Qantas wants bigger 787

David747 · Post by **David747** » 19 Jul 2007, 12:25

A350 that could seat 10 abreast, would be the best competitor against the B777. As I argued a few months ago, the A350-1000, with capacity for 10 abreast seating, and with more space than a B777, would make that plane an excellent fit for long haul airlines like Emirates.

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 19 Jul 2007, 13:27

Emirates seeks Boeing guarantee of bigger 787

Emirates, the biggest Arab airline, seeks a guarantee that The Boeing Co. will build a larger version of the 787 Dreamliner before the carrier chooses planes to replace older aircraft and add routes

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ing19.html

CX · Post by CX » 19 Jul 2007, 14:56

I still think Emirates likes the 787 more even though they got Airbus to tailor the A350 for them.. but they could be doing the same to Boeing...

Qantas I think will try to get 787-10 surely, for commanility.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 19 Jul 2007, 16:56

I hope Boeing launches the 787-10, but Emirates, I view, is using the 787-10 to get Airbus to finalize a final design on the A350. It seems that Emirates, along with Hazy of ILFC are still unhappy with the A350. Now, this comment by Emirates on the 787-10, I believe will also make Qantas put pressure on Boeing to launch the program. If any, I think the Dubai Airshow in November will shed some light on the future of the 787-10.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Jul 2007, 18:24

I've heard from people at BCA that Emirates is probably going to announce at Dubai for 100 or more dash 10's, making them the lead customer!

We shall see.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 19 Jul 2007, 18:56

I can see them doing that.

After all, there are airlines buying the A350 that doesn't actually have a fixed design!

At least with the -10 they would have a basis for judgment!

Yes I am being sarcastic. And I expect Boeing will do the -10 for. I also expect final design to be much further down the road. Both to deal with the A350XWB (which stands for Exactly Whatarewe Buying).

There could be some fairly significant build changes once they have some experience behind them on the other dash versions.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Jul 2007, 19:00

Both to deal with the A350XWB (which stands for Exactly Whatarewe Buying).

Thats funny, sad, but funny!

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 19 Jul 2007, 22:47

The 787-10 will happen and Emirates may well be the lead; BUT, given Emirates history, they may just be jerking both airframe manufacturers around to see what they car get at what price.

CX · Post by CX » 20 Jul 2007, 08:06

If they are ONLY getting -10s, ie only getting a plane at that size, shouldn't the -1000 be better? (or closer in performance for those who expects the 787 to be significantly superior to the A350). It has higher capacity and longer range, I would think that the 787's advantage is most significant with the -3 and -8 for airlines who wants to replace 767s, A300s, A330s and simply do not require the capacity of larger models.
And while Airbus doesn't have a fixed design for the XWB, it does have specs that they will achieve, and the -1000 has the range and capacity that Emirates wants now already, they might be unhappy about composite panels on metal frames or something, but the specs are already tailored for what they wanted. It is probably fair to say that without Emirates, the original A350 would already soon be flying, the XWB happened was because of Emirates to a large extent.
I just don't see why some members are just implying airlines who ordered XWBs are unsmart or at an immediate disadvantage.. i think airlines are much more well informed than us about the aircrafts. For some members, it seem airlines need to pretend the XWB is not on the market.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 20 Jul 2007, 12:25

The published specs on the A350 models don't make sense to me. All three models have the same wing but maximum take of weights from 540 to 650 thousand pounds. All three models have the same maximum fuel capacity but the ranges are within 300 nm. The Boeing 787 on the other hand has a smaller wing for the short haul 787-3, a 197 foot wing for the 787-8, and a 203 foot wing on the 787-9. The 787-9 also carries more fuel capacity then the 787-8 to give the bigger plane about the same range.
IMO the 787-9 will be a better aircraft then the A350-800. The 787 can carry 36 LD3 cargo containers to the A350-800's 26. Both have similar ranges but the 787-9 carries less fuel. The 787 should have less maintanence then the A350-800 due to the barrel type construction. The 787-3 and 787-8 have no competition from Airbus.
IMO Boeing can build a 787-10 that is at least as good as the A350-900. The A350 -1000 is the only model that really could be clearly better then the 777-300. But I really think Airbus will have trouble making the range specs they are promissing on the A350-1000.
I think Airbus made a mistake with the A350XWB. The aircraft is made to compete with airliners the size of the 787 and the 777 but seems to be optimised for niether.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 20 Jul 2007, 13:37

Perhaps we should step back and look at the history of the A350. It has been a long convoluted route in which Airbus has never seemed to find their way; they keep throwing out concepts and seeing if one sticks. Market and technical research appears to be lacking.

Wikipedia ("The Free Encyclopedia") has a history of the A350 posted that inidcates just how convoluted this history seems to be (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3500). After repeatedly ridiculing the B787, Airbus finally took the market seriously and initiated the A350. Each attempt was rejected by the larger market and when Emirates and Steven Udivar-Hazy (ILFC) spoke loudly in public, Aribus drove a wooden stake into the heart of the A350 and totally revised it (into the A350XWB). Meanwhile, Boeing just kept selling 787's.

Even with the new plane, Airbus has not had a focus on advanced manufacturing technology (note, I said manufacturing, not system technology). Aluminnum panels gave way to aluminum lithium and then to carbon panels; all over a conventional metal frame that is riveted together. Presumedly, this will result in a heavier plane which will require more thrust and fuel to achieve the same performance as a lighter plane.

Boeing's wound carbon-fiber composite fuselage will have a 6,000 foot cabin elevation, compared to the A350's 8,000 foot cabin pressure. This will be more comfortable for the passengers and, higher humidity levels can be maintained since corrosion is not a factor.

Even today, 6 years after Boeing started proposing the 787 and 4 years after getting its first order, the A350 continues to evolve and remains relatively undefined. Airbus has posted preliminary specifications, but as noted by boomer535, the 3 versions of the A350XWB use the same wing size, weigh between 540 and 650K pounds, have the same fuel capacity and, similar range - it just does not add up.

I do not know how this will all end up, but Airbus needs to find a trail out of the dark forest and get into the sun.

achace · Post by **achace** » 20 Jul 2007, 15:16

Some of you guys seem to forget that it was Airbus that evolved the widebody twin (A300) and gave Boeing a very hard lesson with the A330.

Sure they came unstuck with their first response to the 787, but frankly the 787 was so revolutionary, you could not be surprised that Airbus fell on their face.

Having said that, why do people keep suggesting that Airbus dont know what they are doing?

Singapore Airlines are one of the hardest airlines to please, so to suggest that Airbus is struggling with their technology is purile.

If they build something totally different to the 787, which I believe they will, why infer it will be inferior, without specifics.

I am all for a healthy forum, but come on guys, play fair.

Cheers
Achace

CX · Post by CX » 20 Jul 2007, 15:27

edit: Firstly wikipedia is a place where you and I can post stuff up there right? as long as it's reasonable.

As for whether Airbus' specs makes sense, as far as I can see, the A332, A333, A342, A343 all has the same 60.3m wingspan, and A345 has identical wingspan as A346 too. Of course the A332 and the A333 weighed the same and A342 weighed the same as A343.
Is 600km considered insignificant? -1000 has 600km less than the -800 according to Airbus at the moment.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 20 Jul 2007, 17:08

According to Wikipedia the difference is 400 KM between the A350 models. Still 600 Km is not that much and the range of the A350-900 is the same as the A350-1000. Maybe Airbus updated the figures. The A330-300 has a range that is 2,000 KM less then the A330-200 with max passengers. The a340-300 has 1,100 KM less range then the A340-200. The A330-300 and A340-300 sarifice range for payload. I just don't see this in the figures for the A350 models.
What I see with the A350 is a me too design that offers no new technology. That said, Airbus is good enogh to pull it off and come out with a winner like the A320 and A330. It's just too early to tell right now.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 21 Jul 2007, 00:33

achace wrote:Some of you guys seem to forget that it was Airbus that evolved the widebody twin (A300) and gave Boeing a very hard lesson with the A330.

Sure they came unstuck with their first response to the 787, but frankly the 787 was so revolutionary, you could not be surprised that Airbus fell on their face.

Having said that, why do people keep suggesting that Airbus dont know what they are doing?

Singapore Airlines are one of the hardest airlines to please, so to suggest that Airbus is struggling with their technology is purile.

If they build something totally different to the 787, which I believe they will, why infer it will be inferior, without specifics.

I am all for a healthy forum, but come on guys, play fair.

Cheers
Achace

"If they build something totally different to the 787, which I believe they will, why infer it will be inferior, without specifics."

You are right, we are inferrring that it will be inferior without specifics. But after offering 5 various versions over the past several years, Airbus has given out very little in the way of specifics. Even customers (Emirates) are complaining that they dont' know what they are buying, which raises the question "Just why then, did they order it?). All we can do is speculate.

I do not think the A350 will be an inferior product, but it can be expected to be heavier than the 787 and use more fuel. It will have an 8,000 foot cabin pressure rather than a more comfortable 6,000 foot pressure. It will have to have a lower humidity level since corrosion is an issue with metal framework. The A350 will certainly be advanced in the sytem that are incorporated, but the basic airframe will use a lower technology construction technique (panels riveted to aluminum frames).

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 21 Jul 2007, 01:20

I would be interested to know what kind of performance guarantees are in the sales contracts that Airbus has signed with its customers for the A350.

CX · Post by CX » 21 Jul 2007, 05:01

boomer535 wrote:I would be interested to know what kind of performance guarantees are in the sales contracts that Airbus has signed with its customers for the A350.

It seems you will never know unless you either work in Airbus or at the airlines.
A333 vs A332, yes, over 1000km less range, but the A333 carries less fuel to fully compensate for the extra passenger capacity and the extra length, they weigh the same. Same goes for A343 vs A342.

Why did airlines order it? I don't think airlines will make uninformed decisions, or decisions that are inferior to us when they actually order planes.. and these are planes, not apples and oranges, i wouldn't think for example Qatar ordered 80 based on nothing.

But yes, you can choose to say it's just a paper plane, airbus probably sold XWBs very cheaply, near giveaway price, specs may not be met(or even regarded as "makes no sense", and we are talking about a plane manufacturer stating specs that doesn't make sense

), lower technology etc. The 787 has not yet been 1ft off the ground, apart from being lifted by hangars.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 21 Jul 2007, 08:40

I don't trust wikipedia when it comes to airplane information.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 21 Jul 2007, 17:32

CX wrote:
boomer535 wrote:I would be interested to know what kind of performance guarantees are in the sales contracts that Airbus has signed with its customers for the A350.
It seems you will never know unless you either work in Airbus or at the airlines.
A333 vs A332, yes, over 1000km less range, but the A333 carries less fuel to fully compensate for the extra passenger capacity and the extra length, they weigh the same. Same goes for A343 vs A342.

Why did airlines order it? I don't think airlines will make uninformed decisions, or decisions that are inferior to us when they actually order planes.. and these are planes, not apples and oranges, i wouldn't think for example Qatar ordered 80 based on nothing.

But yes, you can choose to say it's just a paper plane, airbus probably sold XWBs very cheaply, near giveaway price, specs may not be met(or even regarded as "makes no sense", and we are talking about a plane manufacturer stating specs that doesn't make sense ), lower technology etc. The 787 has not yet been 1ft off the ground, apart from being lifted by hangars.

According to the information I have the empty weight of the A330-300 is more then the A330-200 although the MTOW is the same. The A340-300 is both heaver then the A340-200 and has a higher NTOW as well. The increased maximum take off weight is why the A340-300 doesn't lose as much range compared to the A340-200.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 22 Jul 2007, 06:13

boomer535 wrote:The published specs on the A350 models don't make sense to me.

I think Airbus made a mistake with the A350XWB. The aircraft is made to compete with airliners the size of the 787 and the 777 but seems to be optimised for niether.

I was reading an article on the 787 the other day. I was surprised to read that due to the length of the fuselage, it gave them 5% more aerodynamic efficiency.

I am not in any way shape or form an engineer or an aerodynamicist. I do know that works on ships. It can only work so far (an airplane can only be so long before it hits the skid on takeoff), but there are advantages to stretch.

It means that they don't have to carry as much fuel to maintain range.

Boeing is still fighting 2-3 tons overweight on the 787 (though sometimes they say its the target weight, and they are at customer guarantee, and sometimes it seems to be needed to meet the guarantee). Boeing always like to over deliver, so I suspect its a Boeing issue, but I could be wrong.

They seem confident, they will have it out of the production units (and whoever buys the test planes latter on accepts what they are buying).

I will make one prediction . If Airbus is not meeting sales targets, they will re-design the A350 again. They simply cannot afford to have two planes that never break even. It would be extraordinarily painful, but they would have to do that (or become a one aircraft company).