Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Kikko19
Posts: 955
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:45 am

Tim is waiting for a slightly smaller a380, rewinged twin engine let's call it A378 :)
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:51 am

I think everyone bar EK has publicly regretted the A380, apart from British Airways. I’d argue that BA, as the worlds largest 744 operator and No2 747 family operator has a similar model to EK. But even BA couldn’t stomach more than 12 - even secondhand with engine commonality.

EK have a very specific business model, funnelling passengers from all corners of the world to the other corners via DXB on widebody aircraft. Its a 24/7 operation of unmatched scale, so the A35K probably isn’t large enough, the A380 works for EK. The problem is that no-one will build an aircraft for EK alone and their specific needs. The 779 is probably about as far as any OEM will go and even that sells poorly compared to the 77W that preceded it. the 779 customer list is very similar to the A380, which probably tells you all you need to know about how attractive it is to airlines not based in Alpha tier cities.
 
Aseem747
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:52 am

LAX772LR wrote:
xwb777 wrote:
Sir Tim Clark has also expressed his opinions on the A350-1000 saying that its a great airplane but lacks range.

It should give you pause to write this, considering that the A35K is the currently-produced airliner with the longest standard (and extended) range. ;)


Aseem747 wrote:
A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future.

Nonsense.

The primary thing "limiting" the A35K's sales is timing: it came too late to finish off the last of the passenger 747s, and is "early" in that the 77W replacement cycle has not begun in earnest-- a process which likely won't be in full swing for another half decade, seeing as the eldest among them is only 18-yrs-old.

By saying it's sales have been limited I was putting that in consideration, or else even the 779's sales could be considered limited. Out of the 800~ 77W it's safe to say more than 300 of them have a successor planned for them already, (a lot of them for Emirates as expected) most of them in the form of 779 but 351 too in a lesser amount. If we were to accept that there's a trend of airlines moving to smaller aircraft then at max there will be 400 more 77W that'll be replaced by another large sized aircraft instead of smaller ones like 78X or 359 which airlines like PIA, ANZ might prefer. Looking at this trend the 779 (unless it faces more and more hurdles) would be a favourite for this role further in the future, possibly as dominant as it has been until now. Add to that 748 and 388 replacements then the advantage of 779 further increases.

I still believe A35K will earn orders good enough that it won't be a failure in the future tho no matter whatever I say here. But by the time it achieves that the 779 could already be close to becoming the next 77W.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 817
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:59 am

Surprising that Tim Clark is 72 years old now and still working in EK
 
Extra300
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:02 am

keesje wrote:
Airbus has close to 50 A350 customers, a proven efficient aircraft (~6.4t/hr) and a well filled orderbook (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... zxq1n1.png). They are ramping up to 6 a month next year, carefully marketing the -1000's to Emirates, Singapore airlines, Air France, Delta Lufthansa and other legacy's. But also to Korean and ANA as potential new customers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... y_customer

The competition is a metal, severely delayed, much heavier (+25t) aircraft. Market logic would suggest Airbus can be conservative with discounts.

Under those conditions we can expect some of the airlines negotiating A350s via the media, questioning the aircrafts suitability, raising concerns about the paint, praising alternatives, it's too small/ big, boasting how much live is left in their 77W's etc. creating negotiation space.

Image
https://www.airlive.net/virgin-atlantic ... of-the-us/

“What it will do is put the cost of air travel up through the roof, if you’re not careful,” Clark suggests. “So you’ve got to find a way, and I fret with this one.


“Somebody’s got to do something, honestly.”

Clark jokes that he has a new – three-engined – A380 “on the drawing board” but that he has not shown it to Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury yet.

https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article



And still A350-1000 only have 153 orders, and A350F 22. While 777X has 341 orders including freighters. We´ll see if the ratio changes after Farnborough, but I am surprised how slow the -1000 sales has been so far.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:21 am

Opus99 wrote:
There are too many other options now. 350-900, 787-10IGW etc

A progenitor and an proposed aircraft that doesn't currently exist? Hardly impediments.



Extra300 wrote:
And still A350-1000 only have 153 orders, and A350F 22. While 777X has 341 orders including freighters.

A single airline could flip those stats on their head... namely EK, who's already giving ultimatums to Boeing about the 779.

Ask Lufty how they're feeling about their new business class launch. They're taking more and more A350s-- only take a phone call and a cheque to Airbus, to turn a few of those into -1000s.

And then there's SQ... those sunrise A35Ks are capable of adding a Y cabin + dual belly of cargo to JFK and EWR, something the A359ULRs cannot. Would be of no effort to integrate them into what's already the world's largest A350 fleet.

.....so yeah, wouldn't take solace in the 777X's numbers just yet. The -8 may not even be produced, and the -9 can't stop being an administrative clusterf#ck. No laurels there worth resting on.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:29 am

Extra300 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Airbus has close to 50 A350 customers, a proven efficient aircraft (~6.4t/hr) and a well filled orderbook (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... zxq1n1.png). They are ramping up to 6 a month next year, carefully marketing the -1000's to Emirates, Singapore airlines, Air France, Delta Lufthansa and other legacy's. But also to Korean and ANA as potential new customers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... y_customer

The competition is a metal, severely delayed, much heavier (+25t) aircraft. Market logic would suggest Airbus can be conservative with discounts.

Under those conditions we can expect some of the airlines negotiating A350s via the media, questioning the aircrafts suitability, raising concerns about the paint, praising alternatives, it's too small/ big, boasting how much live is left in their 77W's etc. creating negotiation space.

Image
https://www.airlive.net/virgin-atlantic ... of-the-us/

“What it will do is put the cost of air travel up through the roof, if you’re not careful,” Clark suggests. “So you’ve got to find a way, and I fret with this one.


“Somebody’s got to do something, honestly.”

Clark jokes that he has a new – three-engined – A380 “on the drawing board” but that he has not shown it to Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury yet.

https://www.flightglobal.com/iata-agm-2 ... 67.article



And still A350-1000 only have 153 orders, and A350F 22. While 777X has 341 orders including freighters. We´ll see if the ratio changes after Farnborough, but I am surprised how slow the -1000 sales has been so far.


Not included are the conversions rights in the many A350 contracts, the unprecedented Covid crisis airlines went through since 2020 and Airbus supply chain issues making them reluctant to overpromise. Looking at proven performance, competitive situation and market requirements, I wouldn't be worried about A350-1000 (-900 / 950F) prospects at all. Negotiations will be tough.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:34 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
There are too many other options now. 350-900, 787-10IGW etc

A progenitor and an proposed aircraft that doesn't currently exist? Hardly impediments.



Extra300 wrote:
And still A350-1000 only have 153 orders, and A350F 22. While 777X has 341 orders including freighters.

A single airline could flip those stats on their head... namely EK, who's already giving ultimatums to Boeing about the 779.

Ask Lufty how they're feeling about their new business class launch. They're taking more and more A350s-- only take a phone call and a cheque to Airbus, to turn a few of those into -1000s.

And then there's SQ... those sunrise A35Ks are capable of adding a Y cabin + dual belly of cargo to JFK and EWR, something the A359ULRs cannot. Would be of no effort to integrate them into what's already the world's largest A350 fleet.

.....so yeah, wouldn't take solace in the 777X's numbers just yet. The -8 may not even be produced, and the -9 can't stop being an administrative clusterf#ck. No laurels there worth resting on.

I hope you include any aircraft that's currently not flying as non-existent. I hope you're that consistent. 787-10IGW has already been sold to customers AND the 787-9IGW but how would you know

But call it what you want, 777X or a35K are going to be lukewarm, doesn't mean they are not good, they're just going to be lukewarm. too many options, if you were not buying a 330 you were buying a 300ER. and you made the 300ER work because it was efficient and had a lot of range, well, that's everything now from the 787-9 up to the 777-9, the market is considerably different,

and if you're looking at a 300ER replacement, you're looking at purchase price, efficiency, availability, versatility, the a350-900 and 787-9/10 are the front runners. everything else is just a by the way. if you have specific requirements.

only a few months ago BA took up additional 787-10 options, the 35K is also unnecessarily expensive, which is why the only interest it has developed in the past 5 years is from Qantas who only need the range probably the 777X too

success is not guaranteed on either of those programs, far from.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:05 am

Opus99 wrote:
I hope you include any aircraft that's currently not flying as non-existent. I hope you're that consistent.

Well what'dya know, I do. Your quirky little wish is granted. :roll:


Opus99 wrote:
787-10IGW has already been sold to customers AND the 787-9IGW

Uh-huh, sure they have.


Opus99 wrote:
but how would you know

You don't see the danger in writing that?

K, fine, I'll play along: tell us, who would these secret hush-hush customers be? Oooh-ooooh, maybe NZ? ....because if there's anything an OEM would want, it's to NOT advertise an advantageous adjustment to its market lineup, right?!


Opus99 wrote:
too many options, if you were not buying a 330 you were buying a 300ER. and you made the 300ER work because it was efficient and had a lot of range, well, that's everything now from the 787-9 up to the 777-9, the market is considerably different,

Not really. That's been the way of the market for the last 30yrs. Prior to that, if you needed more than 10ish hours, you had no choice but to buy a 747. If you wanted less than 275 seats over an Ocean, then you had to buy a 767. DC10 and to a lesser extent L1011 was your only compromise.

Then came the MD11, A340, A330, 777, 787, etc.

Nothing new under the sun, just another market adjustment.
 
User avatar
terrificturk
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:07 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Seems like he is still sore about not having his A380-900.


My thoughts exactly! He kept mumbling in the past of a '-900' and ppl thought he meant the 350-900, while all the while he himself meant the A380-900.
Well, at least the wing was already sized for a stretch, wasn't it?

IMHO, it will come - sooner or later... :stirthepot:
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I hope you include any aircraft that's currently not flying as non-existent. I hope you're that consistent.

Well what'dya know, I do. Your quirky little wish is granted. :roll:


Opus99 wrote:
787-10IGW has already been sold to customers AND the 787-9IGW

Uh-huh, sure they have.


Opus99 wrote:
but how would you know

You don't see the danger in writing that?

K, fine, I'll play along: tell us, who would these secret hush-hush customers be? Oooh-ooooh, maybe NZ? ....because if there's anything an OEM would want, it's to NOT advertise an advantageous adjustment to its market lineup, right?!


Opus99 wrote:
too many options, if you were not buying a 330 you were buying a 300ER. and you made the 300ER work because it was efficient and had a lot of range, well, that's everything now from the 787-9 up to the 777-9, the market is considerably different,

Not really. That's been the way of the market for the last 30yrs. Prior to that, if you needed more than 10ish hours, you had no choice but to buy a 747. If you wanted less than 275 seats over an Ocean, then you had to buy a 767. DC10 and to a lesser extent L1011 was your only compromise.

Then came the MD11, A340, A330, 777, 787, etc.

Nothing new under the sun, just another market adjustment.

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... bzkZoyt08g

Who said anything about hush customers. Relax.

Bear in mind. This is standard across all 787-9s and -10 it isn’t some sort of new plane. After a certain points that’s all you get.

Boeing themselves have confirmed it. But i guess American Airlines’ CFO must be talking about ghosts and phantoms

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Yeah but the point is you can get 10ish hours on a 767. So you don’t have to choose between the two.

Smaller planes have become more and more capable. That’s the whole point. So unless you need that size of aircraft, well, what’s there. I thought the market made that petty clear.

So for an airline whose looking at a 300ER because of its efficiency, cargo uplift and range as the main selling points who may not be so comfortable with its passenger size can now look for the market to replace it with something that can give it all those things at much lower yield risk.

But okay.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:21 am

Sometimes things are moving even faster than thought.

Gulf carrier Emirates said it’s in talks to take delivery of A350 wide-body jets ordered from Airbus SE over a shorter period amid continuing uncertainty around the handover of Boeing Co.’s delayed 777X model.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/emirates-se ... -1.1781334

Smells like -1000s.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:24 am

keesje wrote:
Sometimes things are moving even faster than thought.

Gulf carrier Emirates said it’s in talks to take delivery of A350 wide-body jets ordered from Airbus SE over a shorter period amid continuing uncertainty around the handover of Boeing Co.’s delayed 777X model.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/emirates-se ... -1.1781334

Smells like -1000s.

You try so hard for these 1000s to be on Emirates books My friend, it smells like what was said “ramping up the delivery scale to 2 aircraft a month”

How does I need something in a shorter time frame translate to a whole new aircraft.

Rest, rest the title of the thread is emirates says the 1000 is too small, yet you’re here again with this? WOW
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:27 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1489685742079074306?s=21&t=6UXvvx1Vd0ZrbzkZoyt08g

Who said anything about hush customers. Relax.

Bear in mind. This is standard across all 787-9s and -10 it isn’t some sort of new plane. After a certain points that’s all you get.

Boeing themselves have confirmed it. But i guess American Airlines’ CFO must be talking about ghosts and phantoms

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Quite calm, thank you.

As stated prior, none of this is new (Boeing's been toying with extra MTOW on the -9/-10 gear+box for 4years now, most vocally with NZ, and a certain southeastern US airline that may "shock" everyone)...

But alas, no plane yet exists, so, back to the point at hand....
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:30 am

Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sometimes things are moving even faster than thought.

Gulf carrier Emirates said it’s in talks to take delivery of A350 wide-body jets ordered from Airbus SE over a shorter period amid continuing uncertainty around the handover of Boeing Co.’s delayed 777X model.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/emirates-se ... -1.1781334

Smells like -1000s.

You try so hard for these 1000s to be on Emirates books My friend, it smells like what was said “ramping up the delivery scale to 2 aircraft a month”

How does I need something in a shorter time frame translate to a whole new aircraft.

Rest, rest the title of the thread is emirates says the 1000 is too small, yet you’re here again with this? WOW


EK is worried about medium term network capacity, 777-9 delays. That would promote a bigger seat capacity version of the A350, as Clark mentioned (OP). He has a A350-900 fleet on order & conversion rights. 1+1=?
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:36 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1489685742079074306?s=21&t=6UXvvx1Vd0ZrbzkZoyt08g

Who said anything about hush customers. Relax.

Bear in mind. This is standard across all 787-9s and -10 it isn’t some sort of new plane. After a certain points that’s all you get.

Boeing themselves have confirmed it. But i guess American Airlines’ CFO must be talking about ghosts and phantoms

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Quite calm, thank you.

As stated prior, none of this is new (Boeing's been toying with extra MTOW on the -9/-10 gear+box for 4years now, most vocally with NZ, and a certain southeastern US airline that may "shock" everyone)...

But alas, no plane yet exists, so, back to the point at hand....

it doesn't exist to you*
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:39 am

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sometimes things are moving even faster than thought.


https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/emirates-se ... -1.1781334

Smells like -1000s.

You try so hard for these 1000s to be on Emirates books My friend, it smells like what was said “ramping up the delivery scale to 2 aircraft a month”

How does I need something in a shorter time frame translate to a whole new aircraft.

Rest, rest the title of the thread is emirates says the 1000 is too small, yet you’re here again with this? WOW


EK is worried about medium term network capacity, 777-9 delays. That would promote a bigger seat capacity version of the A350, as Clark mentioned (OP). He has a A350-900 fleet on order & conversion rights. 1+1=?

1+1= 777-9

as it has for the past 3 years
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:44 am

Pellegrine wrote:
Is Boeing going to come out with a 777-10X eventually? Again, similarly to the Airbus situation, it would have to have comparable range to the 777-9X to be given the best chance at being successful. Guess we will see.
B779X 7285nm

Pellegrine wrote:
Quoting range without mentioning payload is a simplistic argument and one I see way too often on this forum. A35K can carry 26-27t max 8700nm. And that's at max fuel.

Indeed, according to the ACAPS it will take around 28t to 8700nm. The ACAPS however doesn't show the planned and advertised increase in both MTOW and fuel capacity that allows 350pax to go 8700nm.


Pellegrine wrote:
Point taken. EK might see a need to send 50-60t 6500nm though (DXB-SYD). Extrapolate those numbers to a heavier aircraft (OEW) with more payload capacity (seats and cargo) and you'll see that more needs to be done than "lengthen the aircraft, keep MTOW the same, and you're golden". Do that and you get the 787-10.


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....

Aseem747 wrote:
A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future. 10 abreast 77W has worked out wonderfully for everyone who has implemented it so why would they down size to an aircraft with a capacity of 9 abreast 77W instead of just ordering a negligible 773 stretch that's optimized well for 10 abreast?


Yes, capacity wise the the 77W does have a slight edge on the A35k, at 9 abreast economy the 77W has the comfort edge (wider seats) but the A350 has the capacity edge. At 77W 10 abreast the 77W has the capacity edge but the A35K the comfort edge. I guess in that respect that 77W has the flexibility edge.

The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:49 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
Is Boeing going to come out with a 777-10X eventually? Again, similarly to the Airbus situation, it would have to have comparable range to the 777-9X to be given the best chance at being successful. Guess we will see.
B779X 7285nm

Pellegrine wrote:
Quoting range without mentioning payload is a simplistic argument and one I see way too often on this forum. A35K can carry 26-27t max 8700nm. And that's at max fuel.

Indeed, according to the ACAPS it will take around 28t to 8700nm. The ACAPS however doesn't show the planned and advertised increase in both MTOW and fuel capacity that allows 350pax to go 8700nm.


Pellegrine wrote:
Point taken. EK might see a need to send 50-60t 6500nm though (DXB-SYD). Extrapolate those numbers to a heavier aircraft (OEW) with more payload capacity (seats and cargo) and you'll see that more needs to be done than "lengthen the aircraft, keep MTOW the same, and you're golden". Do that and you get the 787-10.


the 787-10 cannot even take 60t so that's not really reasonable. At MZFW (I believe 57t max payload?) it will do ~4000-4100nm.

If you meant the 777-10 then also no. The current 779X can take 60t but at that weight for 6500nm the 779X would need an MTOW of 365t. Its difficult to see how adding drag and weight in the form of a fuselage extension would somehow enable that to happen.

The A35k could do 60t payload 6500nm at ~317t MTOW....

Aseem747 wrote:
A350-1000 not carrying even as much as a typical 777-300ER nowadays is definitely a factor that's greatly limiting it's sales and will continue to do so in the future. 10 abreast 77W has worked out wonderfully for everyone who has implemented it so why would they down size to an aircraft with a capacity of 9 abreast 77W instead of just ordering a negligible 773 stretch that's optimized well for 10 abreast?


Yes, capacity wise the the 77W does have a slight edge on the A35k, at 9 abreast economy the 77W has the comfort edge (wider seats) but the A350 has the capacity edge. At 77W 10 abreast the 77W has the capacity edge but the A35K the comfort edge. I guess in that respect that 77W has the flexibility edge.

The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred

100% agree with that closing statement, which is what I’ve been trying to say. There are too many good options outside of those two.

300ER replacement will fall mainly between the 359, 787-9/10
 
Aseem747
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:22 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Yes, capacity wise the the 77W does have a slight edge on the A35k, at 9 abreast economy the 77W has the comfort edge (wider seats) but the A350 has the capacity edge. At 77W 10 abreast the 77W has the capacity edge but the A35K the comfort edge. I guess in that respect that 77W has the flexibility edge.

The big issue for both the 779X and the A350 is why would you bother when you can get the same (or better) per seat costs out of a smaller aircraft (A359 and B789/10). Th euse case for the A35k is high payload and high utilisation and the 779X is maximum floor area per slot.

Fred

A35K does have a comfort edge but honestly 10 abreast 77W aren't too bad although I can understand why people would complain about it. A few months back I flew quite a long flight with QR to Seattle and I didn't have any trouble going through that flight which makes me think 779 with (slightly) wider seats, quieter cabin and modern seats will be a pleasant experience for most people. 777X could be the best balance of capacity and comfort in any large twin engine aircraft.

Since majority of 77W, 388 and 748 fleet are operated by airlines who would likely choose a bigger aircraft when available even if there's another smaller aircraft with similar per seat costs hence why I'm confident both these large twins will end up with a respectable order books, with a further edge to 779 for the same reason. It's clear not every 77W user is someone who would realistically still have a large aircraft in future but the 747 and 380 of the world should be able to compensate for this.

Now this logic could raise a question of why did the 747-8 and A380 end up the way they did and in my opinion that boils down to the extent of aircraft size that even most bigger airlines of the world would be comfortable dealing with. 10 abreast 777-300ER seems to be a very sweet spot for such airlines and the size increase of 779 is negligible enough to not ruin this aspect of 77W.
I've seen people say the 777X is a 400 seat VLA so how come it won't end up as the next 748 or 388? But they fail to realize that even the 77W is 400, whereas 748 is 500 and 388 is 600 seat aircraft under a similar comparison. This is also why the current A35K's size is a limiting factor and not something advantageous.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:38 am

Aseem747 wrote:
A35K does have a comfort edge but honestly 10 abreast 77W aren't too bad although I can understand why people would complain about it. A few months back I flew quite a long flight with QR to Seattle and I didn't have any trouble going through that flight which makes me think 779 with (slightly) wider seats, quieter cabin and modern seats will be a pleasant experience for most people. 777X could be the best balance of capacity and comfort in any large twin engine aircraft.


So the wider seats are more pleasant...regardless of aircraft or only in a 779X? Indeed it could be a good match of capacity and comfort. If you can fill it then the higher costs are less important if you can maximise the RASM.

Fred
 
Aseem747
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:42 am

flipdewaf wrote:

So the wider seats are more pleasant...regardless of aircraft or only in a 779X? Indeed it could be a good match of capacity and comfort. If you can fill it then the higher costs are less important if you can maximise the RASM.

Fred

Regardless of the aircraft of course, that's why the 779 is only a great match of capacity andcomfort instead of being the champion of both capacity and comfort among twin jets.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:56 am

Aseem747 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

So the wider seats are more pleasant...regardless of aircraft or only in a 779X? Indeed it could be a good match of capacity and comfort. If you can fill it then the higher costs are less important if you can maximise the RASM.

Fred

Regardless of the aircraft of course, that's why the 779 is only a great match of capacity andcomfort instead of being the champion of both capacity and comfort among twin jets.


I think fuel efficiency & risk reduction will play a major role. But also the dual source policy preferred by the bigger airlines. Most likely there will be some 777-9 "maturation" (like MAX, 787, KC46) & Clark says he's not fully confident on the GE9X engines (“The situation around the engine appears particularly confusing.") The A350s & Trent XWB's are proven, mature by now. https://simpleflying.com/777x-vs-a350/# ... cal%20mile.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:09 am

Aseem747 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

So the wider seats are more pleasant...regardless of aircraft or only in a 779X? Indeed it could be a good match of capacity and comfort. If you can fill it then the higher costs are less important if you can maximise the RASM.

Fred

Regardless of the aircraft of course, that's why the 779 is only a great match of capacity andcomfort instead of being the champion of both capacity and comfort among twin jets.


Yes, comfort being a choice by the airline, so the offering by Boeing is just capacity. i.e. floor space.

Fred
 
smartplane
Posts: 1926
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:26 am

Opus99 wrote:
........only a few months ago BA took up additional 787-10 options.............

Using 777X compensation credits?

Customer exposure to Boeing in respect to accrued volume credits, plus accrued and still accruing compensation credits, is probably approaching the 'uncomfortable' range for some.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:30 am

smartplane wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
........only a few months ago BA took up additional 787-10 options.............

Using 777X compensation credits?

Customer exposure to Boeing in respect to accrued volume credits, plus accrued and still accruing compensation credits, is probably approaching the 'uncomfortable' range for some.

I’m guessing so
 
SEU
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:48 pm

I do love the discussions when CEOs/Airlines come out and make statements like this in public. People on here going into all sorts of minor details, hearsay and opinions, when in reality, all this is is CEOs playing the game. Airlines/CEOs all know exactly what each aircraft is, what it offers, its range, capabilities they know more than 99% of people on this site about them. To discuss whether the A350-1000 is too small or not selling, or w.e is pointless and means nothing.

TC in this instant is trying to make A&B think they are both about to lose orders with them, stating that the -1000 is too small, the 777X delays are too long blah blah blah. All he is doing is trying to get his airline into a bigger position of power to negotiate. That's it.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:08 pm

I have just put some numbers together and to stretch the A35k to the A350-2000.
If the A35K is stretched to 79.9m the cabin area would be equal to the B779X. The increase in empty weight would be around 7t (including the 7t added to the MZFW to maintain absolute payload capability). If the stretched A350-2000 (as I will call it) had the 319t MTWO then it would be capable of 7500nm still air range with 426 pax and a fuel use of 112t.

If there was a hybrid between the A359 and the A35k i.e. the A35k length and the A359 underpinnings 283t MTOW but 73t max payload then it would be capable of ~7knm with 350pax and 4knm at max payload.

Fred
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:42 pm

scbriml wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
Tim Clark missed his chance. He could have ordered the 747-8i but he did not.


Once Emirates had ordered the A380, the 748i was never going to happen for them. Let's be honest, the list of customers for it is very short.


Tim Clark wants his cake and eat it too. He should of used his head for more than just to grown hair on. Did he really need about 125 Airbus A380 aircraft? I don't think so. He is the only reason that so many A38/0s were built. If was not that big of a success except for what Tim Clark bought. Airbus is not building A380s anymore while Boeing is still building 747-8F aircraft with about four left to build if Boeing has the necessary parts to complete the last 747-8F which I have read, but cannot remember where, may be a sreious problem for Boeing. Large twins were begining to take over and reduced the need for four engine aircraft like both the A360 and Boing's 747-8. :old:
 
9252fly
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:29 pm

NWAROOSTER wrote:
scbriml wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
Tim Clark missed his chance. He could have ordered the 747-8i but he did not.


Once Emirates had ordered the A380, the 748i was never going to happen for them. Let's be honest, the list of customers for it is very short.


Airbus is not building A380s anymore while Boeing is still building 747-8F aircraft with about four left to build if Boeing has the necessary parts to complete the last 747-8F which I have read, but cannot remember where, may be a sreious problem for Boeing. Large twins were begining to take over and reduced the need for four engine aircraft like both the A360 and Boing's 747-8. :old:


The last production B747 is currently in the last stages of assembly.

https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-closin ... t-new-747/
 
ScottB
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:24 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
Hey EK could have kept on ordering 380s to keep the line open at a half dozen frames a year and chose not to. :stirthepot:


In all honesty, A380 production likely ended because Airbus wasn't interested in keeping the line open at a production rate that wasn't profitable. Resources like skilled workers and production space are better used on high-demand products like the A350 and A320. It might have made sense to keep production open for a much higher price per aircraft, but I suspect there's also a question of whether RR would have wanted to continue making new engines at a rate of ~25/yr.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21503
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:28 pm

NWAROOSTER wrote:
Tim Clark wants his cake and eat it too.


Just like many of the best airline CEOs.

NWAROOSTER wrote:
He should of used his head for more than just to grown hair on. Did he really need about 125 Airbus A380 aircraft?


Emirates clearly did pre-Covid. I think he's forgotten more about running a profitable airline than most people here know.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2934
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:50 pm

S0Y wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Well he can prolly order a spec built aircraft and pay for all the R and D


He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380


He did say he wanted more A380s. Multiple times. He was trying hard to get Airbus to commit to an A380neo, but they wouldn't.

Contrary to some A Net wisdom, he also wanted an A380-900. A bigger aircraft, not a smaller one. The A380-800 was designed to be lengthened, and would likely be way more efficient.

All in all, with all the A380s heading to the desert, Emirates could run an A380 fleet for 15 more years if they wanted to.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:07 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I have just put some numbers together and to stretch the A35k to the A350-2000.
If the A35K is stretched to 79.9m the cabin area would be equal to the B779X. The increase in empty weight would be around 7t (including the 7t added to the MZFW to maintain absolute payload capability). If the stretched A350-2000 (as I will call it) had the 319t MTWO then it would be capable of 7500nm still air range with 426 pax and a fuel use of 112t.

If there was a hybrid between the A359 and the A35k i.e. the A35k length and the A359 underpinnings 283t MTOW but 73t max payload then it would be capable of ~7knm with 350pax and 4knm at max payload.

Fred


Fred, for the A352K, how would the angle of rotation be affected? Would it need more runway relative to the 779? That fuel burn of 112t is the Standard or Imperial Ton?

If I go with Imperial Tons... I calculate 777-9 w/ 426pax for 13500km (7285nmi) w/ Luftansa cited fuel burn of 2.9L/100km per pax (wiki article) to be 134t of fuel use. (standard is 150t). So 17% more efficient?

Of course it's all academic if you can't fill that 777-9 or A350-2000 by selling 57 more seats than the A350-1000 on a given route. If not, then the A350-1000 is just right... 369pax is a good size plane....
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:18 pm

If TC wants higher capacity aircraft would second hand A388’s not be an option? Sure, operating costs will be high but there should be a lot of wiggle room in the acquisition costs, certainly more wiggle room than on new A35K’s.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4648
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:35 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I have just put some numbers together and to stretch the A35k to the A350-2000.
If the A35K is stretched to 79.9m the cabin area would be equal to the B779X. The increase in empty weight would be around 7t (including the 7t added to the MZFW to maintain absolute payload capability). If the stretched A350-2000 (as I will call it) had the 319t MTWO then it would be capable of 7500nm still air range with 426 pax and a fuel use of 112t.

If there was a hybrid between the A359 and the A35k i.e. the A35k length and the A359 underpinnings 283t MTOW but 73t max payload then it would be capable of ~7knm with 350pax and 4knm at max payload.

Fred


Fred, for the A352K, how would the angle of rotation be affected? Would it need more runway relative to the 779? That fuel burn of 112t is the Standard or Imperial Ton?

If I go with Imperial Tons... I calculate 777-9 w/ 426pax for 13500km (7285nmi) w/ Luftansa cited fuel burn of 2.9L/100km per pax (wiki article) to be 134t of fuel use. (standard is 150t). So 17% more efficient?

Of course it's all academic if you can't fill that 777-9 or A350-2000 by selling 57 more seats than the A350-1000 on a given route. If not, then the A350-1000 is just right... 369pax is a good size plane....

Not sure about the rotation angle but the fuel use was done in metric, I find It’s much harder calculating with numbers derived by a drunk lobster.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
mandyhaslott
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:59 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:40 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Plenty of used A380's.


Amen sister!
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:44 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
S0Y wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Well he can prolly order a spec built aircraft and pay for all the R and D


He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380


He did say he wanted more A380s. Multiple times. He was trying hard to get Airbus to commit to an A380neo, but they wouldn't.

Contrary to some A Net wisdom, he also wanted an A380-900. A bigger aircraft, not a smaller one. The A380-800 was designed to be lengthened, and would likely be way more efficient.

All in all, with all the A380s heading to the desert, Emirates could run an A380 fleet for 15 more years if they wanted to.

He obviously wasn't trying hard enough: had his put his wallet where his mouth was, Airbus would have been happy to sell him an A380-900 and/or A380neo. He never put the money on the table, Airbus said no.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 8322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:34 pm

9252fly wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Once Emirates had ordered the A380, the 748i was never going to happen for them. Let's be honest, the list of customers for it is very short.


Airbus is not building A380s anymore while Boeing is still building 747-8F aircraft with about four left to build if Boeing has the necessary parts to complete the last 747-8F which I have read, but cannot remember where, may be a sreious problem for Boeing. Large twins were begining to take over and reduced the need for four engine aircraft like both the A360 and Boing's 747-8. :old:


The last production B747 is currently in the last stages of assembly.

https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-closin ... t-new-747/

It won't happen but I'm sure if EK called Boeing right now for 50 747-8I's today, I'm sure Boeing would get everything back up and running.

As cool as it would be to see, it's not going to happen.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 8322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:35 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
S0Y wrote:

He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380


He did say he wanted more A380s. Multiple times. He was trying hard to get Airbus to commit to an A380neo, but they wouldn't.

Contrary to some A Net wisdom, he also wanted an A380-900. A bigger aircraft, not a smaller one. The A380-800 was designed to be lengthened, and would likely be way more efficient.

All in all, with all the A380s heading to the desert, Emirates could run an A380 fleet for 15 more years if they wanted to.

He obviously wasn't trying hard enough: had his put his wallet where his mouth was, Airbus would have been happy to sell him an A380-900 and/or A380neo. He never put the money on the table, Airbus said no.

Didn't CX express interest in the A380-900?
 
IADFCO
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:46 pm

Could the A380 line be restarted?

(I haven't checked whether this question has reached the mythical status of the sister question "could the 757 line be restarted?" :bouncy: )
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:00 pm

Could he not have ordered more A380's when Airbus gave the 'last chance to buy' warning?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1926
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:20 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
S0Y wrote:

He basically had one with the A380, but decided there were better economics with other aircraft, so now there is no more A380


He did say he wanted more A380s. Multiple times. He was trying hard to get Airbus to commit to an A380neo, but they wouldn't.

Contrary to some A Net wisdom, he also wanted an A380-900. A bigger aircraft, not a smaller one. The A380-800 was designed to be lengthened, and would likely be way more efficient.

All in all, with all the A380s heading to the desert, Emirates could run an A380 fleet for 15 more years if they wanted to.

He obviously wasn't trying hard enough: had his put his wallet where his mouth was, Airbus would have been happy to sell him an A380-900 and/or A380neo. He never put the money on the table, Airbus said no.

Neither engine OEM was quoting to win follow-on A380 orders. Each wanted the other under the wing. EA (GE) required a PiP for performance erosion. RR were already compensating for performance erosion.

Presumably at the time, both engine OEM's thought WB commitments for other models were such that they didn't need the distraction of meeting EK's demanding needs. In hindsight, a re-engine with a more modern engine might have been a plan (perhaps even just the inboard engines).
 
santi319
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:24 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:30 am

Well when you are based in the Middle East, where fuel is cheap/allegedly subsidized, yeah an A380 makes sense, for the rest of the world however, it doesnt..
 
tullamarine
Posts: 3496
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:08 am

santi319 wrote:
Well when you are based in the Middle East, where fuel is cheap/allegedly subsidized, yeah an A380 makes sense, for the rest of the world however, it doesnt..

Best not tell SQ, QF and BA who are all keenly bringing back their A380s as obvious solutions to high global demand for travel post-COVID.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1892
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:15 am

Could there be a 3-4-3 A350 to cover the capacity or is that not an option? I thought Airbus was thinning walls to make that happen with no reduction in seat width?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:33 am

gatibosgru wrote:
Could there be a 3-4-3 A350 to cover the capacity or is that not an option? I thought Airbus was thinning walls to make that happen with no reduction in seat width?


I’m still very skeptical about this, especially after flying on a couple A350s recently. I don’t see how they could possibly retain the same seat width and add another seat.
 
744SPX
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:55 am

What's wrong with doing a re-engine of existing A380's, ala the DC-8 Super 70? Everyone assumes a new engine option requires a new build aircraft when this is not the case. An engine with 10-12% better sfc than the Trent 900 along with the A380 Plus mods would take care of any casm issues and make the A380 viable for another couple decades at least.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:59 am

gatibosgru wrote:
Could there be a 3-4-3 A350 to cover the capacity or is that not an option? I thought Airbus was thinning walls to make that happen with no reduction in seat width?

BF and TX already fly their A350s 10 abreast. The 777X was able to thin the walls and fuselage frames to accommodate 10 abreast 18" wide seats but the A350 gets below 17" when 10 abreast.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: Tim Clark: A350-1000 too small to be largest Airbus offering

Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:29 am

JohanTally wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
Could there be a 3-4-3 A350 to cover the capacity or is that not an option? I thought Airbus was thinning walls to make that happen with no reduction in seat width?

BF and TX already fly their A350s 10 abreast. The 777X was able to thin the walls and fuselage frames to accommodate 10 abreast 18" wide seats but the A350 gets below 17" when 10 abreast.


I think the A350 was explicitly designed to prevent 10-abreast in anything other than a ULCC holiday type config.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos