Qantas wants bigger 787
Moderator: Latest news team
Qantas wants bigger 787
QANTAS chief Geoff Dixon has warned aircraft manufacturer Boeing that his company will consider buying aircraft from Airbus if the US company does not follow through on plans to roll out a larger version of the new 787 Dreamliner.
Mr Dixon later said Qantas was not interested in Boeing's 777 jet because it was old technology, and nor would the airline buy the proposed remake of the now 40-year-old 747 jumbo, which is to be given new engines and rebadged as the 747-8.
"We're not going to buy old technology that has been . . . I won't say . . . tarted up. But there, I said it," Mr Dixon declared.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 64,00.html
Qantas flexes muscles over Boeing 787
Some industry observers believe Boeing is reluctant to build an aircraft that would compete against some versions of its popular twin-engine 777. Singapore Airlines has already opted for the A350 as a 777 replacement and Mr Dixon does not see another 777 variant as an option because of its older technology
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 43,00.html
Mr Dixon later said Qantas was not interested in Boeing's 777 jet because it was old technology, and nor would the airline buy the proposed remake of the now 40-year-old 747 jumbo, which is to be given new engines and rebadged as the 747-8.
"We're not going to buy old technology that has been . . . I won't say . . . tarted up. But there, I said it," Mr Dixon declared.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 64,00.html
Qantas flexes muscles over Boeing 787
Some industry observers believe Boeing is reluctant to build an aircraft that would compete against some versions of its popular twin-engine 777. Singapore Airlines has already opted for the A350 as a 777 replacement and Mr Dixon does not see another 777 variant as an option because of its older technology
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 43,00.html
- fokker_f27
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
- Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium
How can they be so sure of that if Airbus hasn't even come up with a final design for the A350XWB?Its a tough call for Boeing with the 777 selling so well, but QANTAS have joined Emirates in saying the 78-10 hasnt got sufficient range compared with the XWB1000.
They seem to be forgetting that the 747-8 will feature a whole new wing. And the age of the original airframe isn't what counts, but how well it performs. And they have no idea of knowing that yet.the now 40-year-old 747 jumbo, which is to be given new engines and rebadged as the 747-8.
Seems to me that Qantas has some prejudices here...
The most sexy girl in the sky: The Sud-Est Caravelle 12.
They are the customer and there is no point why they should be prejudice, so i don't think they are.. You can probably say they are just desperately pushing Boeingn for the -10. Don't diss airlines everytime they say something against Boeing or for Airbus please.fokker_f27 wrote:How can they be so sure of that if Airbus hasn't even come up with a final design for the A350XWB?Its a tough call for Boeing with the 777 selling so well, but QANTAS have joined Emirates in saying the 78-10 hasnt got sufficient range compared with the XWB1000.
They seem to be forgetting that the 747-8 will feature a whole new wing. And the age of the original airframe isn't what counts, but how well it performs. And they have no idea of knowing that yet.the now 40-year-old 747 jumbo, which is to be given new engines and rebadged as the 747-8.
Seems to me that Qantas has some prejudices here...
Actually Boeing said they will do the -10, but Emirates says it doesn't have enough range.. isn't that easy to solve? auxiliary fuel tank or modify the wing a little and enlarge the fuel tank?
It's not as easy as all that. I am not an Engineer but I think when you increase the fuel load you increase the take off weight. You must trade payload to get the extra range or increase the maximum takeoff weight. To increase the maximum take off weight Boeing would have to design a new wing and a stronger landing gear. New stronger engines will also be needed. You end up with a pretty expensive redesign. I think Boeing will wait until the A350 firms up before they decide what to do with the 787-10. They might end up making two versions of the 787-10. One would be a simple stretch with less range but more passengers, and the other would be the 787-10ER with a bigger wing, beefed up landing gear and stronger engines. Or they could end up building an entire new plane to replace the 777. This is the Y3 project. Boeing has a lot on the table right now with getting the 787 flight tested, and finishing off the design for the 747-8. Boeing also has to worry about the 737 replacement, the Y1 project. Boeing is in a pretty good place right now though. I think they have some time to decide about Y1, Y3, or 787-10.CX wrote:Actually Boeing said they will do the -10, but Emirates says it doesn't have enough range.. isn't that easy to solve? auxiliary fuel tank or modify the wing a little and enlarge the fuel tank?
The powerplant for an extended range 787-1000 becomes an interesting issue.
If Boeing want to stretch their -1000 to 8000 miles range, they will need the new engine that GE refuse to offer for the XWB1000.
Either way the low end 777 looks very threatened, and GE are in a quandary.
They are not winning friends right now in Toulouse, and a Boeing decision to match the XWB1000 performance would appear to a good thing for Airbus as far as a second choice engine is concerned, but negotiations could be a bit strained for GE in view of their current stance.
Time will tell.
Cheers
Achace
If Boeing want to stretch their -1000 to 8000 miles range, they will need the new engine that GE refuse to offer for the XWB1000.
Either way the low end 777 looks very threatened, and GE are in a quandary.
They are not winning friends right now in Toulouse, and a Boeing decision to match the XWB1000 performance would appear to a good thing for Airbus as far as a second choice engine is concerned, but negotiations could be a bit strained for GE in view of their current stance.
Time will tell.
Cheers
Achace
If Boeing want to stretch the proposed 1000 to match the XWB1000 at 8000 miles range, they need the same engine that Airbus are still trying to get GE to offer.
Its a problem for Boeing and GE, because a longer range 787 really kills the low end of the 777.
Maybe in a perverse way, a 787 to match the XWB1000 in range could be good news for Airbus who's customers want an engine option on the XWB.
I dont believe Boeing and GE would dare try an exclusivity deal on such an engine like they did on the 777ER.
Will be interesting to see how things work out, but with just Emirates and QANTAS the immediate market is about 120 planes.
Cheers
Achace
Its a problem for Boeing and GE, because a longer range 787 really kills the low end of the 777.
Maybe in a perverse way, a 787 to match the XWB1000 in range could be good news for Airbus who's customers want an engine option on the XWB.
I dont believe Boeing and GE would dare try an exclusivity deal on such an engine like they did on the 777ER.
Will be interesting to see how things work out, but with just Emirates and QANTAS the immediate market is about 120 planes.
Cheers
Achace
I would not be surprised at all to see Qantas order the 350-10, even thought they will eventually take 125 787.
Boeing are not really in a quandry. They know that in a few years they should have the composite technology to move the 787-10 8000nm with little or no weight increase. It is their stated aim to get the performance they want by cutting structural weight not increasing MTOW. If they pull this off the 350-10 will have serious problems.
Frankly I think they will need a new engine and greater weights nut you never know.
As for Dixon, well, following the recent takeover debacle at Qantas, he has to re-establish credibility. I don't think this is the way to do it.
Ruscoe
Boeing are not really in a quandry. They know that in a few years they should have the composite technology to move the 787-10 8000nm with little or no weight increase. It is their stated aim to get the performance they want by cutting structural weight not increasing MTOW. If they pull this off the 350-10 will have serious problems.
Frankly I think they will need a new engine and greater weights nut you never know.
As for Dixon, well, following the recent takeover debacle at Qantas, he has to re-establish credibility. I don't think this is the way to do it.
Ruscoe
Agree QF will probably go with the A350-10. At least they will go with whoever can give them non-stop AUS-UK flights. I'm also tipping they will stop ordering the 737 and go with the superior A320's until the NG arrives. This will result in a mixed 737/A320 fleet but it matters little since the Q group already maintains and flys Jetstar A320's.Ruscoe wrote:I would not be surprised at all to see Qantas order the 350-10, even thought they will eventually take 125 787.
As for Dixon, well, following the recent takeover debacle at Qantas, he has to re-establish credibility. I don't think this is the way to do it.
Ruscoe
I don't agree Dixon needs to "re-establish credibity". Firstly he is firmly established as one of the savviest Airline CEO's in the world. Secondly he was smart enough not to get too involved in the bid. Macquarie Bank, Texaco Pacific were responsible for the stuff up and from Qantas Margaret Jackson put herself in an untenable position with the shareholders and was duly sacraficed. Dixon may have stuffed up behind the scenes but publicly he lost nothing. In any case his job is to run the airline not decide who owns it.
Cheers
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I'd like to comment on several of the above posts.
1) One post refers to the "superior A320". I do not think the A320 is superior to the B737NG. True, it does offer a fly-by-wire control system which is more modern than hydraulic controls, but from a maintenance and reliability point-of-view, both are equal.
The gross weight of the A320 is 170,000 pounds while the B737-800 grosses 174,000 (advantage A320). The listed passsenger count for 2 class layouts are A320 = 150 while the B737-800 = 162 (advantage B787-800, but I recongnize hat passenger counts depend on pitch and class). The range of the A320 is listed as 3,000 miles (48400 Km) while the B787-800 is listed as 3,060 miles (4935 km) - there is no real advantage to either here.
From reports I have read, both flight control systems work well and are equally maintainable and reliable. I do not feel that either plane is superior to the other. Boeing has updated the 737 to keep it as advanced as the A320 and fuel economy is about the same.
2) As to the issue of "engine exclusivity" (GE and the 777-200LR) and GE's reluctance to supply it to Airbus, I feel that this is a business decision. Development of a new large engine is VERY expensive and the market for such engines was considered limited when the B777-200LR was conceived. Basicallly, GE and Boeing worked out a deal that allowed GE to recover their costs and a profit. All B777-200LR's would have this engine and GE would not have to divide the engine side of the market with RR and P&W for what was considered a limited aircraft market. Perhaps Airbus should work out a deal with P&W or RR for a similar situation.
3) I agree that Qantas will select whichever manufacturer can ofer the holy grail of UK to AUS. However, which AUS is the target (London to Perth - 7829 nm [14480 km] or London to Sydney - 9188 nm [16990 km]? The B777-200LR can achieve the first route, but he latter route is proving elusive under all conditions. Whoever can offer (and guarantee) the the London-Sydney route will get a contract. The manufacturer will probably have to demonstrate this capability since Qantas does not want penalty payments, they want the non-stop capability.
1) One post refers to the "superior A320". I do not think the A320 is superior to the B737NG. True, it does offer a fly-by-wire control system which is more modern than hydraulic controls, but from a maintenance and reliability point-of-view, both are equal.
The gross weight of the A320 is 170,000 pounds while the B737-800 grosses 174,000 (advantage A320). The listed passsenger count for 2 class layouts are A320 = 150 while the B737-800 = 162 (advantage B787-800, but I recongnize hat passenger counts depend on pitch and class). The range of the A320 is listed as 3,000 miles (48400 Km) while the B787-800 is listed as 3,060 miles (4935 km) - there is no real advantage to either here.
From reports I have read, both flight control systems work well and are equally maintainable and reliable. I do not feel that either plane is superior to the other. Boeing has updated the 737 to keep it as advanced as the A320 and fuel economy is about the same.
2) As to the issue of "engine exclusivity" (GE and the 777-200LR) and GE's reluctance to supply it to Airbus, I feel that this is a business decision. Development of a new large engine is VERY expensive and the market for such engines was considered limited when the B777-200LR was conceived. Basicallly, GE and Boeing worked out a deal that allowed GE to recover their costs and a profit. All B777-200LR's would have this engine and GE would not have to divide the engine side of the market with RR and P&W for what was considered a limited aircraft market. Perhaps Airbus should work out a deal with P&W or RR for a similar situation.
3) I agree that Qantas will select whichever manufacturer can ofer the holy grail of UK to AUS. However, which AUS is the target (London to Perth - 7829 nm [14480 km] or London to Sydney - 9188 nm [16990 km]? The B777-200LR can achieve the first route, but he latter route is proving elusive under all conditions. Whoever can offer (and guarantee) the the London-Sydney route will get a contract. The manufacturer will probably have to demonstrate this capability since Qantas does not want penalty payments, they want the non-stop capability.
This is actually strange, if Boeing go do something that matches the XWB-1000, people have been doubting whether one XWB airframe can take on both 787 and 777, but if the 787-10 ends up the same capacity and similar range as the XWB-1000, then Boeing is also taking on both categories with one airframe. And, why are we regarding the -10 as -1000XWB competitor? the -10's capacity has always been similar to the -900XWB's capacity right?
As for why GE is not providing engines, it's probably because the 777s are still selling so well, and maybe a belief that Boeing will upgrade the 773ER so that the -1000XWB sales will be limited, and for sure they dont' want to compete with themselves... just a thought... surely though -1000XWB won't be so easily beaten.
For commanility reasons they might go for 787-10s, but they also have A330s and A380s..
edit: here comes Airbus... http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamili ... sives.html#
As for why GE is not providing engines, it's probably because the 777s are still selling so well, and maybe a belief that Boeing will upgrade the 773ER so that the -1000XWB sales will be limited, and for sure they dont' want to compete with themselves... just a thought... surely though -1000XWB won't be so easily beaten.
For commanility reasons they might go for 787-10s, but they also have A330s and A380s..
edit: here comes Airbus... http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamili ... sives.html#
My understanding is that the A320 has clealry outsold the 737 in the last 3 years and looks set to continue to do so. For this reason alone I think it's clear it's a superior product. But if anyone has figures to prove otherwise..smokejumper wrote:I'd like to comment on several of the above posts.
1) One post refers to the "superior A320". I do not think the A320 is superior to the B737NG. True, it does offer a fly-by-wire control system which is more modern than hydraulic controls, but from a maintenance and reliability point-of-view, both are equal.
The gross weight of the A320 is 170,000 pounds while the B737-800 grosses 174,000 (advantage A320). The listed passsenger count for 2 class layouts are A320 = 150 while the B737-800 = 162 (advantage B787-800, but I recongnize hat passenger counts depend on pitch and class). The range of the A320 is listed as 3,000 miles (48400 Km) while the B787-800 is listed as 3,060 miles (4935 km) - there is no real advantage to either here.
From reports I have read, both flight control systems work well and are equally maintainable and reliable. I do not feel that either plane is superior to the other. Boeing has updated the 737 to keep it as advanced as the A320 and fuel economy is about the same.
SYD and MEL are obviously the biggest and most important markets and therefore the primary ones that QF want to service non stop to/from Europe and probably New York, maybe even Chicago, Dallas, Brazil etc.smokejumper wrote:
3) I agree that Qantas will select whichever manufacturer can ofer the holy grail of UK to AUS. However, which AUS is the target (London to Perth - 7829 nm [14480 km] or London to Sydney - 9188 nm [16990 km]? The B777-200LR can achieve the first route, but he latter route is proving elusive under all conditions. Whoever can offer (and guarantee) the the London-Sydney route will get a contract. The manufacturer will probably have to demonstrate this capability since Qantas does not want penalty payments, they want the non-stop capability.
If they have a/c with the range to do that they would no doubt use them for non stop services from PER and BNE to LHR and probably ADL as well. (non stop ADL-LHR would really the threaten the viability of carriers like Malaysian servicing Adelaide).
But buying "tarted up old tech 777's" just for the sake of flying PER-LHR direct will not happen, as Dixon has made clear.
Cheers
The QANTAS holy grail of Sydney London non-stop in all seasons may well be possible with the XWB1000.
Cutting back on passengers to around 300, I figure they could uplift an additional 25 tons of fuel, which ought to give them the range.
For such a long flight, you would need to alloctae a bit more space per passenger, so the equation could be quite neat.
There is also supposed to be an XWB900XR(extended range), but I havent seen any performance figures for that.
Cheers
Achace
Cutting back on passengers to around 300, I figure they could uplift an additional 25 tons of fuel, which ought to give them the range.
For such a long flight, you would need to alloctae a bit more space per passenger, so the equation could be quite neat.
There is also supposed to be an XWB900XR(extended range), but I havent seen any performance figures for that.
Cheers
Achace
GE engine interview -- A350-1000 vs. 777-300ER
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... blog_last3
A350 XWB -- more from Steve Udvar-Hazy about the composite fuselage construction
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 117843.asp
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... blog_last3
A350 XWB -- more from Steve Udvar-Hazy about the composite fuselage construction
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 117843.asp
Actually why are airlines happy that only GE produces 777 engines and not so with the XWB?A350XWB wrote:GE engine interview -- A350-1000 vs. 777-300ER
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... blog_last3
A350 XWB -- more from Steve Udvar-Hazy about the composite fuselage construction
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 117843.asp
I dont believe the airlines are at all happy with the 777 exclusive arrangement. Before the ER versions I think RR had the biggest engine share on the 777, and many airlines expressed displeasure at a change being forced on them.
Rumour has it that ANA selected RR on the 787 because of this issue. Sorry I dont recall where I read it but it was a reputable aerospace magazine.
Cheers
Achace
Rumour has it that ANA selected RR on the 787 because of this issue. Sorry I dont recall where I read it but it was a reputable aerospace magazine.
Cheers
Achace
If the A320 is outselling the 737 like the 777 is outselling the A340 I could see your point, but this is not the case. One big reason the A320 is outselling the 737 is the increased production of the A320. 737 production is sold out for the forseeable future. I suspect another reason is that customers are waiting for the announcement of the CFRP 737 replacement. The A320 really should be a better AC then the 737 since it is a much newer design. But the 737 was a great AC to begin with and Boeing has done a great job updating it. The latest 737, the 900ER is a superb AC. That said, I think it is about time to replace both AC. I think Boeing is farther along in their CFRP replacement for the 737 (Y1) then Airbus is in their replacement for the A320. The only thing needed is a new engine.tsv wrote:My understanding is that the A320 has clealry outsold the 737 in the last 3 years and looks set to continue to do so. For this reason alone I think it's clear it's a superior product. But if anyone has figures to prove otherwise..
Boeings answer to the A350-10 would be Y3. But Boeing has a lot on the table right now with the 787, 747-8, and 777F. First they need to flight test and certify the 787-8, -3 and -9. Then they can work on extended range versions and the -10. They can also decide to do a Y2.5 and make a -11 version to compete with the A350-10. Its hard to predict the future, but I think Boeing is in pretty good shape now.
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
tsv wrote: "My understanding is that the A320 has clearly outsold the 737 in the last 3 years and looks set to continue to do so. For this reason alone I think it's clear it's a superior product. But if anyone has figures to prove otherwise.. "
Several friends (1 at Northwest and the other at Frontier) have told me that the prices offered by Airbus are "very favorable" and that Boeing will not match them. Now, if these low prices are a result of more efficient manufacturing and production processes, then the A320 is a superior product. If, however, the low prices result from a policy to sustain employment and benefit from subsidies, then it is not a superior product.
Technologically, both the A320 and the B737NG are equal (with the exception of the B737's hydraulic flight controls, which while older technology, are very reliable and maintainable.
As for "tarted-up old tech 777's", they have been replaced with current production 777's incorporating technology that was not available in the 1990 design era. On the other hand, I guess you could say that even the current production 777's are old tech in that they use panels riveted over aluminum frames (just like the A350XWB [6th iteration]). Airbus has replaced aluminum panels with composite panels but still use thousands of rivets to hold them together.
Several friends (1 at Northwest and the other at Frontier) have told me that the prices offered by Airbus are "very favorable" and that Boeing will not match them. Now, if these low prices are a result of more efficient manufacturing and production processes, then the A320 is a superior product. If, however, the low prices result from a policy to sustain employment and benefit from subsidies, then it is not a superior product.
Technologically, both the A320 and the B737NG are equal (with the exception of the B737's hydraulic flight controls, which while older technology, are very reliable and maintainable.
As for "tarted-up old tech 777's", they have been replaced with current production 777's incorporating technology that was not available in the 1990 design era. On the other hand, I guess you could say that even the current production 777's are old tech in that they use panels riveted over aluminum frames (just like the A350XWB [6th iteration]). Airbus has replaced aluminum panels with composite panels but still use thousands of rivets to hold them together.