Airbus A350XWB Version 29

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 28 Jan 2007, 17:14

David747 wrote:
RC20 wrote: The difference between the Sonic Cruiser and the A350 trail of tears is that the Sonic Cruiser was based on a technological leaps. The A350 iterations are a trail of being out of touch, and they still have not made the leap they need (at least officially). Airbus is till out of touch, or they would have not tried to do the composite panels (and explains whey no orders for it). No one dragged Boeing into it, actually Boeing drug the airlines into it (the it ain’t’ going to fly Sonic Cruiser and then the more acceptable 787 conventional)

Agreed that the A330+ would have been a stop gap, but at least it would sell and keep cash flowing during the heart of early 787 production and when other badly need the deliveries (a good aircraft is better than none, and it would have been good, just not nearly as good as the 787 if you could get it).

As for the 737/A320. You have stated before Airbus gets the engines first? Based on what?

How can Airbus do an A320 replacement, when it can't do a composite A350? An enhance A320 is????? So far they have not been able to come up with improvements enough to even justify that. It tells you a lot about the design abilities between the two companies that Boeing could make a 1960s technology not only competitive, but slightly better than the A320.

Airbus could announce an A320 improved, or replacement, and Boeing would still beat them to the market by 2 years (replacement) if they announced the next day, and you can bet they are ready (though they may prefer to keep refining). They could wait a year and beat them. They are inside the Airbus decision and execution cycle both (read John Boyd and air combat maneuvering theory and practice) Boeing has an experienced composite design team just about done with the heavy work, and could swing into 737 replacement (NG is the last improvement) any time. Airbus does an improved A320, and Boeing can wait until they are about to go into production and announce a 737 replacement, and the A320 would fall like the A330 did vs the 787.

I know some consider it Airbus bashing, but its cold hard fact, Airbus is in trouble, and they continue to be arrogant in telling airlines what’s good for them, they obviously have not listened. (there is a huge difference between letting someone talk and actually listening).

My take on it, is that Airbus should have dropped all pretense, gone with a 787 like A320 replacement, got the experience, and picked which aircraft to target (787 or 777) and had the design team tackle that as soon as they were done with A320 duties.

As it stands, inside of 10 years, Airbus will be a 25% market player. Maybe less.
This must be a first, but I agree with this entire post.

I also agree.

Airbus did actually announce an A320 enhanced (with winglets, new engines and some other improvements), but after only a few months, work was already stopped. As I said in an earlier post, Airbus is going downhill.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 28 Jan 2007, 17:41

I think that most viewers and contributors to this forum will agree that Airbus is in dire straits, and the unfortunate thing about this decline is the enormous amount of people and suppliers who have and will continue to suffer.

The employees of Airbus and their suppliers all around the world have taken the brunt of this sad decline, and have been expected to wait on the sidelines while the various levels of all the involved governments attempt to come to some acceptable political compromise that will please all the players.

Therein lays the problem, there are far to many cooks in the kitchen, they can't decide on the menu, and who's going to serve the meal. bad decisions and indecisions as mentioned on previous post have killed the ability of Airbus to formulate a sound plan for the future.

Political interference, nepotism, failure to communicate, failure to listen, tunnel vision, all these and many more have contributed to the decline of Airbus.

Whats the cure? Sale of EADS and Airbus to public shareholders, get rid of all government involvement in the enterprise, and let it stand on its own.

Just my humble opinion

KT

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 28 Jan 2007, 20:42

Let's not exacerate the situation, shall we?

Airbus may have some product problems, and in market share the situation may look problematic, but in real numbers they are still going much stronger than Boeing a few years back, simply because they keep selling planes in faboulously large numbers.

Last years catastrophic year actually was Airbus second best in terms of sales and their 4th best in terms of generated revenu, so anybody seriously thinking they are in dire straits is out of his minds...

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 29 Jan 2007, 00:37

tolipanebas wrote:Let's not exacerate the situation, shall we?

Airbus may have some product problems, and in market share the situation may look problematic, but in real numbers they are still going much stronger than Boeing a few years back, simply because they keep selling planes in faboulously large numbers.

Last years catastrophic year actually was Airbus second best in terms of sales and their 4th best in terms of generated revenu, so anybody seriously thinking they are in dire straits is out of his minds...

I agree. They will solve the problems with A380 soon and start coming up with a firm design of A350. Even though the A350 program starts late but Airbus will be doing fine in the long run. Who could predict Airbus would become no 1 airframe manufacturer 30 years ago? They came out very late in the game but they beat all the odds and very successful. Look at Boeing 5/6 years ago;people started talking about the demise of Boeing and now Boeing comes back strong, so will Airbus, I believe.

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 29 Jan 2007, 00:59

boeing797 wrote:
tolipanebas wrote:Let's not exacerate the situation, shall we?

Airbus may have some product problems, and in market share the situation may look problematic, but in real numbers they are still going much stronger than Boeing a few years back, simply because they keep selling planes in faboulously large numbers.

Last years catastrophic year actually was Airbus second best in terms of sales and their 4th best in terms of generated revenu, so anybody seriously thinking they are in dire straits is out of his minds...
I agree. They will solve the problems with A380 soon and start coming up with a firm design of A350. Even though the A350 program starts late but Airbus will be doing fine in the long run. Who could predict Airbus would become no 1 airframe manufacturer 30 years ago? They came out very late in the game but they beat all the odds and very successful. Look at Boeing 5/6 years ago;people started talking about the demise of Boeing and now Boeing comes back strong, so will Airbus, I believe.

I don't see any concrete "facts" on the horizon supporting this ...Hence for me this is still "whisful" thinking..

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 29 Jan 2007, 01:24

The A380 will never generate the revenue that a A350 will so if Airbus can get the A350 out the door and sales rival the 787 (from that point forward, not total sales) they'll be back in business. If the A350 fails or limps along, they will be in trouble in the short term while the look how to leapfrog the B777/787.

I still haven't heard anything from us about the "new" A350. I suspect after the 1st and when the Delta thing resolves itself one way or another we'll see an announcement. I suspect the only reason we are holding off is to not cause problems with Boeing in case we need their help to close off the deal. US will move forward with lots of cash to buy new airplanes. I will be a good time for Airbus IMO.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 29 Jan 2007, 02:18

tulipanes wrote:Let's not exacerate the situation, shall we?

Airbus may have some product problems, and in market share the situation may look problematic, but in real numbers they are still going much stronger than Boeing a few years back, simply because they keep selling planes in fabulously large numbers.

Last years catastrophic year actually was Airbus second best in terms of sales and their 4th best in terms of generated revenu, so anybody seriously thinking they are in dire straits is out of his minds...

I think you meant "exacerbate"

My comments were not to make things seem any worse than they are but rather to examine the causes, which I stated clearly.

Comparisons to what Boeing did years ago has no relevance, theirs was a completely different kettle of fish, as many have stated the concept of the A380 was ill thought out, and most of that was caused by not listening to their customers, and not looking at load factors on high cap routes. If you want to build a plane of that size you should make sure there is a demand.

Even before all the problems started cropping up the sales for the A380 were flat, and the outlook for the future was not rosy. the delays just made things worse, Boeing was in the fortunate position of having a very fuel efficient twin with adequate seat capacity to overtake the A340 which of course suffered.

Now those A380 customers are buying 777's to fill in the shortfall they need for expansion, some even are going to the 747I.

On the subject of the A350, the airlines are going to wait how long for Airbus to come up with a firm design????

The answer is "not very long at all"

Time marches on, expansion is ramping up demand, they must line up aircraft now, older airframes must be replaced, they don't wait.

Airbus must concentrate what it is doing well, and that's 320's and 330's and planning now to update both of them, Boeing has already begun preliminary planning for a composite 737, Southwest has told them what they want, and Boeing's listening, Airbus must do the same.

Airlines plan 10 to 20 years ahead, they allow for route expansion, equipment retirement, and on and on, they have to know whats in the pipeline.

It looks like Airbus have seen the light!

http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Aviation/10100141.html

achace · Post by **achace** » 29 Jan 2007, 02:51

I dont think the design freeze is due on the 350 until next year, so plenty of time to float ideas as long as the tooling industry can cope (winding machines, autoclaves etc.)

Some of the 380 knockers forget their history.

Most of the worlds major long haul carriers joined a committee to define what is now the 380, and most of them ordered.(JAL is a notable exception)

Most important point was a 15% reduction in DOC, which had to be a guarantee by Airbus, and not one passenger version has been cancelled, in fact quite the reverse, suggesting this has been achieved despite being overweight.

Hub and spoke operations will always have a place, and congestion will give the 380 its market, and I think it will make money.

Cheers
Achace

smacDC-10 · Post by **smacDC-10** » 29 Jan 2007, 07:05

What if China starts to build airliners? Airbus would go under just like Mcdonnel Douglas did.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 29 Jan 2007, 07:36

This talk that Airbus will go the way of McDonnell Douglas :cry2: is a bit premature. Now, with the A380, Airbus has managed to fix their wiring problems with the airplane, and after the 26 plane rolls off the line, according to what I have read, production will go on smoothly. A350 is a different story. When Airbus finally decides on the final design of the airplane, it would most likely get some orders, but in the mean time, Airbus will be behind Boeing for sometime to come, with that being said, Airbus's hope at the moment is the A380, and IMO, once that plane enters service, there will be enough customers for Airbus to break even, if not, then we can start to talk about Airbus going the way of McDonnell Douglas.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 31 Jan 2007, 05:43

Now I have to look back and see where I went wrong (grin). Thank you for the compliments.

For those not familiar with John Boyd, the was the first person who scientificaly worked out the theory of what now called air combat maneuvering.

A big part of that is understanding your aircraft, as well as the opponents aircraft, what yours can do, versus his, and to do what yours does best, vs his. He actually graphed it on paper, and you could see it on a chart. He was also the one who made it clear that US fighters were headed in the wrong direction, that they were moving to having ALL areas inferior to the Russian designs.

Inherent in this is you throw your advantages so fast at him, that you get inside his decision loop, i.e. he cannot keep up with that, and basically locks up.

Carried into business, is what Boeing has done. That went back to the 777 when they went to all computer design systems. That was one building block, the Sonic Cruiser technology was another, and the last one is a shorter design cycle (mostly a result of the computer systems).

You wind up with the equivalent of a Zero fighter (great machine) against a Hellcat. Amongst other things, as long as they could keep the speed up, the Zero could not turn inside of them, let alone out dive etc.

It does not mean the Zero did not win some fights, but you had to very very good, and pick your fights. If Airbus is to stay remotely competitive, they are going to have to do that. It means giving up some market segments. It may mean abandoning the A380 (if its not going to pay cash for 20 years, it’s a drain). Extremely tough corporate decisions.

Boeing faced that as well. If the 787 had flopped, they likely were going to pull out the business. There simply was not any gain in “me slightly better” aircraft. Not often that you can pull a technological coup that sets you up for the

CX · Post by CX » 31 Jan 2007, 13:26

While there might be a little bit of 'greed' within Airbus to build the A380, the A380 isn't really a market failure, it is a plane that sells and will sell, so i don't really agree they build it to be 'slightly better'.. (or else why is Boeing pushing the 748I into the same category as the A380?)

Where was it said that the A320 developments has stopped?

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 31 Jan 2007, 13:39

I still don't get that some people on this forum still claim there is no demand for the A380. Air traffic is predicted to double by 2020. Will they all fly in 737 and 787?

Airbus has had a lot of problems with it, and it is true they made a mistake by not focussing on the A350 more, but airplanes like the A380 will be needed in the not so distant future, no doubt about it.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 31 Jan 2007, 15:13

tolipanebas wrote:Let's not exacerate the situation, shall we?

Airbus may have some product problems, and in market share the situation may look problematic, but in real numbers they are still going much stronger than Boeing a few years back, simply because they keep selling planes in faboulously large numbers.

Last years catastrophic year actually was Airbus second best in terms of sales and their 4th best in terms of generated revenu, so anybody seriously thinking they are in dire straits is out of his minds...

Airbus's problems are not reflected in sales numbers, rather it is the sales mix that indicates the depth of the problem. A large number of A320 sales does not equal the revenue or profits of a smaller number of wide-bodies. As of several years ago (I am not certain of the current situation), Cessna had produced more planes than all the world's manufacturers combined! Yet, no one seems to list them as a major producer.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 31 Jan 2007, 15:26

CX wrote:While there might be a little bit of 'greed' within Airbus to build the A380, the A380 isn't really a market failure, it is a plane that sells and will sell, so i don't really agree they build it to be 'slightly better'.. (or else why is Boeing pushing the 748I into the same category as the A380?)

Where was it said that the A320 developments has stopped?

It is not whether the A380 will sell, it is a question of whether it will sell fast enough (at a profit) to recoup the massive investment over the past number of years. Factoring in the time value of money, they probably need to reach break-even by 2013, which means that they need to sell another 300 in the next 5-6 years.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 01 Feb 2007, 00:41

OK maybe not, we'll see:

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/air ... -a350.html

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 01 Feb 2007, 04:58

Agreed. Design freeze is two years off (deliberately I think). That’s a long time for the airlines to have to wait. We all heard those same statements from Airbus before (we are not changing) and when the big guns weighed in and went public, they changed it.

Realistically it seems they have to. Boeing has the option of one of two versions of the 787-10 at the –900 segment.

No one seems to think there’s a real advantage of CFRP skin, so Boeing would be able to compete on the higher end (and it would seem the A350-800 would not even be produced).

There are the contradictions from Emirates, when they want in service date of 2012, and telling Airbus to take their time. I would hazard that they have given up on a real competition when they need it, and just hoping to keep the price down with a threat of competition.

Long term, they certainly do want a competitive product. If the current proposal is built and becomes grossly obvious performance split (i.e. A340 vs 777 situation), then Boeing does not have to offer serious discounts. If you don't buy a 777, you are serious non competitive (and I understand that Finnair and Lufthansa seem to think they can make them it work,) but overall, it doesn't.

As Bits44 said, stay tuned, it should be very interesting. The 787 has to prove itself in the next year in all ways (getting itinto the air and production as well as fulfilling its performance specifications) and the A350 development.

And within the 787 are multiple stories beyond the immediately obvious technical end. How well the global supply chain works out, what happens if there is a strike or a natural even that hold it up, or simply unhappy suppliers.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 02 Feb 2007, 01:59

RC20 wrote: Long term, they certainly do want a competitive product. If the current proposal is built and becomes grossly obvious performance split (i.e. A340 vs 777 situation), then Boeing does not have to offer serious discounts. If you don't buy a 777, you are serious non competitive (and I understand that Finnair and Lufthansa seem to think they can make them it work,) but overall, it doesn't.

I am really confused as to what Airbus' game plan is. A recent story quotes an Airbus official saying that carbon panels (not a wound barrel fuselage) will be used on the A350XWB (story follows).

"Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Airbus denies CRFP barrel story on A350
According to Airbus North America Vice President - Communications Clay McConnell the rumors about the A350XWB fuselage being composite barrels are just rumors. "Composite panels are the way to go, and that's the way we're going."
Earlier there was a story by Geoffrey Thomas at ATW online that Airbus was doing trade studies on a solid barrel for the A350 hull."

It seem to be commonly accepted that carbon panels over an aluminum frame will be heavier. Also, Airbus will offer 1 aircraft (A350XWB) to match 2 Boeing (777/787) planes. It seems to me that this will put the new A350 at an efficiency disadvantage due to being heavier.

Airbus has some very talented engineers and production people and the company does not seem to have an overriding death wish (although they may be desparate to close the gap with Boeing).

What am I missing

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 02 Feb 2007, 06:27

I am really confused as to what Airbus' game plan is.

If you think you're confused! how do you think the airlines feel?

CX · Post by CX » 02 Feb 2007, 19:12

bits44 wrote:
I am really confused as to what Airbus' game plan is.

If you think you're confused! how do you think the airlines feel?

it was just some kind of random rumours that airbus would go for composite barrels... airlines probably wouldn't care about anything until Airbus presents them the plane... who is confused? yes, we are, but they are not..