Paris air show: Orders for Airbus

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 21 Jun 2007, 17:44

From previous postings, I understand that "der Spiegel" and "Spiegel on Line" may not be the most respected media, but in a current posting, they are carrying a story on the quality of recent aircraft sales. I agree with the story's conculsions. See:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/bus ... 75,00.html

regi · Post by **regi** » 22 Jun 2007, 00:10

The currency problem has 2 sides. Airbus can purchase now cheaper in dollar markets. And many systems + engines are US made.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 22 Jun 2007, 00:35

Never mind, the analyst who wrote that article is not a thinker.
He forgets that the A350 starts to fly by 2013, 5 years later than the dreamliner which is expected in 2008. This means it still has 5 years to even the score with dreamliner's actual sales number...

The A350 will by then become an ideal replacer for the B777 class as the range and passenger capacity is similar but the A350 will have better fuel-efficiency, better cabins, better technology. The 787 is in a different class as it has about the same range as the A350 and B777 but less pax capacity.
My opinion is that the A350 has better long-term prospects as it is good to have a B787 for a point-to-point operation, but what really matters on long-haul is maximum pax capacity.

If airbus and Boeing can both meet their expected performance, the A350 will carry 410 pax instead of the B787's 270 while burning only 5000 more US Gallons on a 8000Nm max. range trip.
In figures that comes to 50% more pax for only 15% more fuel...

And Airbus is giving a preformance warranty, means that airlines will be compensated if they can t meet the performances.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 22 Jun 2007, 01:03

GE and Airbus failed to reach an agreement for the A350 engine. This might delay ILFC orders who are interested in having an engine choice RR/GE/P&W.
Also P&W says the risk involved in developing a new fuel-efficient engine to A350 standards does not make it interesting for them.

This means that Airbus'es engine expectations are very high and that RR can cope with it within the given time. GE can't, which means A350's fuel efficienies will exceed that of the GEnx used on the 787...

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 22 Jun 2007, 01:50

Interesting, you'd think the idea of United buying the A350 would make P&W offer up an engine.

Andries · Post by **Andries** » 22 Jun 2007, 02:53

Quick summary of all Airbus Announcements (monday till thursday) based on the information found on www.airbus.com

A320 : 251 Firm + 107 MoU + 20 Options
A330 : 43 Firm + 34 MoU
A33F : 52 Firm
A340 : 4 Firm + 5 MoU
A350 : 143 Firm + 15 MoU
A380 : 3 Firm + 10 MoU

And the overview :

ACJ
***
1 (Firm) ACJ BAA Jet Management
1 (MoU) ACJ Hong Kong Airlines

A320
****
05 (Firm) Afriqiyah
14 (Firm) Avianca
25 (Firm) Mandala Airlines
25 (Firm) CIT Aerospace
25 (Firm) S7 Group
60 (Firm) US Airways
7 (Firm) ALAFCO
60 (Firm) GECAS
30 (Firm) Jazeera Airways
30 (MoU) Tiger Airways (+20 options)
30 (MoU) Hong Kong Airlines
20 (MoU) Kingfisher
4 (MoU) Lybian Airlines
5 (MoU) Ural Airlines
18 (MoU) Air France

A330
****
5 (Firm) Avianca (A330-200)
15 (Firm) Fly Asian Express (A330-300, firming up earlier MoU of 5)
8 (Firm) Thai Airways (A330-300)
5 (Firm) Etihad Airways (A330-200)
10 (Firm) US Airways (A330-200)
10 (MoU) Kingfisher (A330-200)
20 (MoU) Hong Kong Airlines
4 (MoU) Lybian Airlines (A330-200)

A33F
****
12 (Firm) Flyington Freighters (firming up earlier MoU of 6)
15 (Firm) Aircastle Limited
20 (Firm) Intrepid Aviation Group (firming up of earlier MoU)
2 (Firm) MNG Cargo (+1 option)
3 (Firm) Etihad Airways

A340
****
4 (Firm) Etihad Airways (A340-600)
5 (MoU) Kingfisher (A340-500)

A350XWB
*******
22 (Firm) Aeroflot (firming up earlier MoU)
22 (Firm) US Airways
7 (Firm) CIT Aerospace (firming up earlier MoU of 5)
12 (Firm) ALAFCO (firming up of earlier MoU)
80 (Firm) Qatar Airways (firming up of earlier MoU, 20x-800, 40x-900, 20x-1000)
5 (MoU) Kingfisher (A350-800)
6 (MoU) Afriqiyah
4 (MoU) Lybian Airlines

A380
****
3 (Firm) Qatar Airways
2 (MoU) Air France
8 (MoU) Emirates

Lots of allready known orders amoung these as lots of MoU's have been firmed up. Anyway, pretty impressive list if you ask me !

Greetz,

Andries

achace · Post by **achace** » 22 Jun 2007, 04:20

Obviously in a perfect world all customers would like an engine choice, but it has not hurt the B737 or the B777LR has it?

Cheers
Achace

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 22 Jun 2007, 04:42

article : Airbus fails to win over GE for alternate A350 engine

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ine21.html

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 22 Jun 2007, 05:19

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:Never mind, the analyst who wrote that article is not a thinker.
He forgets that the A350 starts to fly by 2013, 5 years later than the dreamliner which is expected in 2008. This means it still has 5 years to even the score with dreamliner's actual sales number...

The A350 will by then become an ideal replacer for the B777 class as the range and passenger capacity is similar but the A350 will have better fuel-efficiency, better cabins, better technology. The 787 is in a different class as it has about the same range as the A350 and B777 but less pax capacity.
My opinion is that the A350 has better long-term prospects as it is good to have a B787 for a point-to-point operation, but what really matters on long-haul is maximum pax capacity.

If airbus and Boeing can both meet their expected performance, the A350 will carry 410 pax instead of the B787's 270 while burning only 5000 more US Gallons on a 8000Nm max. range trip.
In figures that comes to 50% more pax for only 15% more fuel...

And Airbus is giving a preformance warranty, means that airlines will be compensated if they can t meet the performances.

Boeing can be expected to either replace the 777 or greatly improve it with new wing airfoil profiles, new engines, lower weight, new interiors, etc. in the next few years. And, after the 5 year lag (between B787 and A350 iintroductions) , Airbus will still have a less advanced airframe (as stated by Steven Udvar-Hazy of ILF) with carbon fiber panels stitched over conventional aluminum frames.

Even if the airframe is lighter than expected, periodic inspection and maintenance will be more frequent than for the all-composite wound-barrel fuselage B787. I fear that Airbus will not use these 5 years to get a truely 21st century plane.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 22 Jun 2007, 06:14

achace wrote:Obviously in a perfect world all customers would like an engine choice, but it has not hurt the B737 or the B777LR has it?

Of course one might read all this as GE & PW wanting to use the GP7000 and trying to force the EU to let them.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 22 Jun 2007, 09:09

Boeing can be expected to either replace the 777 or greatly improve it with new wing airfoil profiles, new engines, lower weight, new interiors, etc. in the next few years. And, after the 5 year lag (between B787 and A350 iintroductions) , Airbus will still have a less advanced airframe (as stated by Steven Udvar-Hazy of ILF) with carbon fiber panels stitched over conventional aluminum frames.

Well I agree 60% with you. You are right that the 777 will probably get an improvment or replacement.
About the 787 I'd rather opt for a design that has a bit of history than one that hasn't any.
For instance, imagine you got a bird-strike and a hole in your wing on your 787. You will have to fly the plane to a special entity in order to get it fixed. I don t think many maintainance hangars are equipped (maybe they will be progressively) with carbon-fiber stitching and baking systems. This is an issue of the B787... And bird-strikes are a frequent matter.
We can surely state the problem Boeing had with the Alenia-built 787 composite horizontal stabiliser's ability to withstand a bird-strike simulation:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 59c293a92c

I'm not a specialist but we can easily note the similarity between an airplane and a tennis-racket. Since decades rackets have been made from Aluminium-graphite-carbon fiber-titanium-tungsten and other stitched composites... Aluminium was the heaviest material, I agree, but it was just unbreakable. A tennis-racket is stressed while been played with. It curves and returns to its initial form.This is to compare with an airplane's cycle. Well, I can assure you that i've seen people break rackets without needing to hit them on the ground...After five years, a competition player's full composite racket will contain visible and unvisible cracks all over. Mostly it is the graphite and carbon parts that crack the first. I've once broken one new racket after 1 hour of playing, it was a carbon racket.
The problem with composite material is that a local crack or similar issue can not contain itself and it will in most cases spread itself all over.
Regular visual checks and scans will need to be made to ensure safety.

Give the B787 the time to perform its fatigue tests and fly around for one year without incidents.

After that, me and many tennis racket makers will dissolve our scepticism

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 22 Jun 2007, 12:41

-NAS for 20 A320
-SQ Firms up last year's order for 20 A350XWB

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 22 Jun 2007, 14:55

is it over???...i was expecting something huge on friday....

Ok it's not too bad but compared to the first four days...

....again....

CXRules · Post by **CXRules** » 22 Jun 2007, 15:25

Hong Kong Airlines' MOU with Airbus is interesting because it also has a MOU with Boeing to buy 30 B737 and 10 B787, which Boeing has yet to put it in their order book. I don't think they're going to firm both orders, so it will be interesting to see which one they'll sign as firm order.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_deta ... r=20070622

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 22 Jun 2007, 19:41

Hong Kong Airlines' MOU with Airbus is interesting because it also has a MOU with Boeing to buy 30 B737 and 10 B787, which Boeing has yet to put it in their order book. I don't think they're going to firm both orders, so it will be interesting to see which one they'll sign as firm order.

I hope everyone knows what an MOU is?

Its a non-binding expression of interest!

If you called IKEA and asked them to send you a catalog, that would almost be the equivalent of an MOU.

A LOI is almost as non-binding, usually with so many exit loopholes it may as well be an MOU.

Until someone issues a cheque to the manufacturer to buy a delivery slot, then its not an order. And after a certain period of time the deposit cheque is non-refundable.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 22 Jun 2007, 22:02

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:t the A350 will have better fuel-efficiency, better cabins, better technology. The 787 is in a different class as it has about the same range as the A350 and B777 but less pax capacity.
My opinion is that the A350 has better long-term prospects as it is good to have a B787 for a point-to-point operation, but what really matters on long-haul is maximum pax capacity.

If airbus and Boeing can both meet their expected performance, the A350 will carry 410 pax instead of the B787's 270 while burning only 5000 more US Gallons on a 8000Nm max. range trip.
In figures that comes to 50% more pax for only 15% more fuel...

And Airbus is giving a preformance warranty, means that airlines will be compensated if they can t meet the performances.

There is a lot of mixing comparisons here,.

Technology wise the A350 is a major open question. Basically it’s a half way move to what the 787 has done. The 787 has leaped so far ahead, Airbus cannot catch up and still get a plane out the door quickly.

Hazy has stated he does not like the mixed material approach, if they are going to go the panel route, he wants the stringers to be composite as well.

The other consideration is that the all of the A350 claims are talk, they have not frozen the design (2008), so you really don’t know what it will do, just what they want it to do.

What do the contracts say about failure to meet those? Typically there have been penalized, now I suspect there are cancellation clauses for that. The first clue as to how Boeing thinks its going is what they do about the 777. There’s not a thing they have to do to change the 787, which pretty well says it all as to who has the state of the art on their side. Boeing will of course improve the process as they go along, leving the A350 even further behind.

Passenger wise, Boeing has sold 634 (firm so far and a lot others in the wings) based on the Pax count it carries.

Pax number is not the end all, or there would be a lot more 747s being made. While I do not buy into the so statement that “passengers want direct connections and we are dong that”, I do buy into the fact that small aircraft are more flexible. You can tune 2, 3 or 4 flights a day and have them 80% full, or you can try to send one 747 out, and ¼ full. Now they have the range and fuel efficiency to make it work.

Also, what do you do when it hits its destination? Smaller pax, it can go onto another one, too big, and someone else takes them on.

An A380 only saves travel costs if it carries you to your destination. If you are going on past that, then you need three 737s to take them on. That’s 4 aircraft movements at one airport, instead of one at the destination. You just created more crowing at an already crowded airport, and add longer turn around times, landing superstitions and the pax surge delays and you are further behind, not ahead.

So, if the A350 fails to meet what its being sold as, Singapore has the firm orders and options to get more Boeings. However, not all airlines have that, so if they buy into it now, they may simply be stuck with no options. So, you can bet Airbus is doing anything it takes to make the order, and hope they can make it all work.

I continue to believe, that Airbus needs to give up the sales hype culture, and come out with real technology to compete with.

What they are doing is touting their approach, when they have never tried it. Boeing put a lot of years into developing the approach they are taking. Airbus made a huge mistake in not investing in that technology, and now its knee jerk technology, none of which has any research background to back it up (not to mention everyone agrees no one is going to use the approach again).

I would respect them if they flat said, we made a major mistake, and its going to take us 8 years to match the technology we are competing against.

The other part of this is that by the time they do match it, Boeing is going to be way up on the learning curve and taking advantage of the improvements that only experience gets you.

Boeing is not at the point they can prove their specifications, or fall on their face. Airbus is not where near that.

The last part about compensation. If Airbus keeps screwing up, then they are going out of business. You don’t put an airplane into the air so you can then pay someone to fly it. You only do that when you screw up. The idea is make money on your airplanes, if you have to sell them at a loss and then subsidies it, the pyramid scheme comes crshing down. And you will have lost all your customers by then, as they will see it coming, and why buy a plane from a manufacture who has to subsidize it, who is out of business and can not do that.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 22 Jun 2007, 22:04

bits44 wrote: I hope everyone knows what an MOU is?

Its a non-binding expression of interest!

If you called IKEA and asked them to send you a catalog, that would almost be the equivalent of an MOU.

A LOI is almost as non-binding, usually with so many exit loopholes it may as well be an MOU.

Until someone issues a cheque to the manufacturer to buy a delivery slot, then its not an order. And after a certain period of time the deposit cheque is non-refundable.

That says it very neatly

teach · Post by **teach** » 22 Jun 2007, 23:14

bits44 wrote:

RC20 wrote:

Well well, if it isn't our resident Airbus bashers out in full force. I'll tell you one thing and don't even TRY and deny it: if this were Boeing, and not Airbus, you'd be telling everyone just how amazing it was. It's called hypocrisy.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 23 Jun 2007, 03:01

RC-20's above postings are right on point.

Boeing is selling the B787 at a minimum discount, while Airbus is selling the A350 at major discounts (as stated by Parker of US Air). Airbus MUST get the A350 in service as soon a possible (2013 at the latest). While 5 years late is better than 2014 or 15, they risk loosing a major market segment. Thus, they do not have the time to develop the advanced technology required for a wound carbon fibre airplane. Remember that Boeing has been working on the wound carbon technology for over 10 years (Supersonic Cruiser and other commercial programs)

As stated by John Leahy, the Power 8 Program is even more important today than it was several months ago. To stay in business (without goverment subsidies), you've got to make a profit on delivered sales. Selling expensive capital equipment at very low prices requires you to have a correspondingly low cost structure. This means (among other things) that Airbus must either drastically reduce its high priced European labor force, reduce labor compensation rates, and incorporate other costs cutting schemes.

I'm afraid that a panel (regardless as to whether it is aluminum or carbon fibre) type of construction with many thousanads of manually inserted fasteners (as opposed to a automated wound fibre construction) will require many more hours of labor to assemble; consequently the costs will be higher.

Additionally, panels will require more insepctions and shorter maintenance intervals for corrosion control. Pressurization will also be less, resulting in a 8,000 foot pressurization level (as opposed to the B787's 6,000 foot level) that is less comfortable to passengers.

The Power 8 Program is absolutely essential and Airbus must drastically reduce its labor and manufacturing costs, or it risks going out of business.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 23 Jun 2007, 03:21

teach wrote:
bits44 wrote:

RC20 wrote:
Well well, if it isn't our resident Airbus bashers out in full force. I'll tell you one thing and don't even TRY and deny it: if this were Boeing, and not Airbus, you'd be telling everyone just how amazing it was. It's called hypocrisy.

Hello teach - I don't think that we are Airbus bashers. I strongly criticised Boeing's stupidity when they were under the management of Harry Stonecipher. Stonecipher insisted on improving older planes to keep them price (not performance) competitive. You can put lip-stick on a pig, but she still won't dance the modern dances. As an example, I'll point out the DC-9 series of planes that were continuously improved under Stonecipher rather then being replaced. They were solid performers for their time, but were modernined into the Series 80 and then the Series 90 planes. Improved engines and other features were incorporated into a rock solid structure, but it was still basicly old technology. He tried the same thing at Boeing with the B767 and, the A330 (an excellent plane) ate its' lunch.

Same thing with the A350 - it will be a new plane with advanced systems, but it will still be a conventinal, older technolgy sturcture whose characteristics are yet to be known (even to Airbus) since design is not complete.

No, we are not bashing Airbus. Due to the A380 fisaco and gross mismanagement of the company, the excellent engineering staff was prevented from developing a contemporary airplane. The carbon panel over conventional structure will be heavier and more expensive. This is fact, not bashing.