Qatar Airways frustrated by lack of Airbus A350 XWB technical detail
Qatar Airways became the largest customer for Airbus's A350 XWBs at the show with an order for 80 aircraft, but has been frustrated by the airframer's tardiness in providing detailed and reliable specification and performance data for the new twinjet.
"This part of the airline's purchase agreement is larger than the document that currently serves as Airbus's interim specification," he says, adding that the airline was heavily involved in the previous definitions of the A350, but unlike its continued participation with Boeing in the detailed definition of the 787 and 747-8, it "has not been encouraged by Airbus to participate in the development of the A350 XWB specification - we aim to change this".
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nical.html
Qatar Airways frustrated by lack of Airbus A350 XWB
Moderator: Latest news team
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
We've all known for some time that the A350 is undefined as of now (although the conceptual design is what is being sold). Final design is now slated for late next year (2008) and people who buy it now are buying on promises (this is not bad as they are getting guarantees, just like Boeing guaranteed 787 performance for the initial orders). Performance places the burden on the manufacturer and helps the customer commit now by minimizing his risk.
One difference is that Boeing invited airlines (even those that did nto place orders) to join in the design; I do not beleive that Airbus has the same level of transparency, based on the Flight Global story.
One difference is that Boeing invited airlines (even those that did nto place orders) to join in the design; I do not beleive that Airbus has the same level of transparency, based on the Flight Global story.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Flight Global is reporting "Although Airbus is close to the A350's design freeze, the definition freeze is not scheduled until late next year when it will then publish the aircraft's specification for the first time."CX wrote:there must be some technical specs. you won't even buy a piece of electronic if you don't have its specs, let alone an airline buying planes.smokejumper wrote:Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
"With this information unavailable, Qatar Airways has had to define in detail what its expects from the A350 XWB by way of specification and performance and then make this a contractual obligation, says Al Baker."
Airbus has a conceptual design that establishes basic (expected) performance perameters. This is what customers are buying (and getting guarantees for). In late 2008, they will complete the definition freeze which will identify the actual size and layout for the plane. Only then can detailed design begin and it will take several years.
Once the detailed design is complete (detailed drawings, matetrials specifications, materials production drawings, etc., they will be able to better estimate weight. Until then, all performance estimates will need to be "fudged" to make the guarantees.
It's the same with computer simulations: whenever computers become faster, the scientists make the simulations more complex, and then they still have to wait the same amount of time. More advanced methods simply result in a better designed, more efficient plane. Hopefully.PYX wrote:Why in this age of computer aided design and computer controlled machinery, does it take longer to build an airplane than it did, not that many years ago, when they used slide rules, pencils, and paper?smokejumper wrote: ....Only then can detailed design begin and it will take several years......
-
cageyjames
- Posts: 514
- Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 00:00
- Location: On Lease to PHL
I wonder if its my perception (and admittedly I am biased) that Boeing works their butt off to come out with an aircraft, get put through the airlines and press wringer, and Airbus has something on paper two years out still and they manage to sell it to what are supposed to be hard nosed rational business people?
So, the press aside (and this time they seem to have done a good job on the questions you should always ask about a new airplane no matter who makes it)-the key questions seem to me to be.
1. Does having Airbus in the mix make that much difference to the bottom line?
2. Is Airbus doing the pyramid scheme thing, where they promise the world performance wise, give enormous discounts,, followed by giving other airplanes away for less than cost just to stay in the game and hope something miraculous happens?
3. Can you actually discount an airplane enough and play the shell games where you give them other airplanes enough to make up for fuel burn disparity? (and by that I mean selling someone more airplane than they need which means its going to fly emptier and you pay for that no matter how fuel efficient the airplane is loaded). Those things haunt you for as long as you have the aircraft.
Now I understand that Qatar, Singapore and the like have some latitude to play with and can afford to cost themselves some money to keep competition there, but US Airways is certainly not in that category.
Now I fully understand the Boeing and the all composite spun barrels was a technical reach, but they do have those type construction in other production, used the techniques and the risk was the size. Also keeping in mind Boeing had a lot of supporting research already done on the Sonic Cruiser that directly applied.
Airbus is using a technique that to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done anything like it (and Hazy at the very least wants them to do composite stringers, not Al.)
So, I must be wrong, there is no logic in this, its just politics, personalities, whims and ???? at play here.
Ok, I am over it, (though it Singapore sure hedged their bet as did Qatar if that report is true, and how many options did Qatar take?)
The looser would be airlines like Finnair and US Airways if it doesn’t pan out, they won’t know until way too late, and they would have no options to get good airplanes at that point.
There will be plenty of DC10s, 767s and A330 they can pick up on the cheap in the future I guess.
Well, maybe I am not over it!
So, the press aside (and this time they seem to have done a good job on the questions you should always ask about a new airplane no matter who makes it)-the key questions seem to me to be.
1. Does having Airbus in the mix make that much difference to the bottom line?
2. Is Airbus doing the pyramid scheme thing, where they promise the world performance wise, give enormous discounts,, followed by giving other airplanes away for less than cost just to stay in the game and hope something miraculous happens?
3. Can you actually discount an airplane enough and play the shell games where you give them other airplanes enough to make up for fuel burn disparity? (and by that I mean selling someone more airplane than they need which means its going to fly emptier and you pay for that no matter how fuel efficient the airplane is loaded). Those things haunt you for as long as you have the aircraft.
Now I understand that Qatar, Singapore and the like have some latitude to play with and can afford to cost themselves some money to keep competition there, but US Airways is certainly not in that category.
Now I fully understand the Boeing and the all composite spun barrels was a technical reach, but they do have those type construction in other production, used the techniques and the risk was the size. Also keeping in mind Boeing had a lot of supporting research already done on the Sonic Cruiser that directly applied.
Airbus is using a technique that to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done anything like it (and Hazy at the very least wants them to do composite stringers, not Al.)
So, I must be wrong, there is no logic in this, its just politics, personalities, whims and ???? at play here.
Ok, I am over it, (though it Singapore sure hedged their bet as did Qatar if that report is true, and how many options did Qatar take?)
The looser would be airlines like Finnair and US Airways if it doesn’t pan out, they won’t know until way too late, and they would have no options to get good airplanes at that point.
There will be plenty of DC10s, 767s and A330 they can pick up on the cheap in the future I guess.
Well, maybe I am not over it!
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
RC20's posting has enunciated some points that I've been wondering about for some time. Airbus has had great sales success with designs whose status are not as far-along as Boeings; yet they sell. The only answer I can come up with is their marketing prowlness; John Leahy is probably a better salesman than I've previously thought. He may be a snake-oil salesman, but he's good (and certainly has a good sales team at his side).
Also, the guarantees that Singapore and Qatar apparently received allowing them to drop out if performance is not met, give them some real bargaining power as the design progresses. US and Finnair (if Signapore and Qatar were to drop out) will really be left holding the bag with planes that were not suitable for some major airlines. It would probably put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Also, the guarantees that Singapore and Qatar apparently received allowing them to drop out if performance is not met, give them some real bargaining power as the design progresses. US and Finnair (if Signapore and Qatar were to drop out) will really be left holding the bag with planes that were not suitable for some major airlines. It would probably put them at a competitive disadvantage.
But does that also mean that Airbus Sales can "sell" with "grand abandon" because they have a belief/understaning that Airbus will be underwritten by EU governments even if the "selling" leads to very reduced margins ?smokejumper wrote:
...
Also, the guarantees that Singapore and Qatar apparently received allowing them to drop out if performance is not met, give them some real bargaining power as the design progresses. US and Finnair (if Signapore and Qatar were to drop out) will really be left holding the bag with planes that were not suitable for some major airlines. It would probably put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Mike
I think in the past there was some truth to that.
I know its been worked over a lot, but I still feel that the direct subsides aside, Boeing and Airbus benefited from government support about equally.
I know Airbus claims huge US subsidies to Boeing via space and military (but noting that NASA aero research is shared with all which Airbus has hugely benefited from), but unless I am out to lunch, European industry is as bad or worse. Not intentionally worse maybe, but France came out with the Rafael fighter, when they could have joined Britain and Germany Typhoon. The A400 had no competition bid at all (and with the changed world, they would be better off with a C17 type air lifter, as all the action is going to be a long way away)
Throw in a huge subsidy for each launch you didn’t have to worry about financing , and you set up the terms such that unless it’s a raging success (A320) you don’t have to pay back (as near as I can tell, the A300/310 and the A330/340 have not paid a dime back).
A380 will likely never, because the terms are that they estimate the market at 1600 (publicly, and those numbers are not the same ones that the subsidy was based on you can be sure) and unless they make more than 500 or a 1000 or????, they don’t pay back.
So, culturally you can see where Airbus got used to that cushion. Is the culture continuing on its trajectory while the rocket under it has blown up? (and the payload that was supposed to go into orbit simply goes up and back down on top of Leahys house?).
Was Boeing so arrogant so long that it still has people ticked off? Boeing sure seems to have corrected that (as far back as the 777 when they listened to their customers and turned it not a real success because of that).
Hmmm. I guess I should stick to wrenching, so far I never have found a piece of machinery that listened to the sales pitch. If it worked well, it was because it was well designed, engineered and produced.
I know its been worked over a lot, but I still feel that the direct subsides aside, Boeing and Airbus benefited from government support about equally.
I know Airbus claims huge US subsidies to Boeing via space and military (but noting that NASA aero research is shared with all which Airbus has hugely benefited from), but unless I am out to lunch, European industry is as bad or worse. Not intentionally worse maybe, but France came out with the Rafael fighter, when they could have joined Britain and Germany Typhoon. The A400 had no competition bid at all (and with the changed world, they would be better off with a C17 type air lifter, as all the action is going to be a long way away)
Throw in a huge subsidy for each launch you didn’t have to worry about financing , and you set up the terms such that unless it’s a raging success (A320) you don’t have to pay back (as near as I can tell, the A300/310 and the A330/340 have not paid a dime back).
A380 will likely never, because the terms are that they estimate the market at 1600 (publicly, and those numbers are not the same ones that the subsidy was based on you can be sure) and unless they make more than 500 or a 1000 or????, they don’t pay back.
So, culturally you can see where Airbus got used to that cushion. Is the culture continuing on its trajectory while the rocket under it has blown up? (and the payload that was supposed to go into orbit simply goes up and back down on top of Leahys house?).
Was Boeing so arrogant so long that it still has people ticked off? Boeing sure seems to have corrected that (as far back as the 777 when they listened to their customers and turned it not a real success because of that).
Hmmm. I guess I should stick to wrenching, so far I never have found a piece of machinery that listened to the sales pitch. If it worked well, it was because it was well designed, engineered and produced.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
The issue of subsidies is complex. Both Boeing and Airbus have benefited from subsidies. However, I see a fundamental distinction between how these subusdies are awarded - it seems to be a matter of intent.
Airbus' subsidies have come in the form of direct launch aid to develop marketable products (A300, A320, etc.) European governments ponied up money to Airbus to develop specific products and pay for the design, manufacture and testing of these products. If (and only if) the products were successful and sold in sufficient quantities, would Airbus be required to repay the "loans". This aside, I recognize that aviation and manufacturing are critical components to any nation's well being and countries do everything possible to protect (or develop or foster) vital industries. This is so they are available for national defense and econommic development (JOBS) - this is true for both Europe and the US.
Boeing, on the other hand, has received US Federal contracts for military systems requirements (fighters, bombers, transports and tankers, space programs, etc.). As part of the development of these systems, research and development activities need to be performed. R&D studies into lighter weight materials, new manufacturing techniques, new electronics and flight controls, etc. are conducted in an effort to make the military product lighter, stronger, more reliable and better. While this research is directly underwritten for the specific contract's product and to make it better and meet the specifications, there IS a knowledge transfer between what is learned on the military project and future civilian products.
The difference in intent of research subsidies between what the European Governments give (to Airbus) and the US Government gives (to Boeing) is in the application of this research. In Boeing's case, the US government is saying "We need a new plane, here is money to develop it". In many cases, the research results are publically available (to all), however, the experience gained by the performer gives them a decided advantage in applying the results to a commercial venture. So, Boeing benefits more by using the knowledge gained in performing military contracts, although this same information is generally available to Airbus. The US NASA also makes publically available research results that are used by all manuracturers (lighter weight materials, airfoil design, winglet technology, etc.) that has been used by Airbus. This is an indirect subsidy.
Airbus, on the other hand, has received direct launch aid to develop specific commercial products. The European governments simply paid to have products developed, manufactured and sold to develop the European aircraft industry. This is a direct subsidy.
The basic difference is how the reasearch money is directed, directly or indirectly. In my belief, direct aid can result in a company looking at the money as "free or gift money" that is not your own, so you might be less careful in defining and developing a product. While the A320 has been a brilliant success (both techically and economically), other products have been less so (e.g., the A340 and A380). In Boeing's case, they need to develop requirements very carefully and only if a solid business case can be made, do they move the product to the development stage. They need to protect their own (and shareholder) money. Once the product is defined, Boeing wil then look for (research) results that will produce the product. These research results certainly include knowledge gained from military contracts.
This seems to be an unsolvable dilema. Unless Europe decides to spend large amounts of money on military requirements in which research results can be spun-off for commercial applications, or the US decides to directly bankroll commercial airplane developmen, the current disagreements will continue.
And that's how I see it.
Airbus' subsidies have come in the form of direct launch aid to develop marketable products (A300, A320, etc.) European governments ponied up money to Airbus to develop specific products and pay for the design, manufacture and testing of these products. If (and only if) the products were successful and sold in sufficient quantities, would Airbus be required to repay the "loans". This aside, I recognize that aviation and manufacturing are critical components to any nation's well being and countries do everything possible to protect (or develop or foster) vital industries. This is so they are available for national defense and econommic development (JOBS) - this is true for both Europe and the US.
Boeing, on the other hand, has received US Federal contracts for military systems requirements (fighters, bombers, transports and tankers, space programs, etc.). As part of the development of these systems, research and development activities need to be performed. R&D studies into lighter weight materials, new manufacturing techniques, new electronics and flight controls, etc. are conducted in an effort to make the military product lighter, stronger, more reliable and better. While this research is directly underwritten for the specific contract's product and to make it better and meet the specifications, there IS a knowledge transfer between what is learned on the military project and future civilian products.
The difference in intent of research subsidies between what the European Governments give (to Airbus) and the US Government gives (to Boeing) is in the application of this research. In Boeing's case, the US government is saying "We need a new plane, here is money to develop it". In many cases, the research results are publically available (to all), however, the experience gained by the performer gives them a decided advantage in applying the results to a commercial venture. So, Boeing benefits more by using the knowledge gained in performing military contracts, although this same information is generally available to Airbus. The US NASA also makes publically available research results that are used by all manuracturers (lighter weight materials, airfoil design, winglet technology, etc.) that has been used by Airbus. This is an indirect subsidy.
Airbus, on the other hand, has received direct launch aid to develop specific commercial products. The European governments simply paid to have products developed, manufactured and sold to develop the European aircraft industry. This is a direct subsidy.
The basic difference is how the reasearch money is directed, directly or indirectly. In my belief, direct aid can result in a company looking at the money as "free or gift money" that is not your own, so you might be less careful in defining and developing a product. While the A320 has been a brilliant success (both techically and economically), other products have been less so (e.g., the A340 and A380). In Boeing's case, they need to develop requirements very carefully and only if a solid business case can be made, do they move the product to the development stage. They need to protect their own (and shareholder) money. Once the product is defined, Boeing wil then look for (research) results that will produce the product. These research results certainly include knowledge gained from military contracts.
This seems to be an unsolvable dilema. Unless Europe decides to spend large amounts of money on military requirements in which research results can be spun-off for commercial applications, or the US decides to directly bankroll commercial airplane developmen, the current disagreements will continue.
And that's how I see it.