I certainly agree with RC20 when he says "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)."
The A340 has not been a sales (or profit) success and the A380 is its own story. The A320 and A330 have been really successful but are reaching the status of senior citizens as newer technology products come on the horizon. The A350 needs to score high in the mid-size market to contiribute to a future for Airbus.
I am sure that the Airbus senior management is evaluating the sales numbers (and the quality of the orders) for the A350 vs. competitive products and, if they are not satisfied with the status, will decide to undergo yet another iteration
Of course, this presents management with a quandry; how many more years can they go before a viable product gets into flight status? If the market for such aircraft is 4,500 units and Boeing already has 775 (orders) before 1st flight, then a significant percentage is lost before they've even definitized a design.
I understand that the A350 has sold 175 or so A350's, but many of them are to new or start-up airlines whose future is not assured.
Question - how long can Airbus afford to delay developing a definitive product and getting it to market? Can they afford to miss out on a major market segment for much longer?
Qantas wants bigger 787
Moderator: Latest news team
But when you streach an airplane it weighs more so either you carry less payload or put bigger engines on it and increase the maximum take off weight. Bigger engines means higher fuel burn. The 787-9 has a slightly longer wing, slightly uprated engines, and extra fuel capacity over the 787-8. This is mostly why the 787-9 has a slightly longer range then the 787-8. the A350-1000 has the same wing, the same fuel capacity, higher MTOW, and the same range as the A350-900. It just doesn't add up to me.
The A350 is selling well though so I could be wrong, after all i'm nobody. In any case there is abig enough market to support both planesso I wish Boeing and Airbus well.
The A350 is selling well though so I could be wrong, after all i'm nobody. In any case there is abig enough market to support both planesso I wish Boeing and Airbus well.
Agreed on the details, comment was intended to convey there are some additional factors that are not obvious.
I don’t see the same depth of purchasers for the A350 that I see for the 787. Agreed that both manufactures have airlines that just don’t want to deal with Boeing or Airbus (though that seems to have changed). Others with a preference to one or the other.
With the A320, you saw Boeing customers cross to the A320 and stay with it. That says a lot about the A320. Someone did a report on it, and while there were operators that went that way, none went the other way.
While some of that obviously was Boeing doing (loosing that one Air Berlin order was in that category), there is a preference for a newer and at least as good airframe. Boeing has come back with (again narrow but it seems to be there) fuel burn improvements that make it slightly better. Still there are some other factors.
So, while Boeing is selling lots of 737s, Airbus has done even better by a significant percentage over the long run.
With the 787, you have seen the swing back the other way. N.W. and Air Canada being two of the biggest ones (Air Canada dumping their entire Airbus fleet for Boeings).
Qatar if the reports are right have bought it, and I never thought they would (though they also went with the 777, it shows just how bad the Airbus offering was in that category). They and Emirates seem to be trying to keep a hold in Airbus camp with the A350 as well as Singapore, but again, how solid are those orders? All have been burned and in order to get the orders, they have to been some extremely strict conditions and penalties for Airbus for failing to deliver.
No one is excited about the A350. They sure are about the 787. Its where the industry is going, and the airlines want to be on board now, not latter.
In other words, if they do not fully meet all the guarantees on the A350, they are toast. The difference between the A380 and the A350 are that they do not have the only Aircraft in that category (and maybe China in the mix as well, though I do not see that as an international threat as much as cutting off internal China purchases).
Failure on the A350 will lead to cancellations, and they cannot leverage A330 offers like they did with the A380, it just doesn’t work, A320s cannot fly those kinds of routes. The A320s will be very threatened by the 737RS.
So, they really have to get an aircraft that at least matches performance if not technology. If they have to take another 2 year delay to do that, then they have no choice.
If they force it, that’s to see a slow dangling death, where they are not going to make any money on the A380 for 20 years (if that) and not making money on the A350, that leaves the threatened A320 that has to be replaced.
On article commented that they might break Airbus partners, Germany taking the narrow body portion and France taking the wide body. That’s certainly one way to get two governments meddling in one company corrected (then you get to have two governments meddling in two separate companies!)
While they may stick with the panels, they may very well have to go to composite frame pieces to be acceptable.
And Boeing is in the position to respond to any challenge, and still get out even if not ahead of Airbus with a product (the 787 development period is simply stunning). That same team is available to execute on the next project, whatever one it is. 777 work done, 747 work done, and they have all those engineers available. They could probably do two all new projects at the same time. And keep in mind, if the P&W GTF fulfills its promise, they are going to move very fast. 2 years maybe.
I do hope for the best for the employees of Airbus. They deserve far better than what they are getting. As for Airbus, structurally it seems like w wounded duck looking for a place to crash. Maybe better for it to do that, and someone put the pieces together in a truly long term viable entity.
I don’t see the same depth of purchasers for the A350 that I see for the 787. Agreed that both manufactures have airlines that just don’t want to deal with Boeing or Airbus (though that seems to have changed). Others with a preference to one or the other.
With the A320, you saw Boeing customers cross to the A320 and stay with it. That says a lot about the A320. Someone did a report on it, and while there were operators that went that way, none went the other way.
While some of that obviously was Boeing doing (loosing that one Air Berlin order was in that category), there is a preference for a newer and at least as good airframe. Boeing has come back with (again narrow but it seems to be there) fuel burn improvements that make it slightly better. Still there are some other factors.
So, while Boeing is selling lots of 737s, Airbus has done even better by a significant percentage over the long run.
With the 787, you have seen the swing back the other way. N.W. and Air Canada being two of the biggest ones (Air Canada dumping their entire Airbus fleet for Boeings).
Qatar if the reports are right have bought it, and I never thought they would (though they also went with the 777, it shows just how bad the Airbus offering was in that category). They and Emirates seem to be trying to keep a hold in Airbus camp with the A350 as well as Singapore, but again, how solid are those orders? All have been burned and in order to get the orders, they have to been some extremely strict conditions and penalties for Airbus for failing to deliver.
No one is excited about the A350. They sure are about the 787. Its where the industry is going, and the airlines want to be on board now, not latter.
In other words, if they do not fully meet all the guarantees on the A350, they are toast. The difference between the A380 and the A350 are that they do not have the only Aircraft in that category (and maybe China in the mix as well, though I do not see that as an international threat as much as cutting off internal China purchases).
Failure on the A350 will lead to cancellations, and they cannot leverage A330 offers like they did with the A380, it just doesn’t work, A320s cannot fly those kinds of routes. The A320s will be very threatened by the 737RS.
So, they really have to get an aircraft that at least matches performance if not technology. If they have to take another 2 year delay to do that, then they have no choice.
If they force it, that’s to see a slow dangling death, where they are not going to make any money on the A380 for 20 years (if that) and not making money on the A350, that leaves the threatened A320 that has to be replaced.
On article commented that they might break Airbus partners, Germany taking the narrow body portion and France taking the wide body. That’s certainly one way to get two governments meddling in one company corrected (then you get to have two governments meddling in two separate companies!)
While they may stick with the panels, they may very well have to go to composite frame pieces to be acceptable.
And Boeing is in the position to respond to any challenge, and still get out even if not ahead of Airbus with a product (the 787 development period is simply stunning). That same team is available to execute on the next project, whatever one it is. 777 work done, 747 work done, and they have all those engineers available. They could probably do two all new projects at the same time. And keep in mind, if the P&W GTF fulfills its promise, they are going to move very fast. 2 years maybe.
I do hope for the best for the employees of Airbus. They deserve far better than what they are getting. As for Airbus, structurally it seems like w wounded duck looking for a place to crash. Maybe better for it to do that, and someone put the pieces together in a truly long term viable entity.
A very interesting and informative discussion, however one option that has not been mentioned and is within the realm of possibility.
There is a law of diminishing return that will come into play, Airbus has its hands full with aircraft that are not selling, mainly the A340,A380, and soon the A330 will fall victim to the the 787, as well Airbus' military A400M is running into delays that are using up valuable resources that could be directed elsewhere. Airbus is stretched very thin, and with Power 8 now coming into play it's resources are limited.
Given that they may have lost most of the market to Boeing's 777 and 787's in the short term, and the probability that Boeing will announce the dash 10 at Dubai along with a rash of orders from Gulf Carriers, what are the prospects of Airbus successfully bringing the A350XWB to market and actually making a true profit. The question is should Airbus scrap the whole idea of the A350XWB come up with a clean sheet of paper design that meets customers needs and approvals and take the write offs, take the time to do it right, and proceed in a measured methodical way.
So far they have been reacting to Boeing, not listening to their customers , and have failed to inform those customers what the performance guarantees will be, or at best a vague estimation!
A can of worms to be sure, hopefully they can use them to catch some fish!
There is a law of diminishing return that will come into play, Airbus has its hands full with aircraft that are not selling, mainly the A340,A380, and soon the A330 will fall victim to the the 787, as well Airbus' military A400M is running into delays that are using up valuable resources that could be directed elsewhere. Airbus is stretched very thin, and with Power 8 now coming into play it's resources are limited.
Given that they may have lost most of the market to Boeing's 777 and 787's in the short term, and the probability that Boeing will announce the dash 10 at Dubai along with a rash of orders from Gulf Carriers, what are the prospects of Airbus successfully bringing the A350XWB to market and actually making a true profit. The question is should Airbus scrap the whole idea of the A350XWB come up with a clean sheet of paper design that meets customers needs and approvals and take the write offs, take the time to do it right, and proceed in a measured methodical way.
So far they have been reacting to Boeing, not listening to their customers , and have failed to inform those customers what the performance guarantees will be, or at best a vague estimation!
A can of worms to be sure, hopefully they can use them to catch some fish!
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
I suspect the Boeing will be anxious gain a range of performance figures (particularly fuselage efficiency/aerodynamics of CFRP frames opposed to current type) from the test 787s that will enable them to get better base data for the 787-10 configurations.
I'm sure these figures will help BCA sell the 787-10 .
regards
Mike McInerney
I'm sure these figures will help BCA sell the 787-10 .
regards
Mike McInerney
There is a lot of issues connected with an aircraft warranty and performance guarantee, much of which is impossible to provide prior to engineering design completion.
Boeing sold the 787 off a brochure with guarantees on weight, range, fuel burn and seat mile costs, very little else.
As an example of what I am saying, how can the undercarriage performance be guaranteed prior to even having a supplier nominated. Same goes for the APU, avionics and everything else that goes into an airplane.
So Airbus with the XWB are simply doing what Boeing did four years ago.
Incidentally the XWB 800,900 and 1000 incrementally lose range by about 300 miles per model with the 1000 bottoming out at 8000 miles.
I dont think also you could describe SIA, Finnair, US Air and even Qatar as second tier airlines, and the lease companies are fairly secure, only ILFC missing at the moment.
Cheers
Achace
Boeing sold the 787 off a brochure with guarantees on weight, range, fuel burn and seat mile costs, very little else.
As an example of what I am saying, how can the undercarriage performance be guaranteed prior to even having a supplier nominated. Same goes for the APU, avionics and everything else that goes into an airplane.
So Airbus with the XWB are simply doing what Boeing did four years ago.
Incidentally the XWB 800,900 and 1000 incrementally lose range by about 300 miles per model with the 1000 bottoming out at 8000 miles.
I dont think also you could describe SIA, Finnair, US Air and even Qatar as second tier airlines, and the lease companies are fairly secure, only ILFC missing at the moment.
Cheers
Achace
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
You are right. Boeing did sell the 787 from preliminary conceptual studies several years ago. They were pretty desperate then (just like Airbus is currently) and needed to get a chicken into the pot. But, there are diferences. Boeing had experience with composites and a very large engineering staff that needed work; this staff performed the conceptual studies.achace wrote:There is a lot of issues connected with an aircraft warranty and performance guarantee, much of which is impossible to provide prior to engineering design completion.
Boeing sold the 787 off a brochure with guarantees on weight, range, fuel burn and seat mile costs, very little else.
As an example of what I am saying, how can the undercarriage performance be guaranteed prior to even having a supplier nominated. Same goes for the APU, avionics and everything else that goes into an airplane.
So Airbus with the XWB are simply doing what Boeing did four years ago.
Incidentally the XWB 800,900 and 1000 incrementally lose range by about 300 miles per model with the 1000 bottoming out at 8000 miles.
I dont think also you could describe SIA, Finnair, US Air and even Qatar as second tier airlines, and the lease companies are fairly secure, only ILFC missing at the moment.
Cheers
Achace
All manufactrurers keep in close contact with suppliers and are aware of new developments (e.g., electrical systems and components, composite and metalurical developments, brake system and engine systems, etc.) and are in a good postion to offer guarantees based on conceptual studies. This is true for both Airbus and Boeing.
But, in the present case, Boeing had both the technology and experience in working with large composite structues. One writer pointed out that the large autoclaves required for large composite are not currently available to Airbus since Boeing pretty well locked them up with contracts for the 787. Further, Boeing used the "dark days" in the late '90's to gain experience with large composite structures and the mandrels needed to produce them.
Certainly, Airbus will eventually catch up, but now is Boeing's time in the sun.
As for customers, SIA, Finnair, US Air and Qatar are not 2nd tier airlines, but look a the others that ordered the plane. They are generally smaller or less established. Airbus needs to convince ILFC (Steven Udvar-Hazy) of the benefit of the plane. As has been said, when he speaks, manufacturers listen.
So you are saying Boeing can do it, but Airbus can't because they have inferior technology, and they don't have a very large engineering staff that needed work that performs conceptual studies? Look I really dont' think Airbus will make some unachievable guarantees on the A350. If airlines that are actually buying the things believe, what's the reason of us not believing?
And bits, you don't think the XWB is started from a 'clean sheet of paper'? Back in the original A350 (A330+20) days some said Airbus should listen to airlines and build something new, and this is what they did, this is a brand new A350, it shares nothing with the original A350 anymore, and now you are suggesting again to scrap the idea again?
No one is excited with the A350 but everyone is with the 787? That is just pure marketing, "dreamliner"... yea.. 787 is nothing but more oxygen inside, more water and larger windows for the passengers, otherwise it is another 767. I think everyone is more excited about the A380 if you really compare.
I agree failure of A350 will lead to cancellations, failure of the 787 will also cause 600+ cancellations, extremely unlikely but it has not flown a single metre yet.
And bits, you don't think the XWB is started from a 'clean sheet of paper'? Back in the original A350 (A330+20) days some said Airbus should listen to airlines and build something new, and this is what they did, this is a brand new A350, it shares nothing with the original A350 anymore, and now you are suggesting again to scrap the idea again?
No one is excited with the A350 but everyone is with the 787? That is just pure marketing, "dreamliner"... yea.. 787 is nothing but more oxygen inside, more water and larger windows for the passengers, otherwise it is another 767. I think everyone is more excited about the A380 if you really compare.
I agree failure of A350 will lead to cancellations, failure of the 787 will also cause 600+ cancellations, extremely unlikely but it has not flown a single metre yet.
The A350 is not going to go through another change. The commitments that have been made for the plane by Airbus customers alone, shows that there is a demand for this plane, and that Airbus will move forward with a current design and finalize it when the time is right. As CX said, Airbus listened to its customers when they said dump the A330+20 and redesign a plane that could be a viable competitor to the 787. They have done been doing that thus far. Granted that Boeing was working on composite technology before the 7E7 concept was introduced, and in many ways that has helped Boeing develop what will be a real game changer (787 is not the 767 with new things). As far is Airbus is concerned, they are behind, but the commitments and orders made by Qatar, SIA, Finnair, US Air, is a confidence booster for the A350 program. Like the 7E7 phase, these orders for the A350 will be enough for Airbus to seek input from them regarding the A350 and others, including airlines like Emirates. For now, Airbus has indeed lost market share to the 777 and 787, but this could be temporary, depending on the final design concept and target for the A350.
I think the A350 will be a better aircraft then the A330, and the A330 is pretty darn good. I think it will sell. Boeing has made a lot of promisses with the 787, now they have to deliver. They have a really tight flight test schedual, but their production schedual is even tighter. No composite aircraft this big has been mass produced before, it's going to be tough. The next year is going to be interesting.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
When I questioned the technology involved in the A350, I was referring solely to the carbon panel over conventional framework as opposed to a wound carbon fiber fuselage. Airbus' aproach is very innovative and refelcts original thinking. I suspect that they had to do this for reasons enunciated earlier as they may have lacked the technology, equipment, or time to develop a wound-carbon fuselage. This approach is truly innovative and probably offers lower weight than a riveted aluminum construction, but it does not reflect state-of-the-art design.
Regardless as to why they decided on the panel-over-aluminum-frame design, it has been speculated that it will be heavier (we won't know until they have a design finalized and prototype ready for weighing). Also, it is postulated that the cabin pressue will be 8,000 feet (2,000 feet more than the B787) and that the cabin humidity will be lower (to minimmize corrosion). While these are not fatal flaws, they will result in a less comfortable cabin atmosphere for the passenger. Also, a heavier fuselage (resulting in a higher plane empty weight) will also translate into higher fuel consumption.
If Airbus is able to make the A350 as light (and therefore fuel efficient) as the B787, and offer equal or better cabin comfort (and I'm not talking of seats and entertainment systems), then my hat's off to them.
Regardless as to why they decided on the panel-over-aluminum-frame design, it has been speculated that it will be heavier (we won't know until they have a design finalized and prototype ready for weighing). Also, it is postulated that the cabin pressue will be 8,000 feet (2,000 feet more than the B787) and that the cabin humidity will be lower (to minimmize corrosion). While these are not fatal flaws, they will result in a less comfortable cabin atmosphere for the passenger. Also, a heavier fuselage (resulting in a higher plane empty weight) will also translate into higher fuel consumption.
If Airbus is able to make the A350 as light (and therefore fuel efficient) as the B787, and offer equal or better cabin comfort (and I'm not talking of seats and entertainment systems), then my hat's off to them.
I enjoy reading your posts and generally agree with your point of view, but it this case I have to say that what Airbus has proposed is not innovative or original thinking. You can give that credit to me, if you like,smokejumper wrote:When I questioned the technology involved in the A350, I was referring solely to the carbon panel over conventional framework as opposed to a wound carbon fiber fuselage. Airbus' aproach is very innovative and refelcts original thinking......
hahaha, as I asked that question of Boeing over a year ago and it was finally answered this last November:"C.W. from California recently asked about composite "skins" on commercial airplanes, as in, why not make all of our existing models composite airframes?
Given that a 747 or 777 is built around an aluminum frame, how difficult would it be and how much weight would be saved by "re-skinning" with the same material that is being used for the 787? It would seem to be relatively easier to make pre-molded sheets vs. an entire fuselage .. would this be at all practical?
Well, the answer is, it's not really practical. To get the full advantage of composites we really have to create the airplane design from the beginning with the composite "material set" in mind. The cost of re-doing an aluminum fuselage design that is already complete, using another material set makes it pretty much prohibitive. I should add, though, that we are already making significant use of composite materials in some of our airplanes. 9% of the 777's structural weight, for example, is composite - primarily floor grids and the empennage section."
http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2 ... mail.htmlv
This is the challenge for Airbus indeed. The 787's technology, especially the cabin comfort(high humidity) is one of that plane's selling points, along with fuel efficiency, and others. I personally think Airbus is making a mistake by forgoing composite frame in favor of an aluminum. Steven Udvar-Hazy is pushing Airbus that way, so is Emirates, but as I posted before, they won't do it, I think they have settled into one design concept that will be finalized soon it seems, unless there is a problem.smokejumper wrote: If Airbus is able to make the A350 as light (and therefore fuel efficient) as the B787, and offer equal or better cabin comfort (and I'm not talking of seats and entertainment systems), then my hat's off to them.
Going from metal frames to composites frames could be a possibility, it doesn't sound like it will require too much more investment, what they won't do is the wound barrel method of construction as for the 787 because it will cost to much and take so much time to set up the facilities, and maybe other reasons..David747 wrote:This is the challenge for Airbus indeed. The 787's technology, especially the cabin comfort(high humidity) is one of that plane's selling points, along with fuel efficiency, and others. I personally think Airbus is making a mistake by forgoing composite frame in favor of an aluminum. Steven Udvar-Hazy is pushing Airbus that way, so is Emirates, but as I posted before, they won't do it, I think they have settled into one design concept that will be finalized soon it seems, unless there is a problem.smokejumper wrote: If Airbus is able to make the A350 as light (and therefore fuel efficient) as the B787, and offer equal or better cabin comfort (and I'm not talking of seats and entertainment systems), then my hat's off to them.
I am having a hard time believing that they sold even a single plane specifically because of the cabin atmosphere. I wouldn't even be surprised if the plane had an optional switch that uses regular 8000ft cabin pressure to conserve fuel. Unless the higher pressure is actually used to increase structural stiffness. It all just seems more like a marketing gimmick.
The 787 doesnt use bleed air from the engines to pressurize the cabin so I don't see a fuel savings by keeping the cabin at 8,000 feet instead of 6000.
A composite frame would be better less corrosion problem, but the completed fuselage would still have more seams to maintain then the 787 fuselage.
Flying from LA to Manilla every year I would really like more humidity and pressure in the cabin.
A composite frame would be better less corrosion problem, but the completed fuselage would still have more seams to maintain then the 787 fuselage.
Flying from LA to Manilla every year I would really like more humidity and pressure in the cabin.
Well, the electric compressor has to work harder to get 6000 ft pressure instead of 8000 ft, which uses more power, which comes from the engines, which use fuel to generate it.boomer535 wrote:The 787 doesnt use bleed air from the engines to pressurize the cabin so I don't see a fuel savings by keeping the cabin at 8,000 feet instead of 6000.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
One advantage of the wound-carbon monolithic fusealge structure is that it is not as porus as a riveted panel on frame sturcture. Therefore, it is a more efficeint pressure vessel and can be expected to require a lower amount of energy to maintain a given level of pressure - this translates to lower fuel burn.earthman wrote:Well, the electric compressor has to work harder to get 6000 ft pressure instead of 8000 ft, which uses more power, which comes from the engines, which use fuel to generate it.boomer535 wrote:The 787 doesnt use bleed air from the engines to pressurize the cabin so I don't see a fuel savings by keeping the cabin at 8,000 feet instead of 6000.