency across the forums.

Also, stop being disrespectful and answer my quotes if you are going to answer me in your posts. I know you can do it, I have seen you done it before.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58): the A350 order was somewhat redundant and was converted to an order for 50 more A380s.

An arguably better outcome for Airbus as well.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 75): Ordering a 777X is now makes little sense. The first slots are still a good 6 years away, the big launch customer discounts are probably gone. Now you can wait until the design is finalized or even until the plane flies.

Isn't this the reverse of the arguments given against the success of the A350-1000? People continuously lambasted it as unsuccessful because orders weren't piling up years in advance of it's entry to service. I'm not saying that you personally touted that, but ultimately the back and forth is starting to make me a bit nauseous.

-Dave

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 77): Isn't this the reverse of the arguments given against the success of the A350-1000? People continuously lambasted it as unsuccessful because orders weren't piling up years in advance of it's entry to service. I'm not saying that you personally touted that, but ultimately the back and forth is starting to make me a bit nauseous.

I´d say it is slowly time for A350k sales to pick-up again, but so far it is normal, especially if you look at all A350 sales with a number of 900s probably turning into 1000s.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 75): It has the ME3 and with LH one of the airlines most vocal about the "emiratisation" of airplane designs.

LH is also an airline with very special needs to their airframes capabilities and often ends up with the less successful available model.
Biggest user of A343 - not a huge commercial success
Biggest user of A346 - widely considered a roaring failure
Big user of A380 - not a huge commercial success
Biggest user of the 747-8i - not a huge commercial success

Those all seemed to have worked out just fine for LH, but if anything having Lufthansa as a launch customer is more of a reason to suspect it is not going to attract many mainstream airlines.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting seahawk (Reply 75): Ordering a 777X is now makes little sense. The first slots are still a good 6 years away, the big launch customer discounts are probably gone. Now you can wait until the design is finalized or even until the plane flies. However the current customer base the 777X is already a vote of confidence

Yes, for LH I see 2 posibilities: One is the A346 replacement where the 777x for sure is the best fit (but an A350-8000 may also be one), but also I still beleive that LH traded some 748 options tigether with it.

Flyglobal

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 63): Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 59): Things seem to have gone very quiet and I wonder if the current low cost of fuel is again changing EK's thinking. Any chance EK considering the A338/A339 or is the race set to be only between A35X and 77X?

The race is still between A359 and 787-9/10 for EK.
Tim Clark just said they are in advanced stages of evaluating those aircrafts.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 79): Biggest user of the 747-8i - not a huge commercial success

I'd say "not a commercial success" and be done with it, but perhaps you were being nice.

-Dave

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 66):

Plueger said an A350 that is 40 seats larger than the 777-9 would require a new engine.

Quoting Egerton (Reply 8):

Stretch 1 is nicely in focus already, something with a less payload range than the 777-9 and of about 80m length, with a moderate, readily achievable, increase in MTOW. The exact specification will be fixed by Airbus within the context set by Rolls-Royce and potential airline customers. We on A-net can only speculate and may have reached the limit, without even more repetition and looping round and round.

Stretch 2 might be a very very close relative with common MTOW, engines etc, but about 85m length traded against less range, to EIS a couple of years after Stretch 1. (Yes, tail-strikes may be an issue!) This Stretch 2 would have an economic and slot advantage for TATL and possibly for some US West Coast runs. Stretch 2 would not get too close to a potential A380-900 - damn there I go - please keep this thread strictly A350 based.

This would finally end development on the A350 series, apart from NEOs.

It seems Stretch 2 NEO would fit in with what Mr Plueger was saying? Over time, next generation engines from RR would up the range and do the 777-9 job a lot more economically, and as part of a large family of aeroplanes with all the economies that brings.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74): LH, CX, ANA are pretty big statements against ME3-specificity.

At least the LH order is not a reliable indicator, because they have a heart for underdogs...

Some other thoughts about this one:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): I personally think revenue and deliveries is better because it indicates "the portion of a market controlled by a particular company or product." - which is the definition of market share.

So you say that the A320NEO has a vanishing small market share and the MAX even is non-existing on the market? Hopefully you are not fooling anybody else...

The aircraft market typically has been settled long before metal changes the hand. So looking just at the deliveries to understand the market is flat out wrong.

I could create more nonsensical statements using your reasoning:
- The 777X fares very poorly on the market compared to the A380.
- In 2004 the A340-600 completely dominated the market against the 777-300ER.
- In 2010 the Dreamliner had a market share of zero.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84): At least the LH order is not a reliable indicator, because they have a heart for underdogs...

To be fair, as a launch or early customer for those families, at the time the orders were placed it was not known they would end up being underdogs.  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): I don't think I am backtracking personally. I think the A351 lacks legs under EK conditions. EK says they can take a 30 ton payload on a 77W from DXB-LAX. I look for a non-Airbus marketing slide to determine if the A351 can do that. Here is Steven Udvar Hazy: "While these changes look to address that, former International Lease Finance chief Steve Udvar-Hazy...does not yet view the A350-1000 as a genuine 777-300ER rival. "There is some overlap, but I see it more as a replacement for the operators of the Airbus A340," he said."

Everyone knows the A350-1000 has a lower maximum structural payload than the 77W. It's a bit like saying the 787 is not as capable as the 777 because it can't carry 30t payload on DXB-LAX. What are you trying to prove?

Let me put it the other way around: Emirates flies 60t payload out of DXB on the A380 to LAX. Does that make the 77W a less capable airplane?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): Not with EK payload/conditions. Maybe for some operators with different conditions.

I think you are missing the point. Let me explain below:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): Well it was a 10 hour plane and the articles I posted above came after the redesign.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68): Ding ding ding. I am not saying you are right with this but I don't think the A350-1000 improvement package is all that meaningful. 400nm of more range from when STC called at 10-12 hour aircraft. And when you fly at 566 nmph adding 400nm of range doesn't get you to a 14-hour aircraft; it doesn't get you to 13 hours.

Looking at various payload/range charts, the 777-9 flies about 1 hour further than the A350-1000. So if the A350-1000 is a 10-hour plane in EK conditions, the 777-9 is a 11-hour plane. Or if the 777-9 is a 15-hour plane in EK conditions, the A350-1000 is a 14-hour plane.

There is just no way the 777-9 can fly 5 hours further than the A350. That doesn't make any sense. Even under EK conditions.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): The A359? I have zero doubt that the A359 is an extremely capable aircraft. Its the stretch version that I am questioning.

Again, the A350-1000 is an even more capable airplane than the smaller A350-900...

You are basically saying that the airplane with better payload/range capabilities (A350-1000 > A350-900) will have less performance. That sounds really weird. If someone told you the 787-9 flies 5 hours further than the 787-8, you would scratch your head as well.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): Not you scbriml but for anyone else looking for Emirates comments about the A351 after the redesign here are two articles on the subject suggesting it does not have legs even after the redesign which came in 2011.

The 2011 article doesn't quote Tim Clark directly? It just recycles an old reference from Tim Clark.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72): We are supposed to be talking about an A350-1000 stretch, shall we?

Then why did you go off topic in the first place? You seem to be extremely focused on Emirates, may I ask why?

[Edited 2016-03-11 07:37:18]

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 16): Granted, I see that a lot from Airbus fanboys. The A330neo is better than the 787 because it's cheaper, the A350 is better than the 777X because the latter is heavier and so on. Boeing fanboys are the opposite.

Nobody claims A330neo is better versus 787, people just discuss the business case.

Nobody claims A350 is better versus 777X. The weight delta between 77W and A346 basically killed the A340. The weight delta between 779 and A35K is even bigger. It is therefore perfectly normal that people ask questing about it.

You can impossible call people fanboys because they want to discuss something. The weight is a real thing, not something people made up.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 79): Those all seemed to have worked out just fine for LH, but if anything having Lufthansa as a launch customer is more of a reason to suspect it is not going to attract many mainstream airlines.

I think LH has shown an interest in having an aircraft at nearly every size increment so they can match the route with the airplane (more than most) and that when given competing choices they chose Airbus. This is my memory of a stitch quote that I agree with.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84): At least the LH order is not a reliable indicator, because they have a heart for underdogs...

They are trying to support the OEMs and not the airline itself? Seems like a bad strategy for a good airline. Or if this was a joke, my apologies.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84): So you say that the A320NEO has a vanishing small market share and the MAX even is non-existing on the market?

So how do you view market share? The statement was about the OEMs as whole and their market share, not the individual programs.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86): Looking at various payload/range charts, the 777-9 flies about 1 hour further than the A350-1000. So if the A350-1000 is a 10-hour plane in EK conditions, the 777-9 is a 11-hour plane. Or if the 777-9 is a 15-hour plane in EK conditions, the A350-1000 is a 14-hour plane. There is just no way the 777-9 can fly 5 hours further than the A350. That doesn't make any sense. Even under EK conditions.

Well support and well reasoned Karel.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86): Again, the A350-1000 is an even more capable airplane than the smaller A350-900...

I do not think the A351 will have nearly the field performance at high temperature that the A359 will have.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86): Then why did you go off topic in the first place? You seem to be extremely focused on Emirates, may I ask why?

Just continuing the dialogue actually. I am not the one who brought up EK. I expressed reservations of the A351's capabilities that would limit the capabilities of its stretched sister aircraft without modifications.

tortugamon

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 87): Nobody claims A330neo is better versus 787, people just discuss the business case.

Define better.



If I pay $80m USD for an A330-900, instead of $130m USD for a 787-9, run it for 20 years (paying an additional $300K[1] USD per year in fuel), then retire it, selling the 787 for 20% residual value and the A339 for 10% - do I not make more money using an A330?

Which is better again?


[1]Based on 6000miles/day for 365 days/yr, 5% fuel efficiency adv. for 787-9 vs. A339 and fuel cost of $1.1 USD/USgal.

[Edited 2016-03-10 08:53:21]

[Edited 2016-03-10 08:56:50]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): I do not think the A351 will have nearly the field performance at high temperature that the A359 will have.

I think he means range. The A35K flies further than the A359. The regular A359 has a brochure range of 7750nm. The A35K's is 7990nm.

As a side note, the A359 corporate jet is claimed to have a takeoff run of 2650m.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): I do not think the A351 will have nearly the field performance at high temperature that the A359 will have.

do you have a good argument at hand on the why and how?

15% thrust increase for 12% more MTOW + more wing area ( and probably some high lift fiddling ).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): I do not think the A351 will have nearly the field performance at high temperature that the A359 will have.

It has a larger wing and more powerful engines, so I don't see it being that bad in comparison to the A359.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88): I do not think the A351 will have nearly the field performance at high temperature that the A359 will have.

I was referring to the range capabilities, the A35K flies a bit further than A359.

Regarding field performance, I would not place a bet. Indeed the A350-900 is the base model, though Airbus extended the A350-1000 trailing edges to increase takeoff performance.

We will have to wait for the ACAP documents.

[Edited 2016-03-10 09:05:22]

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 90): I think he means range. The A35K flies further than the A359. The regular A359 has a brochure range of 7750nm. The A35K's is 7990nm.

Yes, I know, but thanks. I should have been clearer.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 91): 15% thrust increase for 12% more MTOW + more wing area ( and probably some high lift fiddling ).

Yes but it should be quite a bit heavier as well. Its not a small stretch coupled with the heavier MLG. 7m. And only adding 13,000 lbs of thrust. The 77W added 22,000 lbs over the 77E. Certainly the A350 has lower wing loading. Stretch models tend to have more performance issues than their optimized brethren.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 92): It has a larger wing and more powerful engines, so I don't see it being that bad in comparison to the A359.

If the larger wing came from span then I would agree with you but just not convinced at how effective these trailing edge additions will be. As Karel says:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 93): We will have to wait for the ACAP documents.

Indeed.

As you know range can be misleading. We have plenty of aircraft that for one reason or another can't use the full range capability or the full payload due to other restrictions like local temperatures or payload density or runway length or tire speed or....I think the A359 is a beast, hard to see how the A351 can come close to matching it but I will look for more data as it comes available.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94): The 77W added 22,000 lbs over the 77E.

They added 22% more thrust for 18% more MTOW. Airbus added

Quoting WIederling (Reply 91): 15% thrust increase for 12% more MTOW + more wing area ( and probably some high lift fiddling ).

That is pretty much the same and Airbus is doing a lot more to the wing than Boeing did going from 77E to 77W.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94): As you know range can be misleading.

Oh, yes!
Boeing had a longstanding problem there  

Also wondering why you cite me but completely ignore the given datum and reurgitate your pet peeve.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 95): They added 22% more thrust for 18% more MTOW. Airbus added

Its actually closer to 24% more thrust for 18% more MTOW.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 95): That is pretty much the same

Its roughly a 1/3 premium (18/24) on the 777 and 1/4 premium (12/15) on the A350. It does seem like Boeing gave more engine power relative to MTOW gains.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 95): Airbus is doing a lot more to the wing than Boeing did going from 77E to 77W

Boeing added ~4m to the wingspan to get to the 77W from the 77E. The span is the same on both A350s. I do not know the wing area differences between the two but span can make a big difference when it comes to field performance in difficult environments.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 96): Oh, yes! Boeing had a longstanding problem there   Also wondering why you cite me but completely ignore the given datum and reurgitate your pet peeve.

Which pet peeve of mine are you referencing?

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94): Yes but it should be quite a bit heavier as well.

A350-1000 gains 13 tons OEW over the A350-900 (155 vs 142). For reference, 787-9 gains 10 tons over 787-8 (118 vs 128). That's a 10% weight increase on both stretches. Seems like normal?

More interesting would be to compare the runway performance to the 77W. Purely hypothetical: if the A350-1000 has slightly worse runway performance than the A3500-900, but still better runway performance than the 77W, it would stil be a good thing, no?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 94): Stretch models tend to have more performance issues than their optimized brethren.

True, unless the stretch is getting some optimizations. The 787-9 received tweaks to the wing, and so has the A350-1000.

[Edited 2016-03-10 15:14:34]

I find the logic from posters interesting on here. Boeing is able to do the following. Stretch the 788 to the 789, add thrust to the engine and apply improvements to the wing and they will have more performance that is not questioned at all.

Airbus will add more thrust to the A35K, add wing improvements and will somehow lose performance.   I thought this is from a frame that has the added weight built into it for the longer segments as well, at least compared to the 787.