A350 Details

[RC20]

I have picked up some of the details for the A350. Accurate I believe. All my assessment is based on accepting Airbus in service figures. I doubt that they will meet those (the A380 recovery and A400 are going to suck resources for some time to come).

The fuselage is going to have 6 large composite panels, on an aluminum frame.

My take on this, with all the spin aside, is that’s all they can do with the state of their current abilities. Its achievable. It also not the way future aircraft will be built, it maybe gets your feet wet, but spinning a fuselage section is not the same.

The first model out will be the A350-900, as Airbus believes there will be a market need for that type when it goes into production. Leahy comment was selling into a trough for the 787, and a peak for the A350.

My take, it makes sense for them to sell the model that is in demand. Not exactly rocket science level economics there. However, Boeing has said they will do the 787-10, which matches the seating (not sure on range). More of the sales driven hype. I also remember the comments that the A350 you can just remove a damaged panel for a permanent fix! You are going to remove 1/6 of your fuselage, or are you going to patch it back to its original or better strength? Call it Leahy spin.
Also, keep in mind that all the original A350 orders were based on the smaller versions. How long can those who ordered it wait?



In service date is slated for July of 2013, and production is going to be 50 in the first two years.

My take: Boeings current plans are to launch the 787-10 in 2012. With the production line(s) going well at that point, they should be more than capable of supplying any demand for that class aircraft with a more efficient and mature one in service (the systems will be the issue, and those will be mature versus the A350 unproven ones).
Airbus will probably get about the same 30% market for this as they are currently. Some versions of the 777-200 will stay in production because Airbus does not match them (777-200LR and the 777-F).


Design freeze occurs in 2008:

My take: that still leaves open questions, and again, advantage Boeing as they will have a flying aircraft and firm facts to support them. I am not sure anyone is going to fully believe Airbus information. Purchase decisions can be made in the next year or two, and get either aircraft. Political purchasing decisions aside (China and Russia), it’s a self defeating decision not to go with the mature and more fuel efficient aircraft (which I believe will be the 787, and I do accept that all changes is there are issues with it).
A number of fleet decisions are waiting what the offering looks like and my belief is that 60-70% go to Boeing.

The A350-1000 in service date is 2015:

My take: That’s the really interesting one, Boeing currently does not have a public answer to what they do with that challenge to the 777-300. I assume if they feel they can modify it and be competitive, they will do so. The 737 replacement is going to be going full tilt at that point. At the very least a new composite wing, and the fuselage depends on their estimation of Airbus offering. Theoretically they could do composite panels.
They have all the time they need to decide, 787 will be in production not development, 747 will be in production. They should have plenty of resources to devote to it. Not knowing what they have in the quiver means only guesses.
Certainly one possibility is to go full tilt into a 787 type composite replacement. That would immediately obsolete anything Airbus could offer.

A350 position: Its obvious that the A350 is targeted at the 777 far more than the 787 despite the rhetoric. It does belie the touting of a wider fuselage than the 787, when its fuselage is narrower than a 777 (though agreed wider than the 787-10)
It also leaves the entire lower end of the spectrum to the 787-3/8/9. And with its compromise hybrid structure, its going to be trying to compete with the all composite 787-10. If past aeronautics hold true, the 787-10 is going to be superior to the A350-900, and the –800 is going to be totally outclassed by the 787-8/9.

[smokejumper]

I agree with your analysis of the situation. I do wonder why Airbus is focusing on the larger aircraft market and leaving the 200-250 seat market to Boeing since this seems to be the larger market. The answer most likely lies with the capital requirements to develop 2 different aircraft simultaneously (as Boeing did with the 757 and 767). With the financial isuses associated with the A380 and A400, Airbus would be hard pressed to develop 2 new airframes.

The new A350XWB should be a worthy competetor to the the 777-300, however, Boeing can be expected to intorduce improvements on the 777 (maybe even composite panels to reduce weight?).

The composite construction adopted by Airbus (composite panels over aluminum frames) can be expected to be heavier (and thus less fuel efficient), but permits them to use a comfortable technology that reduces the need for larger capital investment.

Boeing, it seems, will have a field day in the 200-250n seat market and, will be well postured for the new generation single body market - they will have the money, the technology and (hopefully for them), the reputation and market acceptance to pull it off.

[RC20]

Pretty much agreed. Airbus has itself overcommitted and put itself in a corner with the whole situation.

Interesting that there was whining about how Boeing benefited from its government contact on composite airframe. A behind the back acknowledgment that Boeing has them beat in that area right now.

Airbus certainly had that opportunity to do that with the A400. They would have been far better served to have gone with an all composite C130 type aircraft, as that is where a large need is, as well as a major leap in that segment (very much like Boeings move with the 787). The elected to go with a conventional structure strategic turbo prop. The reality is that the C17 does that far better (long range) and I think matches it for airfield performance. I keep hearing how much the C17 costs, but it carries far more than the A400 ever will, and at what will probably wind up the same or lower price when all is said and done.
Not only did Boeing make the leap, they are doing it with outside partners, which is interesting, one of those being Alenia. Italy has tried to get into the Airbus program for some time and been turned down. So, while its Boeings technology, Alenia is a huge player in the fuselage sections.

I think Airbus has tried to pick the middle of the twin aisle market, and hope that is where the future is. It has the appearance of a hail Mary pass they hope would work.
I keep coming back to John Leahy’s comments that if they had just put out the improved A330, they would have done as well. He did have ok sales with it, and it doesn’t looks like the far ore expensive one is going to sell any better and far more cost (and without the technological leap they needed just to match Boeing.).
I continue to acknowledge its theory right now, but the 787 stretch should be even more efficient, and a scaled down A350 less.

Also interesting are the timelines involved. While Airbus is incapable of changing that due to their development time, it does play into Boeing hands, in that Airbus cannot get anything into the air until Boeing is going full blast with the 787. If Boeing adds that second line, delivery slots will not be much if any issue, and then its back to the economics of it (again accepting there are order that are either political or economic derived that both Airbus and Boeing are going to get regardless).
The timeline also gives Boeing free rein with the 787-10, and get it into the air in time to match the A350.
The 777 response is really going to be interesting. Boeing says that there are serious corrosion issues when you mix aluminum and composites. They probably can isolate and avoid, but Boeing solution was just to avoid it entirely with the 787. Its going to be some time before we know what Boeing has up its sleeve (probably after the A350 design freeze which occurs in 2008-and that still means possible major changes to the A350, not likely, but you can’t rule it out depending on the response they get).

Last but no where close to least, is the 737/A320 replacement. You can bet Boeing is going to launch that as soon as they get airline concurrence on the approach (and at least an path to the engine situation). That put Airbus squarely on the defensive, as if they do not match Boeing on the all composite fuselage, they loose that market as well.
Frankly, it looks like Airbus is going to be a marginal player (under 40%) from now into the foreseeable future.

[CX]

Apparently Airbus will probably get the new generation engines for their narrowbody few years before Boeing, but what they will do with the A320 is another question.
I don't really see A350's position is an issue.. yes they leave the 200~240 market opened to the 787, but if they also want the plane to be a 350 seater they cannot shorten it to a 200 seater.. The situation is a bit like some years ago when the A330 had only the aging 767 against it, and now we have the A330 against the 787-3/8, and do you believe Airbus will NOT replace the A332 and A333? i dont' think so, but just not now.

[PYX]

Apparently Airbus will probably get the new generation engines for their narrowbody few years before Boeing...

Somehow a geared turbofan sounds like a step backwards to me.

[Taxi]

I also remember the comments that the A350 you can just remove a damaged panel for a permanent fix! You are going to remove 1/6 of your fuselage, or are you going to patch it back to its original or better strength? Call it Leahy spin.

Better 1/6th than the whole fuselage?

Also, keep in mind that all the original A350 orders were based on the smaller versions. How long can those who ordered it wait?

If it becomes problematic Airbus will offer the A330 as compensation/stopgap.

My take: Boeings current plans are to launch the 787-10 in 2012. With the production line(s) going well at that point, they should be more than capable of supplying any demand for that class aircraft with a more efficient and mature one in service (the systems will be the issue, and those will be mature versus the A350 unproven ones).

Prolly right on the more mature bit, but what is the more efficent based on?

Some versions of the 777-200 will stay in production because Airbus does not match them (777-200LR and the 777-F).

In some ways they won't match them yes, in otherways they will.

My take: that still leaves open questions, and again, advantage Boeing as they will have a flying aircraft and firm facts to support them.

Agree.

The A350-1000 in service date is 2015:

My take: That’s the really interesting one, Boeing currently does not have a public answer to what they do with that challenge to the 777-300. I assume if they feel they can modify it and be competitive, they will do so.

But if they can be competive remains to be seen, see A330 based A350 vs. 787.

The 737 replacement is going to be going full tilt at that point. At the very least a new composite wing, and the fuselage depends on their estimation of Airbus offering. Theoretically they could do composite panels.
They have all the time they need to decide, 787 will be in production not development, 747 will be in production. They should have plenty of resources to devote to it. Not knowing what they have in the quiver means only guesses.

Unless A350 orders really start to hurt the 777 than things might be different, but in principle yes, Boeing has the advantage.

It also leaves the entire lower end of the spectrum to the 787-3/8/9. And with its compromise hybrid structure, its going to be trying to compete with the all composite 787-10. If past aeronautics hold true, the 787-10 is going to be superior to the A350-900

Remains to be seen.

and the –800 is going to be totally outclassed by the 787-8/9.

Well yes the 787 is better optimized for that capacity range, although on the other hand some airlines might find commonality more important than a certain sized efficiency difference.

All in all I agree, Boeings has the better cards, but not as much as you picture.

I do wonder though if it wouldn't have been better for Airbus to take on both the 777 and 747 with one model in stead of the 787 and 777 as mentioned in this thread: better-strategy-for-airbus-taking-on-77 ... 19882.html