I agree. Hence my former post (read above).
In my opinion it would be best for Airbus to launch 2 aircraft, one being a light medium range 200-300 seater and the other one being a heavier long-ultra long range 350-500 seater competing with both the 777 and 747-8. The latter aircraft should have a wider fuselage section than the current Airbus widebody lineup, if they want to keep the length within 80m.
But obviously it's not the course Airbus has taken for now...
As for the 772s being replacement, you're right, the older ones are only 12 years old now but in 5 years they will start to be replaced.
A350 needs revision?
Moderator: Latest news team
To be precise, in today's configuration the A350 incorporates about 80% new content. Not just the wing and cockpit are different.A390 wrote:Smokejumper,
To be correct the A350 is indeed a derivative of the A330, although with about 40 to 50% new content (mainly wings and A380 cockpit).
Remember that even if it retains the A330s fuselage section, the A350 is made of different materials. The gear is also new, and so is the interior layout.
I think Airbus' trouble stems a lot from the fact that the A350 looks too much like the A330, as opposed to the "brand new look" of the 787. At the time, no one complained that the 737NG looked virtually identical to the 737 "Classic". But Boeing hit right by creating all that buzz around the 787 and involving the internet community worldwide.
Never mind that the 787 doesn't look half as good and striking as the 7E7, Boeing managed to get in peoples mind that the 787 was a real innovation. And since airlines don't care about the looks of an aircraft as long as it delivers the right performance, everyone is happy.
In other words, Boeing has hit Airbus in one of their best skills: marketing.
So in my opinion Airbus is got some catching up to do in that respect with the A350 and in general.
Boeing managed to get in peoples mind that the 787 was a real innovation.
Are you arguing that it isn't a real innovation?? And back to the markets that you believe Airbus and Boeing are ignoring, I think the higher density (~250pax.) medium range (less than 3,000nm) is being ignored for a reason. It's a small market!! Why create an entirely new airplane for a market that isn't extremely profitable. I think both Boeing and Airbus would have keyed in on this idea if it were important. Their lack of interest shows that it may not be feasible to create such an airplane and have it be profitable. Many airlines these days are condensing their fleets to reduce costs. Adding another aircraft type would probably just complicate things while making it more expensive in their cost structure. This is why I'm almost positive that the airlines wouldn't buy into such a design if it did exist.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
Singapore Airlines has chimed in with their 2 cents worth.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe
Since I joined this group I have been saying that, and some have really dissed me for that as biased (and I am rooting for Boeing), but the analysis was solidly based.
This pretty well puts any question to rest, Airbus is in huge trouble. Note that Boeing has 300+ firm commitments for the 787, and Airbus has 90, and you now have to wonder if the “pending” sales are going to disappear as well. That’s almost the 25% market ILFC predicted.
Now lets see how they handle adversity (Airbus) as they were really good at handing out the crud when Boeing was shooting itself in the foot.
Its easy when you hit a lucky streak (backed by some very good products), but when you shoot yourself in the foot with beyond abysmal corporate planning, this is the result.
The laughed at Boeing and the Sonic cruiser, failing in their egotism to see the beginning of a game changing idea.
I predict a huge corporate shakeup at Airbus (though its going to be put in terms like “I want to spend more time with my family”). If they have any sense they will bring back some of the old hands they threw out.
Since I joined this group I have been saying that, and some have really dissed me for that as biased (and I am rooting for Boeing), but the analysis was solidly based.
This pretty well puts any question to rest, Airbus is in huge trouble. Note that Boeing has 300+ firm commitments for the 787, and Airbus has 90, and you now have to wonder if the “pending” sales are going to disappear as well. That’s almost the 25% market ILFC predicted.
Now lets see how they handle adversity (Airbus) as they were really good at handing out the crud when Boeing was shooting itself in the foot.
Its easy when you hit a lucky streak (backed by some very good products), but when you shoot yourself in the foot with beyond abysmal corporate planning, this is the result.
The laughed at Boeing and the Sonic cruiser, failing in their egotism to see the beginning of a game changing idea.
I predict a huge corporate shakeup at Airbus (though its going to be put in terms like “I want to spend more time with my family”). If they have any sense they will bring back some of the old hands they threw out.
bits44 wrote:Singapore Airlines has chimed in with their 2 cents worth.
I would say its more like 25 cents out of the commercial aircraft dollar (pie chart if you will).
Is there an airline that has better accreditation than Singapore? Not clout, respect.
One of the things I admired about them was their taking the A380 after they got hosed on the A340s. Still doing what they think is best for the airline, not being emotional about Airbus taking them to the cleaners (not to mention the debacle when Airbus said Boeing would not get parts for them if they took them in trade).
Back to the basics of the discussion. The A350 is a derivative of not the A330, but the A300/310. You can argue all you want, but it’s the same fuselage cross section and building methods from the A300. The materials may have changed, but its not nearly as wide as the 787, its no where near as lite, and it can’t haul nearly as much aux freight.
Also, its not electric. Same bleed air central hydraulic system as previously. It’s the ultimate in refinement, but as they found out after WWII, you could refine a prop job all you want, it wasn’t going to beat a jet. The A350 is the prop job, and will not beat the 787 (which has all the built in ability to continue to become more electric and therefore more advanced) where the A350 is the end of the line (if it even gets built in its current form).
A well built composite has advantage that the frame and skin construction cannot. Also keep in mind, that Boeing has probably overbuilt this one in their normal caution. Not a bad place to be in when you are going into new territory.
Notice too that the big order from Emirate has not come through. Firm orders to firm orders it stand at 90 for the A350, and 345 for the 787 (with enormous numbers of options on the 787). That’s 26% or the market share for the A350.
Emirate has already spoken on the A340, and their silence on the A350 is deafening.
Airbus would have to come up with a composite A340 replacement, a composite A350 replacement, and soon a composite A320 replacement. I would call that an unbridgeable chasm.
So now they have to decide where to start over again from. This time they will not take Boeing by surprise, and they will have to decide what limited area to compete in. Well on their way to a 25% total market share across the whole gambit (value and quantity).
All I'm saying is that the 787 retains a quite conservative shape (none of the spectacular features of the 7E7 project have been retained). Therefore that shouldn't be held agains the 350.Knight255 wrote:Boeing managed to get in peoples mind that the 787 was a real innovation.
Are you arguing that it isn't a real innovation?? And back to the markets that you believe Airbus and Boeing are ignoring, I think the higher density (~250pax.) medium range (less than 3,000nm) is being ignored for a reason. It's a small market!! Why create an entirely new airplane for a market that isn't extremely profitable. This is why I'm almost positive that the airlines wouldn't buy into such a design if it did exist.
As for the market, I may have not been clear. I agree that a 200-300 medium range family should have weight growth potential for a long haul version, otherwise it would be a small niche market.
But the market undeniably exists. Lufthansa still operates profitably its A300-600 on high density European routes. SIA has long been in search of a modern airplane sized as their former A310s. So has Emirates.
Moreover, the European skies are becoming increasingly congested and environmental issues are becoming crucial. So at some point it may become sensible to replace some of the current 100-180 aircraft by larger ones on the high density routes. It's already the case in Japan for example.
There's the market for a 200-300 aircraft, a sort of updated A300 concept. Boeing adresses that market with the 787-3 version. A proof they have identified a market. But its size makes it only fit for Japan. Ironically, Airbus was first on that market with the A300...
In the end, I think Airbus might be spending a few more billions to 'heavily modify' this current A350, like maybe a new wing and then modify the body to accomodate the new wing? It doesn't look too likely they'll spend another $8-10 billion to redesign the thing because if that thing fails, they'll be gone.. Furthermore it'll let Boeing to sell the 787s alone for an extra year or two...
But personally I think they should do it, bringing something out later and inferior to a competitor is pretty pointless..
But personally I think they should do it, bringing something out later and inferior to a competitor is pretty pointless..
@ SAS_MD80:
I think the markets in Europe and the U.S. are diverging. Here, the growth of the regional airline markets is amazing. A lot of the "Big Six" are shifting to their regional codeshares in an attempt to save money due to overcapacity in the system. American Eagle, ExpressJet, Comair, Pinnacle are all taking over markets where their mainline carriers once stood. While the actual operating costs of an ERJ-145 vs. an MD-80 might be more expensive, the overall airline cost structure for operating a regional jet rather than a larger jet (accounting for pilot/F.A. salaries, dispatcher salaries...) is actually cheaper. I expect to see a lot more regional jets here in the U.S. taking over the short and medium-haul markets. This is where my reasoning for the small market of the 250 pax. medium range came from.
I think the markets in Europe and the U.S. are diverging. Here, the growth of the regional airline markets is amazing. A lot of the "Big Six" are shifting to their regional codeshares in an attempt to save money due to overcapacity in the system. American Eagle, ExpressJet, Comair, Pinnacle are all taking over markets where their mainline carriers once stood. While the actual operating costs of an ERJ-145 vs. an MD-80 might be more expensive, the overall airline cost structure for operating a regional jet rather than a larger jet (accounting for pilot/F.A. salaries, dispatcher salaries...) is actually cheaper. I expect to see a lot more regional jets here in the U.S. taking over the short and medium-haul markets. This is where my reasoning for the small market of the 250 pax. medium range came from.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
@Knight255:
I agree 100% with you, the European and U.S. markets are different. In fact they have always been, probably because the U.S. market was a large unified market since the beginning.
I think it's interesting to go back to the time of the inception of the A300 and 767. The A300 and its 310 sibling were designed with the short-medium haul 200-280 pax market segment in mind. At the time, there were a large number of routes around the world that could need such an aircraft (for ex London-Paris, Paris-Frankfurt, or even Stockholm-Copenhagen and some domestic lines in France for example, where Air Inter was operating the A300 in a high density 280 pax configuration).
The traffic rights in Europe and in the U.S. were strictly regulated, and so were frequencies.
Remember that Boeing then launched the 767-200 as a competitor to the A310 (the 767-300 came later to compete against the well-installed A300). The specifications of the 767 were built after a UALs requirements for a modern twin-aisle aircraft seating 200-230 pax on U.S. transcontinental routes. UALs links with Boeing date back to the time when both companies formed in fact one single entity. UAL wanted the 767 to serve on its trunk lines from its main base in Chicago (there were no hubs in those days) and to replace its ageing DC8 fleet.
Had Boeing only stood by UAL's requirements, the 767 would have closely resembled the A300-310. Instead, Boeing decided to fit the 767 with a larger and thicker than required wing. Although it penalized the medium-haul versions (the first in revenue service) when opposed to the A300/310, it gave the 767 the "long legs" which in time (with the help of EROPs/ETOPs rules) made it possible for that aircraft to create the Intercontinental 200-250 pax market.
The Air Deregulation Act of 1979 created new competition and airlines progressively bought smaller aircraft. Later, at the end of the 90s, the scope clauses that limited regional jet aircraft fleets where amended and that made possible for the airlines to order large fleets of 100 pax aircraft (such as the E-190 or CRJ 900).
The European market is rather different. After 10 years during which the main (legacy) airlines have multiplied frequencies to better compete with the low cost airlines, the carriers are moving upmarket, and no longer buy aircraft such as the 736 and 318. SAS has resold some of its 736 (although it was the launch airline for the type), and Iberia has switched its order for the A318 to the larger 319. Airlines are also getting rid of the ERJ 135-145, because of their too high DOCs.
I'm not sure we'll see the same number of E-170-195 in Europe as in the U.S. Perhaps we will once the Eastern countries are fully integrated and Europe becomes a unified market like the U.S.
I agree 100% with you, the European and U.S. markets are different. In fact they have always been, probably because the U.S. market was a large unified market since the beginning.
I think it's interesting to go back to the time of the inception of the A300 and 767. The A300 and its 310 sibling were designed with the short-medium haul 200-280 pax market segment in mind. At the time, there were a large number of routes around the world that could need such an aircraft (for ex London-Paris, Paris-Frankfurt, or even Stockholm-Copenhagen and some domestic lines in France for example, where Air Inter was operating the A300 in a high density 280 pax configuration).
The traffic rights in Europe and in the U.S. were strictly regulated, and so were frequencies.
Remember that Boeing then launched the 767-200 as a competitor to the A310 (the 767-300 came later to compete against the well-installed A300). The specifications of the 767 were built after a UALs requirements for a modern twin-aisle aircraft seating 200-230 pax on U.S. transcontinental routes. UALs links with Boeing date back to the time when both companies formed in fact one single entity. UAL wanted the 767 to serve on its trunk lines from its main base in Chicago (there were no hubs in those days) and to replace its ageing DC8 fleet.
Had Boeing only stood by UAL's requirements, the 767 would have closely resembled the A300-310. Instead, Boeing decided to fit the 767 with a larger and thicker than required wing. Although it penalized the medium-haul versions (the first in revenue service) when opposed to the A300/310, it gave the 767 the "long legs" which in time (with the help of EROPs/ETOPs rules) made it possible for that aircraft to create the Intercontinental 200-250 pax market.
The Air Deregulation Act of 1979 created new competition and airlines progressively bought smaller aircraft. Later, at the end of the 90s, the scope clauses that limited regional jet aircraft fleets where amended and that made possible for the airlines to order large fleets of 100 pax aircraft (such as the E-190 or CRJ 900).
The European market is rather different. After 10 years during which the main (legacy) airlines have multiplied frequencies to better compete with the low cost airlines, the carriers are moving upmarket, and no longer buy aircraft such as the 736 and 318. SAS has resold some of its 736 (although it was the launch airline for the type), and Iberia has switched its order for the A318 to the larger 319. Airlines are also getting rid of the ERJ 135-145, because of their too high DOCs.
I'm not sure we'll see the same number of E-170-195 in Europe as in the U.S. Perhaps we will once the Eastern countries are fully integrated and Europe becomes a unified market like the U.S.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
With regards to the A-350, Airbus indeed faces a quandary, to spend many, many Euros, or to spend many, many, many Euros. Whichever route they take, it will cost a lot.
They’ve announced the 4th version of the A-350 and have sold about 100 (compared to Boeing’s much larger number). Since they were late to the party, I believe that Airbus has had to buy itself in and offer killer prices for a less competitive product.
Since they’ve sold 100 or so A-350’s, they have to either (1) deliver a less economically-competitive airplane, or (2) go to the customers and say “We are developing a better plane and will deliver it to you 4 years after Boeing’s 787 deliveries start (instead of the 2.5 years for the present A-350”.
If they proceed an deliver the presently contracted for A-350, the production run will be relatively small and the program may result in a loss; if they convince the customer’s to wait longer for a better plane, they will lose more market share and may have missed the boat for the mid-sized market. This is a real problem.
Clearly, a better airplane needs to be developed by Airbus for the mid-sized market, but at what cost and who pays. It is unfair for Airbus to continue receiving European government subsidies to develop new products, and the taxpayers of these supporting nations should be angry to have their taxes go to supporting an inefficient manufacturer.
I believe that EADS should replace the unsuccessful management of Airbus and reconsider their whole strategy.
They’ve announced the 4th version of the A-350 and have sold about 100 (compared to Boeing’s much larger number). Since they were late to the party, I believe that Airbus has had to buy itself in and offer killer prices for a less competitive product.
Since they’ve sold 100 or so A-350’s, they have to either (1) deliver a less economically-competitive airplane, or (2) go to the customers and say “We are developing a better plane and will deliver it to you 4 years after Boeing’s 787 deliveries start (instead of the 2.5 years for the present A-350”.
If they proceed an deliver the presently contracted for A-350, the production run will be relatively small and the program may result in a loss; if they convince the customer’s to wait longer for a better plane, they will lose more market share and may have missed the boat for the mid-sized market. This is a real problem.
Clearly, a better airplane needs to be developed by Airbus for the mid-sized market, but at what cost and who pays. It is unfair for Airbus to continue receiving European government subsidies to develop new products, and the taxpayers of these supporting nations should be angry to have their taxes go to supporting an inefficient manufacturer.
I believe that EADS should replace the unsuccessful management of Airbus and reconsider their whole strategy.
A report on BAE's reasons on their selloff of EADS stock sheds a little light on the A350 project.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... _page_id=2
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... _page_id=2
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
It would obviously be a problem for Airbus to lose some ground to the 787 for 4-5 years, but after all that's what Boeing did by sticking to the 767 when the A332 was launched. They went down to a 30% minus market share in that segment. That didn't kill them.smokejumper wrote:
if they convince the customer’s to wait longer for a better plane, they will lose more market share and may have missed the boat for the mid-sized market. This is a real problem.
Clearly, a better airplane needs to be developed by Airbus for the mid-sized market, but at what cost and who pays. It is unfair for Airbus to continue receiving European government subsidies to develop new products, and the taxpayers of these supporting nations should be angry to have their taxes go to supporting an inefficient manufacturer.
I believe that EADS should replace the unsuccessful management of Airbus and reconsider their whole strategy.
Aren't you mixing issues here? For starters, I think you should use the accurate terminology. Airbus receives refundable advances for part of the development cost of their programs. The taxpayers have actually so far nothing to complain about. The advances for the A300, 310 and 320 programs have been repaid in full and the A330/340 reimbursements are in line with the schedule.
In any event, I'm not sure this forum is the best place to discuss this kind of issue. Remember there's an ongoing arbitration procedure about Airbus refundable advances vs Boeing indirect state subsidies (through military programs and amazingly competitive Eximbank loans to foreign airlines buying Boeing aircraft... among others).
I believe you should also take in consideration the U.S. taxpayers.
Plus remember that both Airbus and Boeing share development costs of their aircraft with risk-partners, in some cases for up to 50% of the development costs. So in any case we're not talking 100% subsidies here, whatever the manufacturer.
Well the problem is, this is meant to be a A330 replacing aircraft, then how about the A340? At this moment it is pretty safe to infer that the A340 replacement will be once again based on the A350, but if the A350 is what it is now, then what is going to replace the A340 won't be anything too good either.. If the A340 replacer is a totally new plane with new fuselage/wings etc. then that will throw the A350 out..
I mean i dont' know Airbus' timetable, but it is again safe to infer that nothign will replace the A350 before the A340 comes out, and that just makes everything strange.. not to talk about their production cost will be much higher building 2 very different planes when in the past the A330 and A340 were built alongside.
I mean i dont' know Airbus' timetable, but it is again safe to infer that nothign will replace the A350 before the A340 comes out, and that just makes everything strange.. not to talk about their production cost will be much higher building 2 very different planes when in the past the A330 and A340 were built alongside.
I agree with you. Nonetheless, Boeing builds two aircrafts: the 736 (to be superseded by the 787) and the 777.
It would definitely be more expensive for Airbus to build two aircrafts to replace the 330/340. But it would also enable them to better cover the market, and especially to fill the gap between the 346 and the 388.
Don't you think so?
It would definitely be more expensive for Airbus to build two aircrafts to replace the 330/340. But it would also enable them to better cover the market, and especially to fill the gap between the 346 and the 388.
Don't you think so?
I think Airbus is missing the chance to get the aviation industry out of the steam age.
I cannot believe we still persevere with overhead luggage bins.
They are dangerous, unusable by the infirm or tiny people and they cause congestion when boarding or de-planing.
What is wrong with the idea of a completely new seat design with a foot-locker underneath for the passenger behind to store carry on bags.
Would certainly reduce delays, hernia's and "oops sorry did it hurt you" questions.
The lifejacket could be re-located into the back of the seat.
The likely result of this idea could be a raised floor level and increase in underfloor cargo space to make the accountants happy with more convenience for the passenger.
I cannot believe we still persevere with overhead luggage bins.
They are dangerous, unusable by the infirm or tiny people and they cause congestion when boarding or de-planing.
What is wrong with the idea of a completely new seat design with a foot-locker underneath for the passenger behind to store carry on bags.
Would certainly reduce delays, hernia's and "oops sorry did it hurt you" questions.
The lifejacket could be re-located into the back of the seat.
The likely result of this idea could be a raised floor level and increase in underfloor cargo space to make the accountants happy with more convenience for the passenger.
You're right, overhead bins are not the most practical system. However, they remain an efficient way to use available space in the cabin. And we all know that space is the main issue, because if you increase the available space it may be at the expense of the general efficiency of the aircraft.
So yes, Airbus should innovate, I agree with you. Wether it should be in the field of on-board luggage storage remains an open question.
So yes, Airbus should innovate, I agree with you. Wether it should be in the field of on-board luggage storage remains an open question.
To cover between the A346 and A388, Airbus must go double decker because even as long as the A346 and a maximum of 9 abreast seating in the economy class, will still be significantly smaller than the A388, i don't know what Airbus can do there to the 748, i don't believe they'll build something 11-abreast seating to replace the A340, especially when there will surely be smaller variants too.