A350 Travials

[RC20]

Qatar is mad, and Emirate really unhappy and the -1000, and they are stuck with the frame now, nothing you can do to make it wider or longer.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... tes29.html

It looks like the 1000 is going to be an A340 (maybe stillborn). If you want to compete with a 777, you better make a 777. Can you justify the -1000 based on a few airlines buying it because ti fits a niche route or size and some degree of commonality?

Add in comments by Enders they want to get it right, more production delays. It aint as easy as it looks to see how the other guy went wrong!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ck-362660/

Thats code for its going to take longer to get the 900 going, which gives Boeing the time back they lost to get the -9 in production and the -10x a viable offering and into production.

The -800 is gone, its going the way of the 787-3

Airbus would have been better doing an A330 NEO to compete in that segment, and matching the 777 with width and length. Given time now Boeing will take out the A330 as a viable offering.

the -900 looks to have found a nihce that may justify the program, but its boxed in.

So, one step forward on the A320NEO, two steps back.

[cnc]

QR and EK sure bark a lot but thats how they get the best plane at the best price.
airbus is wise not to create an aircraft just for those 2's needs

[regi]

Qatar is mad, and Emirate really unhappy and the -1000, and they are stuck with the frame now, nothing you can do to make it wider or longer.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... tes29.html
If you want to compete with a 777, you better make a 777. Can you justify the -1000 based on a few airlines buying it because ti fits a niche route or size and some degree of commonality?

Add in comments by Enders they want to get it right, more production delays. It aint as easy as it looks to see how the other guy went wrong!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ck-362660/

To RC20:
first question: what does "travials" in the title mean?
Secondly, the article in the Seattle Times doesn't mention Qatar.
3rd: The Seattle Times has launched several times articles in favour of B. This has been reported already several times here on this forum. Does not mean that we can not use it as a source. But we have to be aware that we read "Boeing's Newsletter"
4rd: the remarks about the B-777 and the new B787 are strange. Mr. Clark demands Boeing to revamp an old design (>20 years old) - the B-777 - with technology from an airplane that he doesn't want to buy- the B787 - because it doesn't fit in his program. ( it does fit to some degree, see the fleet of A330 Emirates has and the orders for A350 )

Well, it was a telephone interview. Maybe a personal interview could avoid misinterpretations or could give Mr. Clark the time to phrase his answers without any reason of doubt.

And his last remark that he expects Boeing managers to Fly Emirates in business class is maybe also a message to the Seattle Times that if they want a good interview, they should do the effort to visit him in persona.

Good salesman, that Mr. Clark, well done !

[regi]

by the way:
instead of revamping the B-777 , would the B747-8 not be a better option to close the gap ( in time and capacity) ?

[cnc]

just as a side note unlike airbus calling most of its aircraft A3XX, boeing doesn't put a b in front with the 7X7 series
i also doubt the 748 is much more fuel efficient then the current 77W so it could never compete with a new 777 version

[RoMax]

Emirates wanted to have the A350-1000 as a B777-300 non-ER replacement as many of their routes just do not need the -300ER. As the -1000 would have had the same engines as the -900 Emirates wanted to convert all or most of their orders for the -900 to the -1000 version.
But in the same time Emirates asked for a A350-1000 that could replace the 777-300ER.

But both Qatar and Emirates are now in the opinion that the improved -1000 now lost the advantage of being almost the same as the -900 (including engine version) and on the other hand they don't think Airbus improved it enough to be a real 777-300ER replacement.

Both airlines (and also leasing company ALC of Hudvar-Hazy) are in the opinion that Boeing and GE will have a "easy" job to beat the A350-1000 offer.

Boeing is investigation two improved versions of the 77W, one smaller one and one wich is slightly bigger. Probably it will get new, more aerodynamic, larger and composite wings. It is supposed to keep it's current MTOW and will have more or less the same range. The cabin will be slightly wider (not by making the fuselage wider, but by decreasing the space between the outside and the inside, this is possible thanks to improved materials) so that it will be more comfortable to have 10 seats next to each other.
GE is looking at the GE9X wich is an improved version of the current 77W engine. It will be a bit smaller and will have lower thrust and it will incorporate the newest technology that is designed for the 787/748 engines.

All this would improve the 777 so much that it will be 15% more cost efficient per seat than the current 77W.

Personally I have the idea that Airbus will have a tough job to beat the 777-9X and 777-8X if Boeing/GE can indeed offer what they are not looking for.

[tolipanebas]

This is how I see it:

Airbus first intended the A351 to be just a slightly longer A359 and so it had planned the A351 as a simple stretch, yet simple stretches always take a range hit compared to the baseline model and are thus less popular with airlines as they offer less operational flexibility and are also more difficult to fill.

However, Airbus has learnt in the past that if they can make the stretch go just as far as the baseline model, the stretch becomes a much more popular plane because it offers greater efficiency and lower costs... I am of course talking about the A330 lesson, which saw the market favour the A333 as technological improvements got it to do all the same things as the A332 did, but at lower unit costs.

With this lesson in mind, Airbus feels the A351 would benefit from having the same range as the A359 and for that it needs to give the plane somewhat more thrust, thus making sure the range hit which normally accompanies a simple stretch isn't going to occur here and I agree with them this is a good idea, even if this means both versions will no longer have identical engines any longer... engine commonality isn't such a big deal in airline operations really as demonstrated by the fact even smaller airlines operate small fleets of planes with different engines (for instance SN on their 5 strong A330 fleet).

QR and EK however see these recent changes as a missed opportunity, because to them, if you let go of the engine commonality -given the fuselage size of the A351- Airbus should just as well prop up the A351 even more so it could match not only the range of the A359, but surpasses it and become a real 77W replacement even! However, that is NOT the aim of Airbus as it would need to give the plane not only more thrust than it now plans, but also a seriously modified wing.

The A351 is ment to be a larger A359 which isn't going to take the usual range hit of a simple stretch.
As such it isn't really going to compete with the longer range 77W, but rather aim just the much bigger 773 market. You may argue Boeing aren't selling many 773s and that is right indeed: however, it is said more than 2/3rds of the operators of 77W are actually abusing their planes on sectors where they could just as well use a non-ER version. Most notable example of this is SQ, which has even downrated many of their 77Ws, thus effectively making them home-made 773s and hence there is a large 773 market after all: it is just that it is invisible at first sight!

Of course, the Gulf carriers are the odd ones out here, as they are amongst the 1/3rd which do need the extra range of the 77W most of the time and so its no surprise they are very vocal about the alleged missed opportunity of the re-engined A351, given how much more efficient it could theoretically be...

Anyway, I wouldnt listen too much to them if I were Airbus: if they want more range, let them order the A388: any 77W is going to be too small for them anyway, in 10 years time!

[cnc]

However, Airbus has learnt in the past that if they can make the stretch go just as far as the baseline model, the stretch becomes a much more popular plane because it offers greater efficiency and lower costs... I am of course talking about the A330 lesson, which saw the market favour the A333 as technological improvements got it to do all the same things as the A332 did, but at lower unit costs.

you are comparing the newer A333 vs the old baseline A332 now because compared to a new A332 you get the same difference.

[RoMax]

The A351 is ment to be a larger A359 which isn't going to take the usual range hit of a simple stretch.
As such it isn't really going to compete with the longer range 77W, but rather aim just the much bigger 773 market. You may argue Boeing aren't selling many 773s and that is right indeed: however, it is said more than 2/3rds of the operators of 77W are actually abusing their planes on sectors where they could just as well use a non-ER version. Most notable example of this is SQ, which has even downrated many of their 77Ws, thus effectively making them home-made 773s and hence there is a large 773 market after all: it is just that it is invisible at first sight!

It's true that many airlines do not really need the range of the 77W. But still, for many of them the 77W stays the better choice for different reasons, but ok, that aside.
The A351 is indeed going to be a 773 replacement, but it was that already before the improvements. Airbus improved the A351 to come closer to the 77W. But now the A351 lost the advantage of having the same engines as the A359. Airlines that have both on order do not like this. And the A351 is still not good enough to beat the 77W (at least not the improved versions that will come). And maybe engine commonality may not be SO important. But if you can replace your 773's with A351's that have the same engines as the smaller versions that replace your smaller aircraft (772, A340), that is always better than when you have two different A350 versions with two different engines while it is still not good enough to be more than a 773 replacement. In a industry where the financial margins are extremely small every cent counts, especially for an airline like EK that looks at everything to save money without comprimising too much on passengers experience.
And if Boeing is going to offer two improved versions of the 77W, why would airlines decide to go for the A351? That's the same as we now have with the A320neo and 737MAX. Why would an airline operating the A320 go for the 737MAX and the other way arround. With the only difference that going from the 77W to the A351 would be going a step backwards. Not for the airlines that do not need the payload/range of the 77W, but it is for the airlines that need that.

BTW, about SQ and the downgraded engines, I tought this was only the case with the -200/-200ER. SQ has a lot of -200's but these are all -200ER's with downgraded engines. Is this also the case with the -300/-300ER?

But ok, I agree that both QR and EK can make a lot of "noise" in the press but in the end they stay with their original plan/idea. Both airlines will keep their A350 orders, but they will also order the new 777's, for sure. Especially EK that really wants a 777 that can operate DXB-LAX (for exemple) without payload restrictions.

[RC20]

The -800 is being abandoned in droves. Its now not a lighter -900, its a shortened 900 with all the weight. 2 years delay and DOA. the two year delay to the -1000 means that there has been enough unhappiness with it to ensure a re-design. Shade of Version 1.0/2.0/3.0 of the A330 update.

Boeing failed with the 777-100 for the same reason, just did not work, to heavy (just carry less fuel in a 777-200 like Singapore is doing and have a high volume regional jet). And it can still fill in for longer range missions as needed.

In reality the big guys wanted a 777 competitor so they could negotiate prices (nice goal). It just can't happen. Not wide enough, not long enough and with the construction method, its so heavy that they might as well have made it out of advance aluminum alloys not composite (wing maybe).

And keep in mind, belly freight is huge. A380 suffers from the lack of that (your routes better have high payload pax wise, its not going to make you any money on freight as it cannot carry any). 777 is always going to beat out the smaller aircraft for that. And on a lot of routes, no freight, no profit.

If it the A350 had been good enough, Boeing would not have been able to just improve the 777, it isn't and Boeing can. Interesting to the option for Boeing is to lighten it up and have smaller diameter (less drag) as well as less thrust engines as its lighter.

You can see where Boeing is choosing to put its money and engineers, into a better 777 rather than a 737RS (shame as I think they could have reovlutionized the industry with a mini twin aisle). Too long term an investemtn while they still have to see if they can acualy make the 787 in real numbers (and the -10X model they are working on).

[cnc]

And keep in mind, belly freight is huge. A380 suffers from the lack of that (your routes better have high payload pax wise, its not going to make you any money on freight as it cannot carry any). 777 is always going to beat out the smaller aircraft for that. And on a lot of routes, no freight, no profit.

the A380 can carry as much belly cargo as a 744 if max seating is ranged between 450-500 pax

[tsv]

If it the A350 had been good enough, Boeing would not have been able to just improve the 777, it isn't and Boeing can. Interesting to the option for Boeing is to lighten it up and have smaller diameter (less drag) as well as less thrust engines as its lighter.

WTF? The A350 design is about 20 years later than the 777 design. It will be far superior to the 777 (not withstanding it currently doesn't have an ultra long range version). Airbus is not so hopeless that they can't match a 20 year old design, give them some credit. Boeing can "just improve the 777" as much as they like but Airbus will "just improve" the A350 to stay ahead by plenty.

All this talk about how great the 777 is is such Baloney. It's just the first twin engine in that class capacity so is naturally dominant (in that class) until someone else makes one.

Boeing tried to tart up the 747 to match the A380 and look how that's turning out - Mutton dressed up as Lamb doesn't cut it in this game. Do you expect things to be any different when they try 777 renovations?

[jan_olieslagers]

I am as curious as ever to learn what is meant by "travials"

[andorra-airport]

I guess he means "travails" (the difficulties that are experienced as part of a particular situation).