Emirates cancels order 70 Airbus 350

[me109]

In fact I am not surprised to read this . At this moment they still have +- 150 aircraft on order (+- 90 A380 and 56 773ER) Despite the fact that they continue to grow I think that they are approaching their limits.

Especially as they face continues competition with our players in the Middle East (Qatar Airways , Etihad -190 acft on order and Turkish airlines with a continous growing fleet and network)

My opinion is that all those companies are too optimistic and the following years they will face overcapacity.

I like to hear your opinions about this subject !

[quixoticguide]

You forget the 150 B777X on order

[sean1982]

I know an LCC that could be interested in 60 available wide bodies

[MD-11forever]

Was already mentioned here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=47289&start=180#p300664

[sn-remember]

Ok I'll repost here ..
I can't help feeling a bit disappointed by the way Airbus set their strategy regarding the 350 future developments ..
It seems that EK were questioning the A350 deal already since a couple of years and the decision of Boeing to launch the 777-9X was aiming to better satisfy the needs of operators such EK that require range and more global capacity (DXB-LAX, 400 pax, generous cargo hold)
Why did Airbus never envisaged a double stretch of the 350-900 that would certainly better have suited such an important client and maybe jeopardize Boeing's case to launch the 777-X program ?
Probably a missed opportunity IMHO ... Thoughts ?

[sn-remember]

Just finished reading Richard Aboulafia's comment on this cancelation ..
Oddly it is close to my views ... (except for the A380 rant)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabou ... it-better/

[Flanker2]

When the 777X order was placed, I already wasn't sure how EK was going to combine both aircraft... and now it's clear.

EK is making quite a mistake here by betting heavily on the B777-9X.
The aircraft is just too heavy. JL, loyal customer of Boeing even went far out of its way to avoid it by rupturing the Boeing single-sourcing, because it just doesn't make sense.

If EK had been smart, they could have kept the A350XWB's for a few years, then dumped them on the market while making a healthy profit.

I have my doubts about the B777-9x program.
1. Most airlines have already sufficient widebodies on order to cope for the next 10-15 years.
2. It has capabilities that are overkill for most uses other than out of the Middle East. The customer potential is too limited.
3. It's heavy and expensive
4. The B777-X will kill the B77W, by offering a replacement solution that doesn't work for most airlines operating the B77W. Boeing will lose most of their B77W customers to the A35J.

The longhaul market is approaching saturation. Where the A380 is used for hub-to-hub operations in extremely low density configurations, EK is now considering using such big aircraft for point to point operations. That's a risky move, considering that any competition can affect their position in the market. Where the B77W is about the limit of size you would be looking for, the B777-9X is just too large.
If you consider it, the B777-9x offers capacities similar to the B744 at 25% lower cost. It's not bad, but there is a reason why airlines downsized from fleets of B747's to larger fleets of A330/A340, B787, B777.
The B747 and B777-9X offer lower seat-mile cost but a higher risk of flying around empty seats. It's also very difficult to control revenues on such large aircraft, to fly on routes other than between large hubs.

If I had to pick an aircraft as a fleet planner today, it would be the A350-1000.
Oh and they might as well cancel the A358 variant, it's a total waste of time and NEO the A330, giving the A333 7500nm range.

Aboulafia is wrong, there is no demand for a 400-550 seat aircraft, it's a niche limited to EK and a few frames here and there at the major intercontinental airlines. If airlines needed capacity in this category, they would have bought B748i's in large numbers. We'll see a few more orders here and there, but the B777-9X is just too much aircraft for most missions.

I think that the B777-X launch will sell more A350XWB's in the near-future.
Now that airlines can make a choice as all the cards are on the table, I think that many will go for the A350-1000. It's ugly, yes, but it's a money-maker.

I wonder what SQ is going to do but seen that they're betting heavily on the A359, I don't think that they will order more than 15 B777-X even if they go for it.

In conclusion, B777-X, too small niche. They'll have a production run of 500 aircraft, but that's all I see happening. Boeing was doing so well with the B77W, a NEO, some weight-savings on the airfoil, a lower price and a simple stretch variant -400 would have done much more damage to the A350XWB than the B777-X will ever come close to doing.

The A380 is also a niche aircraft, but the marketing effect and credibility that it has brought to Airbus is something no one can quantify. It has brought so much credibility that U.S. airlines are now ordering much more aircraft from Airbus than from Boeing, breaking with their single-source pledges.
Before the A380, people didn't know Airbus that well.
So even the A380 made more sense than the B777-x is making today.

[sn-remember]

To Flanker2
I am not sure I can agree with you ...
The 777-9X has now 259 orders and it's just launched ...
So the order book speaks, with launch customers ranging from the ME3 to LH and CX.
Sales projections show a big future demand for large aircrafts ... true, the range the X versions offers may be seen as "overkill" (specially the 8X which is a niche a/c) however the positive side of it is verstility .. same a/c type or similar types (8X and 9X) for varous missions, some carriers appreciate that provided the cost is acceptable. That's why, like Aboulafia I think
a) there is a demand for the 400 pax longhaul a/c (however we agree the ULH market is tiny, ie the 777-8X is not/will not be the star seller contrary to the 9X)
b) Airbus should have addressed since 1 yr at least IMO this market segment by proposing a double stretch of the A359. What I wanted to discuss here is the feasability of such a further stretch (the so called A35K). If it's "à la 346", forget it. My feeling is it should be feasable but Airbus overlooked the potential of such an a/c. Another related question is : is there place for 2 manufacturers in this segment ? My feeling is that if the 350K is not too expansive to produce and efficient, it should be considered.
PS It's rare I find an a/c ugly and certainly not the A350

[Flanker2]

At this stage, we can only debate opinions.

For me however, this aircraft has become a niche aircraft designed for the ME3.
EK has 50% of the order book, QR another 17% and I expect TK to order at least 50 of them.
For the rest, it will be the typical Asian and European majors orderig 20 each and that will be it.
But I'm not sure we'll see BA, SQ order it, just as JL strayed away. Also, AF/KL will be in doubt.

For European carriers, this aircraft only makes sense on the routes you're operating to the U.S. West Coast or with a lot of cargo from Asia.

BA has also said that they're not impressed at all and they chose the A35J which IMO is the much better aircraft. The A35J is comparable in capacity to the B777-8X but will be much lighter and more fuel efficient. On a widebody, that makes a world of difference.
The B777-9X will carry more pax than the A35J but it will burn more fuel too.

I also think that Airbus has already given in so much to make the A35J suit the ME3. It's kind of crazy that EK is walking away after forcing Airbus to make it heavier.

The B777 series is selling well even despite the A350XWB launch.
Boeing should have gone with weight savings, a NEO and a single stretch instead of going with an all-new family of aircraft that is too much of a niche of an aircraft with too little parts and structures commonality with the current B777 family. This new niche will push more customers towards the A35J as I'm not sure that the current B77W will still remain available.

For me this move is similar to the launch of the B748i. Too much of a niche and better options out there. Some dumb ones will order it, but for most it's too much aircraft. I think that EK will regret their decision someday when they realise that they forgot one important factor: new competitors.

An A350 double stretch might be a viable response, but it seems that the B777-x already captured most of this niche, so I doubt it will be that good.

I think that with the B787-10, Boeing wanted to move up their B777 offering so that there is no overlap and they cover it all. I think that it's a mistake because the B77W size is a sweet spot and not many airlines are able to fill larger aircraft while offering acceptable frequencies.

[sn-remember]

- The 777-9X is not a clean sheet design. It will basically be a third stretch within the 777 family, with a new wing concept and a neo.
- JAL went for the A35J, but ANA ordered the 777-9X.
http://bloga350.blogspot.be/2014/03/why ... 77-9x.html
- the 777-9x will be the only true 747 replacement and will kill de facto the 747-8 (which will stay as a cargo lifter)
- LH is an interesting case since they ordered the A359 and J plus the 747-8 plus the 777-9X. Many obervers believe they might get rid of the 747-8 earlier than anticipated.
- It seems airbus didn't go fully on EK's wishes regarding the specs of the 35J. Tim Clark once said it was "too heavy" .. What's the real significance of this past comment (2011) is anybody's guess.
..
So if 3 stretches are feasable from the 777-200 platform, why was airbus so reluctant doing something similar from the A359 platform ? Maybe they sticked too long to the still born A358 model ?

[flightlover]

The 747-8F is to much of an aircraft for most routes as well.

Just as the T7 was some sort of 747 killer with heavier demand being answered by the A380. The freighter version is killing the 747-8F as well.
Many of the 747-8F frames build are now being stored due to the harsh freighter market.

With a payload of over 100t over even a longer range for the T7. Only the special freight that can not be loaded through a side cargo door justifies the nose load capability. And maybe on some routes the higher payload/volume comes in handy as well from time to time. But I don't see such a big future for this type.

As the passenger versions of the T7 get older I guess a few will be converted to freighters as well. It will have a bit of payload restrictions vs a purpose build frame. However it is just seen as 'extra' longevity for the frame and thus way cheaper than a brand new frame. Just as happened with the 747.

Unless Boeing is going to give some nice discounts, the whole 747-8 program can become a costly mistake.

[quixoticguide]

Emirates simply prefers the larger A380 to the A350. “This is not about demand”

Emirates has not said much about why it cancelled its order for 70 Airbus A350s, but a senior executive from the Dubai-based airline speaking to analysts and reporters last week in New York shortly after the cancellation was announced offered some insight.

Emirates EVP-service departments Nigel Hopkins emphasized that the airline had not changed its view about future passenger demand in the Middle East. The A350 cancellation “has nothing to do” with Emirates downgrading its demand forecast, he said. “This is not about demand,” he made a point of saying. “We’re absolutely optimistic about the future.”

But Hopkins did say Emirates increasingly sees the “flexible” A380 facilitating future growth because the aircraft’s large capacity allows it to operate to slot-constrained major airports –as Heathrow- and generate around the same revenue with 1 flight as 2 flights using a smaller A350.

“Emirates has just 5 slots at Heathrow, but we’ve grown revenue using the A380 on London flights and we couldn’t do that with other aircraft” Hopkins explained.

Unlike the rest of the airline industry, Emirates simply prefers the larger A380 to the A350.

http://m.atwonline.com/blog/why-did-emi ... ncel-a350s