TexasGuy wrote:hmmmm.....maybe we will see a return of the trijets. I always thought it was a mistake for Boeing to cancel the 3 engine MD 11. They should have focused some attention on improving a new design for passengers while selling a cargo version until the new passenger version was ready. Maybe Airbus is considering 3 engines instead os 2 or 4. This is getting very interesting :):)
....
How could cancelling a plane that was not selling (Mc-11) and loosing money be a mistake?
The sales were picking up. I think the reason Boeing got rid of it was because it was competing with the new, at the time, 777. They should have kept it going to further expand the aircraft seat market
Also it should have been continued because im biased towards the MD 11.
Was a very nice program on Discovery Wings Channel a few years ago that dealt with the MD 11 and other widebody trijets. Very interesting
Theres nothing better than slow cooked fall off the bone BBQ, Texas style
TexasGuy wrote:The sales were picking up. I think the reason Boeing got rid of it was because it was competing with the new, at the time, 777.
The only customer who didn't want the MD11 line to close was LHcargo IMHO, and that wasn't enough to keep it open. With the arrival of the A300, B767 & B777, there simply wasn't any place left for the tri-jets. Add to that the fact that the MD11 missed most of it's promised goals, and had some major issues in the beginning, and it's fate was doomed...
Don't get me wrong, my desktop proudly shows a Thai MD11, I'm a big fan of her! But she never had the chances she deserved because the design was fundamentally flawed (3 engines when the rest had 2 and missing most promised specs).
It's obvious Boeing didn't buy MD for it's commercial department, but for it's extensive military projects though...
I have to agree....it's a love it or hate it plane and I think it looks great. I have no idea how it flies or what it costs. I just like the way it looks.
It did finally live up to its promises with all the corrections....just wasnt given a chance to survive. Boeing stopped marketing it, instead swaying customers to the 777. If you have Discovery Wings Channel, you will see the program. Its very interesting especially if you love airplanes :):):):)
....
Theres nothing better than slow cooked fall off the bone BBQ, Texas style
smacDC-10 wrote:Boeings mistake was not keeping the tooling for the MD-11. The USAF would for sure prefer a tri jet verses a twin to replace it's aging tanker fleet!
It's not like they can start building again tomorrow had they kept the tooling... It's the supply chain that's important. All suppliers have stopt making parts. Getting them to restart production is a lot harder...
Why would they want a trijet? A twin is just as reliable, and even the USAF will have to think of maintenance and costs at some point...
Airbus' parent company EADS lost more than 30% of it's market value since the news that the A380 has again been delayed...
The stock has gone from over 35 on march 27 to under 17 today... That's more than 50% reduction in less than 3 months!
Well, it's probably a good chance to buy some EADS shares now!
The A380 will not be a problem if it meet its specs, it has virtually no competitor and orders will just keep rolling in provided it meet its specs...
I still think their bigger problem is with the new 370 where most of the revenue is generated from... but they are only giving themselves a 2 year delay to make something that HAS TO be significantly better than the 777 and better than 787 with a higher weight...
smacDC-10 wrote:How much better can the 370 be with today's existing technology?
That is the problem Airbus and Boeing are having with the A320/B737 replacements. They can't push the envolope far enough to make airlines interested.
Personally I don't think the A350/A370 has to be signifigantly better than the 777. It has to be as good as the 787 and I think that would be good enough for airlines who want to replace their A330/A340s. Boeing hit the perfect price/performance point with the B787 and I don't think they can do much better.
quote="JoeCanuck"]You may be right...but I think the best proof is the 737. The development costs of the 350 are not nearly as high as the 787. It'll be a cheaper plane to make so they can discount it more.
quote
Let's take a look at some numbers. Assume that the market for a plane is 2000 units and the cost to develop a new replacement plane is $12 billion. One manufacturer already has 400 orders, is well into the design and contracting phases, and will start deliveries 3-4 years ahead of the other. The other manufacturer has 140 orders, but is now weighing to not develop the planes under contract and instead develop another (not good for customer relations!). If they decide to develop another plane, they risk the loss of some of the current orders. If they don't develop a new plane, they risk future orders due to rising fuel costs and airline's needs to reduce operating costs.
The second manufacturer now has to amortize the $12 billion over a smaller possible base, so their R&D costs per plane will be higher. If Boeing has (approx.) 400 787's order today and they based their R&D recovery costs over 500 units, they are almost there, well before the plane's first flight.
Airbus will have higher costs due to inflation and materials cost increases, so it will have to either (1) amortize the R&D costs over more aircraft, (2) hope for a larger than a 2000 plane market (I know Boeing is estimating a 3000+ market, but the future is always uncertain), or (3) swallow the loss. None is especially welcome.
As for the plane that Airbus will offer as a replacement for the still-born A350, it will have to be competitive with the B787. They will have to get the weight down to Boeing's and, the range and passenger load to the same ability. This is a steep order unless Airbus adopts lightweight materials for the entire plane (either carbon fiber or another lightweight material - sorry, LiAluninum will not do it).
Boeing has managed to pick up some real gold card customers for the 787, Airbus needs to get the rest.
The airframe business is cyclical and several years ago, Airbus was on top. Now its' Bowings turn. Airbus needs to catch up with and surpass Boeing in order to keep the industry competitive.
The R&D has already been done on the 350...besides, since they're already conceding the #1 position to the 787, they're going to have to settle for #2, for now, and they know it.
All they have to do is take some of the upgrades from the 350, (engines, skin), bolt it onto the 330, and they'll be half way there. Since the 330 program was payed for long ago, the official development costs are peanuts compared to an all new plane.
It's not like they're going to stop making the 330. This way, instead of making a 787 killer, they are merely making an upgrade to an existing platform....one they can sell way cheaper than a 787.
It won't be a better plane; just a cheaper one. Not every customer can afford a Rolls....some are willing to settle for a chevy.
It'll be a piece of cake for airbus to do this compared to tooling up for the 350. This gives them some breathing room while they work on the plane, they hope, can take on the 787 and/or the 777.
edit....In my mind, a good auto comparison is the dodge ram truck. The diesel option is cheaper to run, but the gas version is cheaper to buy. It may take years of driving for the economy to make up the difference in price. Both, at least in Canada, sell very well. There's a market for efficient but there's also a market for cheap.
quote "It's not like they're going to stop making the 330. This way, instead of making a 787 killer, they are merely making an upgrade to an existing platform....one they can sell way cheaper than a 787. "
Again, how does one develop a "787 Killer" with existing technology? This phrase was recently coined by that Airplane Leasing guy that blasted Airbus for the 350. Perhaps if Airbus waited for the next cycle they can succeed in "killing" the 787. Let's be honest and recognize the reality of the Airbus situation. They lost to the 787, so perhaps the game plan should be getting the 380 in operation and hope no more delays anger more customers.
They lost to the 787, and they want to make something that will fight back, that is the current situation... but whether they can do it, is another question.
>>Again, how does one develop a "787 Killer" with existing technology?<<
I have no idea....I just said they'd try. The 787 is the top of the tech heap at the moment...I'm sure it'll be bested some time in the future.
While they're working on it, (and fixing whatever's wrong with the 380 program), they can sell a few updated 330's, make a few bucks, and keep the production lines going.
Not too long ago, (K767 and Sonic cruiser, to name a couple of reasons), pundits were sounding the Boeing death nell. Boeing was described as, (and I paraphrase), outdated, overburdened, egocentric and innefficiant.
Airbus was said to have all the right answers. Now, Boeing looks like they have the leg up and those same pundits are picking out headstones for Airbus.
I have no idea what they have up their sleeve and nobody else does either. It's all speculation. One thing I am sure of; Airbus will survive this.
:):)
