Farnborough Airshow 2006: orders, news, speculations
Moderator: Latest news team
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +A350.html
Will airbus demand its original customers to pay more for the XWB? I personally think that Airbus should sell them at the original A350 price, just as sacrifice for the delay of the aircraft, and a bonus to their early commitment to what was an inferior aircraft as opposed to the competing 787.
Will airbus demand its original customers to pay more for the XWB? I personally think that Airbus should sell them at the original A350 price, just as sacrifice for the delay of the aircraft, and a bonus to their early commitment to what was an inferior aircraft as opposed to the competing 787.
-
AirbusA350
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 10 Oct 2005, 00:00
.Will airbus demand its original customers to pay more for the XWB? I personally think that Airbus should sell them at the original A350 price, just as sacrifice for the delay of the aircraft, and a bonus to their early commitment to what was an inferior aircraft as opposed to the competing 787
CX, I agree with you on that, but I don't know if Airbus would want to incur loses by doing that. In a way, Airbus owes it to its customers for first proposing a bad product.
As I see from Airbus350's post, Airbus has done very well at the Airshow along with Boeing. The only negative so far has been the Qatar Airways mess, but both companies have done very well in the airshow. I wonder if there will be more orders this summer from companies like Lufthansa, British Airways, etc. Any thoughts?
Good news from Airbus was first flight of second SIA A380.Singapore Airlines orders nine additional A380s, plus six additional options, 20 A350-900XWB plus 20 options, and will lease 19 new A330-300s.
Airbus never said that. Leahy said a few weeks ago Airbus expects to sell 20 more A380s this year. No comment about A380 sales at the airshow was made.I thought Airbus said 25 A380 orders would be revealed at the airshow
Good news for Airbus
What about SIA's order of 40 B787s they intended a few months ago? Did SIA kill that order? Does it mean Airbus has already had firm specifications for A350 XWB? It was said they did not have firm specs at the show but it seems they do have now.
Good news for Airbus.
Good news for Airbus.
-
AirbusA350
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 10 Oct 2005, 00:00
I guess the SIA announcement caught all we pundits by surprise?
Wonder if the 9 x A380's are part of Leahy's 20 by years end?
The video of the Red Arrows in formation behind the A380 is fantastic, and makes a very good argument for reducing the proposed A380 separation distances to those of other large aircraft.
The SIA statement about their satisfaction with the A380's basic design says it all for those in our forum who unfairly put this great plane down based on emotions instaed of facts!
Cheers
Achace
Wonder if the 9 x A380's are part of Leahy's 20 by years end?
The video of the Red Arrows in formation behind the A380 is fantastic, and makes a very good argument for reducing the proposed A380 separation distances to those of other large aircraft.
The SIA statement about their satisfaction with the A380's basic design says it all for those in our forum who unfairly put this great plane down based on emotions instaed of facts!
Cheers
Achace
Singapore Airlines moves look to be an attempt to buck up Airbus.
Firstly the A350 in its current iteration is neither a 787 class, nor a 777 class, its in between. While its wider than the 787, its not much wider. It narrower than the 777.
It also highly undefined. That does not seem like a typical move by Singapore, who always has the screws down tight on technical specifications (and penalties). No announcement of what version (and being narrow than a 777, that leaves the freighter version suspect, as the can structure is not going to match.) Keep in mind that’s part of what Airbus faces with the A380, the worlds can structure has been defined by the 747.
I doubt you will see anyone buy the version at the top of the 787 class. Its just not going to be competitive. The 777 class version might be more interesting (though Boeing is already talking about upgrades to the 777 to keep up).
So, does the A350 wind up in Singapore lease fleet?
The other move on the A380 I think is more definitive. Airbus has Singapore pilots on the various proving flights. It must be meeting their specifications or I think they would be moving to the 747. However, based on what’s going on, I suspect you will see Singapore order the 747-8 to keep Airbus honest. I still find it hard to believe that they are meeting performance specifying after all the modifications it had to go through (and that’s on top of an already highly aerodynamically compromised wing that should have been longer, but had to fatter to keep within the 80 meter airport box). We should start hearing in the next few months in the performance speciation and range regard. I still think its going to be short.
As for the Jumbo freighters, I think it proving to be Boeing all the way. UPS and FedEx have unique needs (and oddly a totally different can structure, but then UPS is a bit strange with the odd size 767 in their fleet). Upshot is that they are the only two who carry a lot of bulky parcels, the rest need the ability to carry dense cargo loads, not lighter bulk.
Boeing did a check up here in Anchorage and confirmed the weights are staying high, despite the massive increased freight flow. Also, part of the Airbus A380 equation is the better range. It does not work or is not needed for how the freighters operate. Boeing ran the design variations through, and that’s why they came up with the longer 747 freighter (initially, now there is talk of the 747-8 pax being longer as well). Upshot is that the freighters are setup for the existing stage lengths, and they would rather haul the heavy freight and refuel (or it pays to do that) than to try to move less freight further. Keep in mind that crew exchanges are setup in places like Anchorage as well (I gather it does not pay to have multiple crews on air freight runs).
It probably makes sense, Emirates needed a lot more definition of what they would get, and were not getting those details, so they gave up the 2 freighters (and took pax as I understand it) . UPS and FedEx may not care nearly as much about the definitions, as long as they have the volume (they will stop in Anchorage for the Pacific routes). Keep in mind that FedEx was right in line as the pax airlines with the MD11 freighter (bought brand new initially for the first 10 or so as I recall). It was for the volume, not the distance. UPS suddenly jumped into the market last year and is running a lot of those through Anchorage now as well (including a lot of white tails).
Firstly the A350 in its current iteration is neither a 787 class, nor a 777 class, its in between. While its wider than the 787, its not much wider. It narrower than the 777.
It also highly undefined. That does not seem like a typical move by Singapore, who always has the screws down tight on technical specifications (and penalties). No announcement of what version (and being narrow than a 777, that leaves the freighter version suspect, as the can structure is not going to match.) Keep in mind that’s part of what Airbus faces with the A380, the worlds can structure has been defined by the 747.
I doubt you will see anyone buy the version at the top of the 787 class. Its just not going to be competitive. The 777 class version might be more interesting (though Boeing is already talking about upgrades to the 777 to keep up).
So, does the A350 wind up in Singapore lease fleet?
The other move on the A380 I think is more definitive. Airbus has Singapore pilots on the various proving flights. It must be meeting their specifications or I think they would be moving to the 747. However, based on what’s going on, I suspect you will see Singapore order the 747-8 to keep Airbus honest. I still find it hard to believe that they are meeting performance specifying after all the modifications it had to go through (and that’s on top of an already highly aerodynamically compromised wing that should have been longer, but had to fatter to keep within the 80 meter airport box). We should start hearing in the next few months in the performance speciation and range regard. I still think its going to be short.
As for the Jumbo freighters, I think it proving to be Boeing all the way. UPS and FedEx have unique needs (and oddly a totally different can structure, but then UPS is a bit strange with the odd size 767 in their fleet). Upshot is that they are the only two who carry a lot of bulky parcels, the rest need the ability to carry dense cargo loads, not lighter bulk.
Boeing did a check up here in Anchorage and confirmed the weights are staying high, despite the massive increased freight flow. Also, part of the Airbus A380 equation is the better range. It does not work or is not needed for how the freighters operate. Boeing ran the design variations through, and that’s why they came up with the longer 747 freighter (initially, now there is talk of the 747-8 pax being longer as well). Upshot is that the freighters are setup for the existing stage lengths, and they would rather haul the heavy freight and refuel (or it pays to do that) than to try to move less freight further. Keep in mind that crew exchanges are setup in places like Anchorage as well (I gather it does not pay to have multiple crews on air freight runs).
It probably makes sense, Emirates needed a lot more definition of what they would get, and were not getting those details, so they gave up the 2 freighters (and took pax as I understand it) . UPS and FedEx may not care nearly as much about the definitions, as long as they have the volume (they will stop in Anchorage for the Pacific routes). Keep in mind that FedEx was right in line as the pax airlines with the MD11 freighter (bought brand new initially for the first 10 or so as I recall). It was for the volume, not the distance. UPS suddenly jumped into the market last year and is running a lot of those through Anchorage now as well (including a lot of white tails).
Looks like I need to eat a bit of crow. I had not seen the details that were in the Flight Global link.
So, it’s the –900 A350. And 20 options. Even buy for Boeing and Airbus. I think RR is the only one offering an engine on the aircraft right now (GE and PW have to be leery with it still being on paper).
I think the part about guaranteed performance specs is most interesting. They don’t even have a fully developed plan and they are offering performance specifications? Phew, sounds like there are massive offset, penalties and other innovative penalties for non performance. Singapore doing all it can to keep Airbus in the game (maybe they will lend them the money to produce the thing!)
Agreed the A380 problems are production and not technical (right now). Those nasty technical issues raise their ugly head either early, or after you start working the Airplane continuously (i.e. the Commet).
So, it’s the –900 A350. And 20 options. Even buy for Boeing and Airbus. I think RR is the only one offering an engine on the aircraft right now (GE and PW have to be leery with it still being on paper).
I think the part about guaranteed performance specs is most interesting. They don’t even have a fully developed plan and they are offering performance specifications? Phew, sounds like there are massive offset, penalties and other innovative penalties for non performance. Singapore doing all it can to keep Airbus in the game (maybe they will lend them the money to produce the thing!)
Agreed the A380 problems are production and not technical (right now). Those nasty technical issues raise their ugly head either early, or after you start working the Airplane continuously (i.e. the Commet).
I dont' think that the SIA order for A350s was simply to keep Airbus in the game, i mean it has always been said before that while the 787-9 will not overlap the 777-200 market, the original A350-900 would, and hence why Boeing wanted a 787-10X or whatever they dubbed it, so I still see these -900XWBs as 772 replacements. As to why they ordered the plane without full details, well you never know what Airbus provided to the airlines. Actually i don't find how SIA is keeping Airbus in the game by ordering the A350 earlier than October when the firm specs will be revealed.. Maybe a small influence is how Airbus 'listened' to SIA..
I agree with CX, this order was not to buck up Airbus at all. I think SQ found a plane that is ideal to replace the older B772, I think specifications on the A350XWB for SQ will be known in the next few months. As I said here when SQ signed a MoU with Boeing on purchasing the 787, if Airbus came up with an answer that could satisfy SQ, they would order the plane, and from what I see, they did it. I mean, I don't like to brag, but...I told you so 