Qatar Airways CEO is not
alone when expecting Airbus to launch a “A350-1100”.
Source: Airbus
Boeing marketing
vice-president Mike Tinseth expect Airbus to add a further, large derivative to
its A350 widebody family.
“Based on the A350-1000, it
would be hard to believe they wouldn´t do something” he said.
Tinseth labeled the
in-development A350-1000 a “disaster”, arguing it has “compromised” engines and wings.
This, he said, is partly down
to the decision to increase thrust through changes in the Trent XWB engine core
without enlargement of the powerplant´s nacelle when Airbus redesigned the
variant in 2011.
Source: Marina Lystseva
“I don´t think they can live long
with being outsold … in that segment”, said Tinseth.
But he believes that a
A350-1100 would not pose a threat, because such a move would be “something we
contemplated early in the 777X development process”.
Source: Getty images
At the Paris Air show, Airbus
COO Customers John Leahy said the A350-900 was not the programs centre of
reference, with it´s middle point moving “toward A350-1000”.
.This is strange, its the first time I have heard Boeing make a particular comment on a Airbus Aircraft. All be it from a marketing man! Is this a note of worry on their part? Cant really see it although the 777x-9 has not as yet even reached the poor sales figures of the A380. So whats his game?
ReplyDeleteJC
That is Boeing speak for "They would have us by the b*s" :-)
DeleteUp to now the counterveiling propaganda has worked reasonably well. Emanating A350 in use facts are undermining that.
My guess is the ULR already is an unpleasant surprise.
( apropos this Mike Tinseth's first name is Randy )
Thanks for your comments and contribution.
DeleteRandy´s Journal can be found here: www.bloeingblogs.com/randy/
always very interesting and with many pictures
Well ,the in-development A350-1000 “disaster” will still have at least a 20 percent lower trip fuel burn than the 777-300ER, and it forced Boeing to spend upwards of $10 billion on a larger 777-derivative that will only beat the A350-1000 on fuel burn per seat due to the GE9X engine being 5 percent more efficient than the TXWB-97 engine on the A350-1000. Not bad for an in-development "disaster"
ReplyDeleteRandy doesn't seem to know the primary insight of game theory - that is, putting himself in Airbus' shoes and trying to play out all of the possible reactions from Airbus to the 777X. Airbus might respond with a stretched A350-1000, but is this the only possibility? Randy, apparently, thinks so, but also seem to miss the point that optimising the TXWB-97 as a low cost, minimum change platform, Airbus/RR won't have wasted their resources on something that is still good enough, when clearly, better tech is just around the corner.
For sure, an A350-1100 would essentially match the 777-9 on performance - same number of seats, same payload/range capability etc. However, an A350-1100 would have lower MTOW and consequently, slightly lower fuel burn if it were to be powered by an engine at least as advanced as the GE9X engine.
It may look, therefore, that Boeing has taken into account the very real possibility of Airbus countering with an all new "super twin" slightly wider than the 777 - in order to have a comfortable 10 abreast configuration with 18" seats. Such an Airbus super twin would have engine that would very likely be at least 10 percent more efficient than the TXWB-97 engine and 5 percent more efficient than the GE9X engine.
Interestingly, the new Al Maktoum International Aiport in Dubai will have citical aircraft box dimensions of 85m x 85m that cater for the new generation expanded aircraft versions*. Today, 80m x 80m is the max aircraft box dimensions. The new 85m x 85m standard will very likely be implemented by the leading airports in the world today.
* http://daep.gov.ae/press-release/al-maktoum-international-phase-1/
Aircraft box dimensions of 85m x 85m will not only be able to cater for a 19 frame stretched A380-1000**, but it would also cater to the largest member of an all new Airbus super twin family.
https://twitter.com/tuitadynelpd/status/544253579847290880
An all new composite Airbus super twin family could have 3 members with overall lengths of 74m, 79.5m and 85m. The dash-900 would be a direct competitor to the 777-9X. It would have about the same MTOW, but be able to carry 30-40 more passengers, while burning less fuel (per trip). The dash-1000 would have slightly more floor area than the 747-8 and higher MTOW than the dash-9000. The dash-800 would be the ULR-version. The composite fuselage and the slightly wider fuselage (i.e more favourable fuselage fineness ratio = lower weight) will ensure that a dash-900 will have a lower empty weight than the 777-9X.
What is clear, though, is that Boeing has not contemplated such a development program on the part of Airbus - bad play game-theory-wise. If they had done so, IMJ they would never have undertaken a mere 777-upgrade programme, but would have realised that the 777X would not be competitive in the long run and that they, therefore, would have had to make a "super twin" themselves - in order to secure a first mover advantage.
Finally, the A350-1000 could be re-engined with the same engine that would be developed for a super twin. That would be more bad news for the 777-9.
Rgds, Karl
Karl, thanks for your comments and contribution.
DeleteKarl,
DeleteThat was quite a lot but I'll try to make my point quick and to the point. Its easy to view the A350-1000 a better aircraft to the 77W. That the obvious. What in my general opinion hurts the A35K is that is was a composite arrow aimed at the 77W, which was a bad move since the 77W was launched in 2004. A 2017 EIS for a product meant for replacing the by then 13 year old 77W. Looking at the situation from a psychological perspective, the behavior of carriers towards the A35k then and now are pretty stark. Figure for a product launched in 2008 has 169 orders where as the order tally for the 77W in the same time period has benefited the latter. There is something that is not right with the A350-1000 that we may not know and that RT may be alluding to in his comment about the engines. Moreover, since the introduction of the 778, the head to head competitor to the A35K, has had a better order avg than the A35K. 26.5 vs 21.125.
The A350-1100. This product sounds great on paper, or on the screen in our case, but it's likely going to take much more than what you perscribed to bring it to market. The biggest hindrance is that Airbus will not try to NEO the A380 (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/a380-neo-airbus-demande-a-emirates-de-mettre-la-main-a-la-poche-513886.html) and build this 1100 at the same time. Also take into account how much of this niche market is left after the 779 and 778 have soaked up the demand? 3 variants, as you proposed, of a derivative aircraft is a bit much since it is hard to gauge what this niche market looks like in a whole.
In closing, Boeing is not behind the curve as you make them out to be. the quote by RT was that “something we contemplated early in the 777X development process”. This tells me that they obviouly thought about in great detail. Meaning they thought of the possibility of Airbus make ing a derivative of the A35K and building upon that since developing a new aircraft from scratch makes no financial sense and is extremely expensive. I believe that Airbus is going forward with A380 NEO because they don't want to squander a $25 billion investment. With that, the resources earmarked for a 1100 would be thin. This is all predicated if they decide to go forward with it. In defense of the A35K, the 77W hasn't really started to take place.
@Jet.Fuel.773
DeleteAgain, this is not about an A350-1100, but rather an all new possible/likely "super-twin" from Airbus. They could do a simple A350-1100 as well as it would be in a different market segment than that of the "super-twin" (e.g. less capacity, less range).
Now, the A350-1000 has more customers than the 777-9. Take away the Emirates order and Boeing's left with 93 orders. Why do I mention Emirates? Well, because they have a track record of cancelling orders when something bigger and better is on the horizon.
As for the supposedly lackluster demand for the A350-1000, one should keep in mind that the 777-200ER essentially stopped selling when the 777-300ER became available. In short, the 777 programme became at that time a one trick pony (e.g. not including the 777F). In contrast, the A350-900 is so good that the A350-1000 barely beats it on fuel burn per seat, which was not the case for the 777-200ER vs. the 777-300ER. That's why the A350-1000 also competes against the A350-900. In addition, the A350-900 is in a market segment where many more old aircraft are being replaced, while the larger 350-seat market segment shows signs of saturation. Therefore, it may seem as if the reports of the "death of the A350-1000" have been greatly exaggerated.
As for the Trent XWB-97 engine, it will still be the most fuel efficient engine when it enters into service in 2017 - and it's a relatively cheap undertaking. Perhaps Randy should rather compare the TXWB-84/TXWB-97 with the GE90-94B/GE90-115B. Where the A350 engines share common pylon and nacelle structure, same fan and 80 percent commonality among the replacement line items and tools etc. - the GE engines have dissimilar pylons, nacelles, fan, core, etc. In fact, the GE90-115B engine was essentially an all new engine, which btw was the primary reason why GE wanted full exclusivity on the 777 longer-range models (77L, 77W, 77F).
Even if RR would have increased the fan size, the overall pressure ratio of the TXWB-97 would have remained the same (i.e. 52:1). In contrast, the overall pressure ratio for the GE9X will be 61:1. Now, since better tech is just around the corner, RR might be able to offer an all new engine - for both an A380NG and an all new Airbus super twin - that would have an overall pressure ratio as high as 70:1. That's a further indication that it would have been stupid to waste too many resources on the TXWB-97 engine, which IMJ is still good enough - for the time being.
(Continued in next post)
Continued..
DeleteAs for a future market for a "super twin, one should keep in mind that air traffic is set to double in the next 15 years and quadruple by 2050. Hence, Airbus obviously wouldn't launch an all new "super twin" programme just in order to take out the 777-9, but they would launch such an undertaking because of the enormous projected air traffic growth over the programme's lifetime and because there's very likely going to be quite a large future market for aircraft that's sized in-between the A350-1000 and A380-800 - that is, as long as the new aircraft would offer significantly lower seat mile cost than both the A350-1000 and 777-9.
Airbus will be done with the A32xneo, A330neo and A350-900URL/A350-1000 by 2018. IMJ, they should be in a pretty good position to announce an all new and ambitious programme by that time when most of their technical resources would be freed-up - in addition to having the sufficient financial resources necessary in order to be able to launch a "super twin" programme and see it through to a successful completion in 2024/2025. One should keep in mind that there was a significant development overlap between the A380/A400M and A400M/A350 - which would seem to indicate that they should be able to not only undertake an all new super twin programme, but simultaneously being able to make substantial upgrades to the A380 as well (i.e. A380NG). One should also keep in mind that Airbus in 2018 will be a bigger and more capable company than it was in 2000 (A380 launch) and 2006 (A350 launch). Airbus will also have more available cash to play with, going forward.
As for the A380NG, I'm not talking about "just" a neo, but a substantial upgrade to both the airframe and engines, which would ensure that the upgraded A380 would be more than competitive with the super twin.
Finally, this is IMO not about "being behind the curve", but about a possible critical lapse in Boeing's strategic-planning process.
Rgds, Karl
Karl,
DeleteThat was quite a lot but I'll try to make my point quick and to the point. Its easy to view the A350-1000 a better aircraft to the 77W. That the obvious. What in my general opinion hurts the A35K is that is was a composite arrow aimed at the 77W, which was a bad move since the 77W was launched in 2004. A 2017 EIS for a product meant for replacing the by then 13 year old 77W. Looking at the situation from a psychological perspective, the behavior of carriers towards the A35k then and now are pretty stark. Figure for a product launched in 2008 has 169 orders where as the order tally for the 77W in the same time period has benefited the latter. There is something that is not right with the A350-1000 that we may not know and that RT may be alluding to in his comment about the engines. Moreover, since the introduction of the 778, the head to head competitor to the A35K, has had a better order avg than the A35K. 26.5 vs 21.125.
The A350-1100. This product sounds great on paper, or on the screen in our case, but it's likely going to take much more than what you perscribed to bring it to market. The biggest hindrance is that Airbus will not try to NEO the A380 (http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/a380-neo-airbus-demande-a-emirates-de-mettre-la-main-a-la-poche-513886.html) and build this 1100 at the same time. Also take into account how much of this niche market is left after the 779 and 778 have soaked up the demand? 3 variants, as you proposed, of a derivative aircraft is a bit much since it is hard to gauge what this niche market looks like in a whole.
In closing, Boeing is not behind the curve as you make them out to be. the quote by RT was that “something we contemplated early in the 777X development process”. This tells me that they obviouly thought about in great detail. Meaning they thought of the possibility of Airbus make ing a derivative of the A35K and building upon that since developing a new aircraft from scratch makes no financial sense and is extremely expensive. I believe that Airbus is going forward with A380 NEO because they don't want to squander a $25 billion investment. With that, the resources earmarked for a 1100 would be thin. This is all predicated if they decide to go forward with it. In defense of the A35K, the 77W hasn't really started to take place.
"There is something that is not right with the A350-1000 that we may not know and that RT may be alluding to in his comment about the engines."
DeleteRandy is doing a FUD ( Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ) campaign.
This goes in lockstep with Boeing seemingly not noticing the encroachment by the A350.
Stockmarkets smell fear. An objective assessment of the market situation by Mr. Tinseth would be judged fear.
So Boeing has to either ignore it or belittle it to keep its boyed postion in the shareholder ecology.
( Hmm, nice quote attributed to one Mr. Gandhi: first they ignore you, then ... )
to the proprietor:
Would it make sense to instantiate expansive postings like the above as a separate posting under the tag "opinion" ?
Correction: It may look, therefore, as if Boeing has NOT taken into account the very real possibility of Airbus countering with an all new "super twin" slightly wider than the 777 - in order to have a comfortable 10 abreast configuration with 18" seats. Such an Airbus super twin would have engine that would very likely be at least 10 percent more efficient than the TXWB-97 engine and 5 percent more efficient than the GE9X engine.
ReplyDeleteAddendum to my first comment in this thread.
DeleteRgds, Karl
You gotta love it ..Two manufacturers slinging the dirt on each others programs. .
ReplyDeleteSome things never change. .
Rather onesided activity imho.
DeleteWhat you seem to deem Airbus "mud" tends to be factual counter.
It is an interesting comment.
ReplyDeleteThe A350-1000 has a different engine, a different wing and a different main landing than its siblings, wait no, its sibling (singular).
The A350-1000 has many more costumera than the 777-X. Like somebody pointed out, take away the ME3, the 777-x demand would be dismal. I would not call the -1000 a disaster by any means. Once this aircraft is on track, it will sell. There are many more airlines than that need to upgage from 777-200 to A350-1000 sized aircraft than from 777-300ER to 777-9 sized aircrafts. Airbus continues to surprise with the A322-LR, the wing design of the a350 that takes a lot more fuel, and all these hints that they are ready to respond.
ReplyDeleteBut the root of the discussion is of the mythological 1100. If you did your due diligence, you would see that Boeing and EK collaborated on the 777x. This alone should tell you that the possibility of them cancelling as you mention is slim to none. I'm really finding it hard to figure out how your logic comes up with the 77W being a one trick pony. Was Steve Jobs a one trick pony because he was the best and greatest innovative mind of his generation? Is the 77W a one trick pony because it does its job better than any widebody twin. Remind the rest of us where the A340-600 is in the Airbus sales brochure. Thanks. I agree with you when you say that air traffic is in creasing, because it is. But what are you really trying to do when ypu have a super twin that has around 450 seats and a quad engine aircraft with the same seats? Mirror objects with double the engines. This alone should tell you that Airbus is not going to do both and only one and since they are asking EK to help fund the NEO program because they don't have enough support from other carriers, that's your answer right there. Ask yourself how much market is left for planes the size of the 779? Yes, SQ signed up for 7 ULR planes based off of the A359 but iff the A350-100 was so good, why didnt they wait until it came to service in 2017. We naturally think tit for tat, they do this so we have to up the ante and do this. This 1100 you mention will at nest be a derivative of the A350-1000, which Boeing thought from day one of the 777x program because starting a new clean sheet design is not within the spending realm of Airbus. It is what it is.
ReplyDeletePlease don't talk to me about the A320 NEO and its engine problems and the A400M Atlas having computer issues that cost Spanish airmen their lives. Its not fair. We'll leave it at that
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/a380-neo-airbus-demande-a-emirates-de-mettre-la-main-a-la-poche-513886.htm
I get it. The A350-1000. Its a great plane .... that went under the knife twice and lost an eye (EK) in the process. Sure its more fuel efficient than the 77W but where is the huge exodus of orders that was supposed to take place for the 77W and the 772ER.
772 -> A333,A339,.. A359
Delete772ER -> 359
77W are not old enough to need replacement in droves.
@Jet.Fuel.773-er
DeleteAgain, an A350-1100 should be able to match the 777-9 on capacity and it would quite likely have a slight edge performance-wise. However, the 777-9 will still have a significant first mover advantage - especially so with the large ME3 orders. So, in short Airbus could either launch an A350-1100 - which will leave Boeing with a significant market share advantage in the "400-seat" market segment - or launch an all new "super twin" that IMJ would obsolete the 777-9 overnight.
-
"I agree with you when you say that air traffic is in creasing, because it is. But what are you really trying to do when ypu have a super twin that has around 450 seats and a quad engine aircraft with the same seats?"
You seem to be somewhat confused.
Here are some relevant comparisons of cabin floor areas:
A350-1000: 320 m2
777-300ER: 340m2
777-9: 360m2
747-8I: 415 m2
A380-800: 545 m2
and
Super-twin/dash-900: 390 m2
Super-twin/dash-1000: 425 m2
A380-900: 620 m2
A380-1000: 690 m2
NB: The current A380-800 would have some 28 percent greater floor area than the biggest super twin (dash-1000). An A380-900 would have some 46 percent greater floor area than the dash-1000, while an A380-1000 (19 frame stretch over the A388), would have 62 percent greater floor area than the dash-1000 and 92 percent greater floor area than the 777-9X
-
"This 1100 you mention will at nest be a derivative of the A350-1000, which Boeing thought from day one of the 777x program because starting a new clean sheet design is not within the spending realm of Airbus."
..."not within the spending realm of Airbus". Oh, really. Care to provide proof for that, or is it just wishful thinking on your part?
Again, if Boeing from day one of the 777X programme never contemplated Airbus responding with an all new airframe, it just goes to show how bad Boeing's strategic-planning process is.
Rgds, Karl
"or launch an all new "super twin" that IMJ would obsolete the 777-9 overnight."
DeleteThanks for your reply Karl. We have to keep in mind that it's not always one upping your competition. If there is no market left for this 1100, what would be the point in launching such a program? Look at the 748. Boeing thought every carrier who had one would be in line to buy one but they didn't. The 748i isn't bad, the A380 is just better. My point is that OEM's don't set the market, the market does. This market is very undetermined to that there's enough room for 2 players.
"You seem to be somewhat confused.
Here are some relevant comparisons of cabins "
I trust your numbers of the models that exist, those that have NOT been launched I don't trust since we are speculating on something that could and might be, not something that is defined and launched.
..."not within the spending realm of Airbus". Oh, really. Care to provide proof for that, or is it just wishful thinking on your part?
I don't have the proof that your looking for in the form of a news link or a PDF but I can tell you that if Airbus is asking Emirates to HELP fund the A380 NEO, that alone should tell you that Airbus isn't so flush with cash to fund the NEO and a project the size of the 1100. Keep in mind of the performance guarantees that Airbus gave to the Airlines who bought the A340-300, 500 & 600. That money that they owe the European banks don't just disappear, it's gonna have to be paid sooner or later.
" Again, if Boeing from day one of the 777X programme never contemplated Airbus responding with an all new airframe, it just goes to show how bad Boeing's strategic-planning process is."
Karl, Randy was quoted saying that THEY DID keep Airbus in mind during the development phase of the 777x. It's in the first half of this page. Line number 19 of text shows it. It is above the Getty Photos picture.
@Jet.Fuel.773-er
DeleteIt may look as if you base your financial understanding more on hearsay instead of taking an analytical look at Airbus' finances.
By 2020, Airbus should be able to reach break-even on the A350. By that time, the A320 neo and A330neo will, in all likelihood, also have reached the point of break-even. As for the A380, most of the expenditures related to the A380 have already been accounted for while the Reimbursable Launch Investment loans should be repaid by 2018, at the latest.
Sources:
Quote: "What is Reimbursable Launch Investment (RLI)? The levy is set so that, once an agreed sales target is reached, the whole amount should be repaid with a rate of return, i.e. with interest, over a repayment period of 17 years (i.e. 11-12 years from the first delivery)."
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146503.pdf
and
Quote: "EADS has passed in the profit and loss accounts in the previous years several one-off items related to the A380 valued in billions of euros (refer to yearly financial reports). What is left are R&D (mainly D) expenses to bring down unitary recurring costs and producing enough numbers of aircraft so that learning curve effects can be benefited from."
http://theblogbyjavier.com/2014/02/21/a380-one-off-items-versus-accounting-block/
-
Continued below
Continued:
DeleteSo, it may seem as if reality is a bummer for those who are insisting that Airbus supposedly won't have the cash to finance an all new "super twin" programme - and the other things.
As for an A350-1100, it should at least be be able to match the 777-9 on performance. Despite the 777-9's first mover advantage, that market segment will IMO be big enough over a 20 year period.
As for the 747-8I's lack of market success supposedly "proving" that there's "no market" in that segment, it's not that difficult to explain why it's so - apparently it didn't even beat the 777-300ER on fuel burn per seat. In contrast, the 777-9 (10 abreast) should have about a 20 percent lower fuel burn per seat than the 777-300ER (9 abreast). In comparison, a 79.5 long Airbus "super twin" (dash-900) - at 10 abreast - would IMJ have at least a 15 percent lower fuel burn per seat than the 777-9. Interestingly, the A340-600 at 8 abreast apparently had a 8-9 percent greater fuel burn than the 777-300ER at 9 abreast. Hence, an Airbus "super-twin" would be a whole different animal - a "beast" Randy & Co. seemingly never contemplated being brought to fruition when planning for the 777X.
Finally, it's quite easy to estimate the cabin area of a 10 frame stretched A380-900 and a 19 frame stretched A380-1000. My estimate for the cabin areas of the "super-twin" family is based on a 244-inch cabin width and fuselage lengths of 79.5m (dash-900) and 85m (dash-1000).
Rgds, Karl
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.I'm afraid I agree with Jet Fuel, the market is full. It seems that this about Boeing was aware Airbus might build the A1100, is just smoke and mirrors trying to get Airbus in above their heads. In truth the A350-900 and the A350-1000 will find their niche. Talk of A BIG NEW TWIN is pie in the sky. An Aircraft to take on or even beat the 777-9x will take Airbus a decade to build and deliver at the very least. But of course Boeing will be building more and more 777-9x's in the meantime. This problem for Airbus as been sitting there ever since they went their own sweet way with the A380.
ReplyDeleteWhich in itself was an ego trip-not a business case.The A380 relied on a growing market and between the 2 year delay and the bankers murder of the global economy, the writing was on the wall. The answer way back then was staring them in the face. The 747 was finding it hard to compete with the old 777 and even today it is still an aircraft to be reckoned with.What airbus should have done way back then was to ask customers (Airline CEO's) what they wanted. Airbus had an aversion to doing just that. Hence the fiasco of the early A350. What Airbus should have done was build a" big fat twin"THEN. 4 engined aircraft were on their way out,
as Boeing found out with the 747-8.
Unfortunately, Airbus now find themselves in a position of leaving the market to the 777-9x. To try to cover that base now is just impossible.
Even that aircraft is struggling for orders so as Jet Fuel says-the market is not there. We can all dream the dream but the reality of the situation is that Airbus is about a decade behind Boeing and believing that by some magic stroke airbus can catch up, without a market to pay for it is wonderland.
JC.
Like you- it seems - Boeing has had a habit of not taking Airbus seriously. As recently as 2012, Mike Bair of Boeing said: We are in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380. Funny, he didn't even mention the A350; nor that the A340-200/300 were essentially quad-powered A330s; nor that the A380 has cornered about 90 percent of the VLA market.
DeleteUnlike Boeing, Airbus doesn't seem to consider new product developments as the exception rather than the rule. Since the A320 Boeing IMO has fallen behind Airbus in terms of consistent product development and all new Airbus aircraft since the A320 share a common and evolutionary design philosophy (e.g. FBW, structures, systems etc.). In contrast, Boeing's will soon have the grandfathered 737MAX and 777X - with designs "grandfatherd" from the 60s and 90s and with no commonality in-between them - and the all new 787; from which not many of the hugely expensive lessons-learnt are not to be re-used on the 777X. The 737MAX seem to be a one-trick pony, albeit with the 737-8MAX selling well; the 777X being IMJ highly vulnerable to an all new Airbus "super twin", while the 787 even after 2000 deliveries should still have “a total program loss of approximately $5 billion- according to one analyst - not including Boeing’s original investment to develop the jet, estimated by most analysts at a further $20 billion or more." **
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/will-787-program-ever-show-an-overall-profit-analysts-grow-more-skeptical/
-
"An Aircraft to take on or even beat the 777-9x will take Airbus a decade to build and deliver at the very least. But of course Boeing will be building more and more 777-9x's in the meantime."
Why should it take 10 years when the it took about 8 years for the A350XWB - launched on December 1, 2006 with first delivery occurring on December 22, 2014. Is "10 years" just something you picked out of a hat?
Part of the reason why it took 8 years for the A350XWB was that it was Airbus' first all composite airliner. An Airbus "super-twin" would rely heavily on the experiences gained from the A350 programme. In comparison, Boeing will spend about 6.5 years developing the 777X. They could probably have done it on a faster time-schedule were it not for the engine - it won't be ready for flight testing before 2017.
If Airbus were to launch an all new "super-twin" in 2017, I'd reckon that it could EIS in 2024. By that time, Boeing IMJ will, at most, have delivered some 210 777Xs. (i.e. 10 in 2020; 40 in 2021; 70 in 2022 and 90 in 2023) - that is, if Emirates would suddenly start cancelling a large part of their 777-8/-9 order due to something bigger and better "arriving shortly".
Continued...
Continued.
Delete"Unfortunately, Airbus now find themselves in a position of leaving the market to the 777-9x. To try to cover that base now is just impossible. Even that aircraft is struggling for orders so as Jet Fuel says-the market is not there. We can all dream the dream but the reality of the situation is that Airbus is about a decade behind Boeing and believing that by some magic stroke airbus can catch up, without a market to pay for it is wonderland."
Decade behind Boeing, eh?
If you want to believe that, fine - but it's got nothing to do with reality. In fact, your position looks more like feel-good drivel.
Again, just because there's not been much of a market for the 747-8I, doesn't mean that there's no market for that sized aircraft. A larger aircraft will always have to beat a smaller not just one fuel burn per seat - but more importantly, the larger aircraft must have a convincing advantage by having a lower Cost per Available Seat Kilometer (CASK). Apparently, the 777-300ER has lower CASK than the 747-8I.
If an Airbus "super twin" - the dash9 version - would have some 10 percent lower CASK than the 777-9, the latter would be toast - and despite your claims, the market segment for 747-8i sized aircraft will IMJ be more than large enough when an entrant to that market segment - the Airbus "super-twin" - would arrive having a mindblowingly low CASK.
Furthermore, the 777-9 barely beats the A350-1000 on CASK. Another problem for Boeing would be that an Airbus "super twin" family should have only slightly larger engine thrust requirements than the A350-1000. If the latter were to be re-engined with the same engine that would be used on the "super-twin", then the smaller A350-1000 would beat the larger 777-9 on CASK by a significant margin as well. The only reason why the 30 tonnes heavier 777X can be made competitive with the A350, is because it's getting an expensive all new wing and that the fuselage is stretched and made to accommodate passengers in economy at an uncomfortable 10 abreast configuration. In short, IMJ Boeing's trying to cram as many passengers into the 777-9 as possible and hope for the best. Not a viable long-term strategy IMO.
Rgds, Karl
Delete.Whats really not well known, was at the time of the 777x concept,Boeing envisioned a long range 777x. Rolls Royce built the Trent 8104 and a scaled up Trent 8105 with thrust outputs of 100,000 lbsft and 110,000lbs ft(The first to reach these levels and even had the first swept wide cord fan. McNerny CEO at GE offered Boeing $500million top be sole engine supplier for the 777x programme. Rolls Royce was out in the cold, if Airbus had been building the "Big Twin" then-they would have had an engine to compete. This was way back in 1998/2000. Now McNerny is a CEO at Boeing!! There is a lesson here for Rolls and that dont put all your eggs in one basket. So you can see, the A380-900neo is a big risk for Rolls.
ReplyDeleteJC
Nonsense.
DeleteRR will have cornered the engine market for the entire Airbus wide body portfolio due, in part, to GE's inept strategic thinking - assuming, of course, that the Engine Alliance will not be offering an engine for a next generation A380. RR is also aboard the 787, so it would seem that for the wide body market, it's not RR but GE that have put all of their eggs in one basket - partly thanks to Jim McNerney.
Rgds, Karl
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Like you- it seems - Boeing has had a habit of not taking Airbus seriously. As recently as 2012, Mike Bair of Boeing said: We are in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380. Funny, he didn't even mention the A350; nor that the A340-200/300 were essentially quad-powered A330s; nor that the A380 has cornered about 90 percent of the VLA market."
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of B not taking A seriously. I highly doubt that he left out the A350 because it was too superior of a plane to compare to the sub par aircraft of Boeing. His assessment was correct though. The 777/340 787/330 and the A380/748. He could have matched the 767 with the 330 but if he does that then the 787 is pitted against the 350. Remind us how many 350's are flying compared to the 787. Thanks. Also, if you looked at the VLA trends from say 1989, when the 1st 747-400 entered the market, it had a short run all the way until the 77W was introduced and then the music stopped. Airbus COULD have taken the cue that 747's were not necessary to move people the way the 747 did. Instead Instead of listening to what the market was saying, they made an airplane out of pure pride and machismo. Now the orders have stalled and everyone won't touch a new one. Airlines want flexibility and the A380 has none.
"Why should it take 10 years when the it took about 8 years for the A350XWB - launched on December 1, 2006 with first delivery occurring on December 22, 2014. Is "10 years" just something you picked out of a hat?
Part of the reason why it took 8 years for the A350XWB was that it was Airbus' first all composite airliner. An Airbus "super-twin" would rely heavily on the experiences gained from the A350 programme. In comparison, Boeing will spend about 6.5 years developing the 777X. They could probably have done it on a faster time-schedule were it not for the engine - it won't be ready for flight testing before 2017."
Do you remember what Airbus tried to sell to airlines shortly after the 787 was introduced? It was basically a A330 with composite wings.
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/the-first-a350-design-sucked-so-bad-that-airbus-had-to-1674122251/1674151207
Im choosing not to continue the discussion because banter about a product that does not exist is a waste of time. We all can say and play the "what if game" but in the real world it won't fly (pun intended) I respect your opinion but until Airbus launches something similar to what you are saying and speaking of, it's all a waste of time.
I would assume that you neither is participating in any discussions whatsoever about a possible Boeing middle of the market aircraft (MOM) - the MOM also doesn't exist, right?.
ReplyDeleteAs for VLAs, if you include the 747-400 as a VLA, then you'd better do the same for the 777-9, as it's a VLA as well. They have about the same cabin area. The first VLA was IMO the A380. It's creating it's own market - for the time being, with only one airline. Hence, the "VLA trends" really only started when the A380 entered into service in 2007. IMJ, the A380 programme (i.e. including a next generation NG, and not only a "neo"), will do just fine over the long term, even if Emirates would be the only customer going forward, which IMJ is unlikely. For example, Dubai is building a new airport that will have 400 wide body aircraft contact stands, when it's finished - 200 stands each for Code E (777) and Code F (A380) aircraft. Two hundred stands for the A380 would suggest that Emirates eventually is planning to operate more than 600 A380s, since at least two thirds of the fleet is away at any given moment. Thus, it may look as if quite a few of the people who's criticising the A380 don't seem to know what's happening. What would happen if more Emirates-type airlines would appear on the horizon?
http://www.dubaiairports.ae/corporate/media-centre/fact-sheets/detail/new-dwc-expansion-project
-
Quote: "Do you remember what Airbus tried to sell to airlines shortly after the 787 was introduced? It was basically a A330 with composite wings.
Do you have an agenda?
The A330-derived A350 that was discontinued in favour of the A350XWB, is not relevant to the time required for the development of the all new A350XWB. Even if one believes that the original A350 concept/programme "sucked so bad", it didn't prevent Airbus in selling well over 1000 copies of the A330 since the launch of the 787 (i.e. including the A330neo).
-
Quote: "It is not a matter of B not taking A seriously. I highly doubt that he left out the A350 because it was too superior of a plane to compare to the sub par aircraft of Boeing. His assessment was correct though. The 777/340 787/330 and the A380/748. He could have matched the 767 with the 330 but if he does that then the 787 is pitted against the 350. Remind us how many 350's are flying compared to the 787"
Assessment being correct? Well, I have a bridge to sell you...
The 748 is not doing very well in driving the A380 out of the very lage aircraft market - and how does the number of A350s currently flying supposedly indicate that the 787 is doing so much better? Btw, the 787-8/-9/-10 are pitted against the A330-200/A330-300/A330-800/A330-900/A350-900. Not including the A359 is just ludicrous - and an "analysis" that's including the 767 but not including the A300/A310, is equally inaccurate.
-
Finally, it may look as if Airbus is seriously looking at a larger Version of the A350-1000 - possibly powered by the next generation of "UltraFan" engines from Rolls-Royce.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/airbus-output-idUSL8N12T3QZ20151029
Rgds, Karl
Karl,
ReplyDeleteGood day. I have provided this link that I would like you to compare to my earlier sentiments about the 1100 needing enough market space in-order to warrant the launch.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-the-crucial-decisions-facing-airbus-over-a-417880/
If you elect not to read through the article, I'm in a giving mood to copy and paste to make your life easier.
[-- Qatar Airways – already launch customer for all the existing A350 variants - is interested in a stretch, but only if it offers enough of a step over the rival Boeing 777-9X. Chief executive Akbar Al Baker tells Flightglobal that he believes Airbus must develop a larger A350 to compete effectively with Boeing, and says his airline is a potential customer.
“We would be interested in a stretch of the A350-1000. Airbus has no alternative – to be competitive it will have to do something that is bigger and better than the 777-9X,” he says.-- ]
[ -- Airbus’s main rival also expects a competitive response and has taken such a development into consideration when developing the 777X, says Boeing’s marketing chief Randy Tinseth: “It’s hard for me to believe they wouldn’t do something. Because I don’t think they can live with being outsold four or five to one in that segment of the market.”
Tinseth adds that Boeing can handle any threat from Toulouse as it was “something we contemplated early in the process. We really like what we have with the -9. It really helps when you are out there with 300+ orders.” --]
[ -- However he adds that if the 777-9X starts “cleaning up, then an A350-1100 could be Airbus’ reaction. But clearly it will be a challenge to deliver the ‘-1100’ with sufficient range to challenge the -9 on range with a further A350 stretch. So it must be careful not to end up with a compromised design that appears to offer a 350-400 seat solution but actually doesn’t deliver the payload/range performance airlines would require.” -- ]
[ -- Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Teal Group, believes it is only worth Airbus attempting an A350 stretch if “they can do a derivative that gets most of the way to the 777-9X level. I doubt they can, but it largely depends on Rolls-Royce. Or, if the Rolls exclusivity agreement [on the -1000] doesn't apply to a growth version, then it depends on the engine guys in general.”
Neither Airbus nor R-R will comment on the specifics of their A350-1000 powerplant agreement. Aboulafia wonders what ties GE has with Boeing on the 777X. “And would Pratt have any interest in a 105,000lb thrust engine? If it is Rolls, can they match GE?”
Qatar Airways’ Al Baker says the A350 stretch will need to incorporate “new engine technology” and doubts that the twinjet’s existing Trent XWB engine could be adapted for the larger variant as the powerplant “is already at its fullest” for the A350-1000. -- ]
I am desperate to hear of your opinion.
@Jet.Fuel.773-er
DeleteAs I've already indicated, the market for 748-sized passenger will IMO be quite substantial over the next 25 years - provided that the larger aircraft will maintain significant CASK supremacy. So, yes the market will IMO there. The question is if Airbus should launch an A350-1000 derived aircraft or an all new platform 10 abreast WB. If Boeing had done an all new aircraft (i.e. Y3) instead of the 777X, Airbus would have had little choice but to follow. Due to the heavy nature of the 777-9 - i.e. composites outperform aluminum at these fuselage lengths and cross sections - Airbus should IMJ be able to "get away" with doing "just" a derivative.
BTW, you left out what IMO is the most important quote:
[...“In real airline layouts, the A350-1000 will likely have 330-340 seats and the 777-9 370-400, giving it around 30-50 more seats,” says Morris. “Yet, the A350-1000, being an all-new design, may well be 30t lighter. So it’s entirely possible the two aircraft will be very close on seat-mile costs.”...]
That's up to one extra tonne per passenger - or more than half the weight of the A350-1000 wing. This is IMJ the 777-9's achilles heel. Airbus has 30 tonnes to "play with".
In the Reuter's piece (link in my preceding post), they're talking about 450 passengers - presumably in 3 classes:
[...Airline sources say Airbus is exploring more seriously than before a larger version of its A350-1000 widebody jet with a capacity of up to 450 seats to counter the latest Boeing 777, probably powered by the next generation of "UltraFan" engines from Rolls-Royce."...]
450 seats in three classes would mean an overall fuselage length of 85m overall length - or 18 frames (x 0.635m) longer than the A350-1000, and a cabin area some 65m2 larger (i.e. 18 x 0.635 x 5.6). So, an 18 frame stretched A350-1000 would have about 25m2 larger cabin area than the 777-9 and 20m2 less cabin area than the 747-8I.
Of course, an 18 frame stretched A350-1000 would need an all new and larger wing - in order to not only match the 777-9 in payload/range, but to outperform its as well.
Now, Airbus has 30 tonnes to play with. 30 tonnes is more than enough for both a longer fuselage and an all new 748-sized wing (i.e. wing area). That would mean that the larger, 85m-long A350-1000 derivative - seating between 30 and 40 more passengers than the 777-9 - would have a lower operating empty weight than the 777-9.
Although it would have about 10m longer wing span and much better aspect ratio. I'd assume that the wing would incorporate a downward wingfold along the lines of this new Airbus patent, in order to maintain Category E standards (i.e. 65m span):
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=2524827A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20151007&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
-
Continued
Continued:
DeleteNow, add "UltaFan" technologies to the powerplant (i.e. overall pressure ratio: 70:1 vs.60:1 on the GE9X), and you'd be looking at an engine that would be 10 percent more efficient than the TXWB-97 engine and 5 percent more efficient than the GE9X engine. So, the 777-9 will EIS having an engine with a 5 percent lower TSFC than the engine on the A350-1000. A few years later, an A350-1000 derivative could EIS with an engine having 5 percent lower TSFC than the engine on the A350-1000. Combined with some 10 percent greater seat count, I'm not sure how the 777-9 would be able to compete as the only "show stopper" for an 85m long A250-1000 derivative would be it's significantly larger landing gear footprint. Most airports would have to add extra asphalt to the taxiway "fillets"
Page 15:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/777Xbrochure.pdf
-
Finally, I'm not sure if Randy Tinseth & Co. ever contemplated the possibility of Airbus doing a common wing for a 18 frame stretched, A35K-derived "super-twin" and an A380-derived "mega-twin". A 747-8 sized wing (i.e. same wing area, but not span), would be more than enough for a twin engine version of the A380 -having about the same fuselage length as the base version of the never-launched MD-12 (i.e. 63m - 64m). Add an A350-type composite fuselage to the A380-derived twin (i.e. A370X ?) - and then, when they're well underway undertaking the the A360X (i.e. A350-derived "super twin") and the A370X (i.e. A380 derived "mega twin") - Airbus could start working on the A380-900/-1000, using all the technologies being developed for the A360X/A370X for the A380NG (i.e. composite fuselage etc.).
The base model for the A370X (i.e. A370-800X) would have about 100m2 less cabin area than the A388 (i.e. 445m2 vs. 545 m2) - or about 60m2 more floor area than the A360-1000 (i.e. 85m long "super stretch" version of the A350-1000); or about 85m2 more floor area than the 777-9.
The A370-800X would have a MTOW of around 400 metric tonnes, and a range similar to that of the A330-200. A larger A370-900X (i.e. 50-60 more seats), would have the same MTOW, and a range similar to the A330-300. In short, the A370X would essentially be an intermediate ranged version of the A380 - and it would have the same airport Category E footprint as that of the A330/A350 and 777/787. An A370X, though, would blow these aircraft right out of the water - CASK-wise - on medium ranged routes.
Rgds, Karl
Correction: So, the 777-9 will EIS having an engine with a 5 percent lower TSFC than the engine on the A350-1000. A few years later, an A350-1000 derivative could EIS with an engine having 5 percent lower TSFC than the engine on the 777-9 (i.e. not A350-1000, as I wrote).
Deletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-stretched-a350-1000-must-not-be-me-too-proj-418778/
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated, Airbus is not thinking about just a 78X-type stretch, but rather a derivative that would require an all new wing, or a heavily modified A350-wing (i.e. larger wing area and span - or, an A346-type chord-wise wing insert + a significant span extension).
DeleteRgds, Karl
-
"It would be sitting right on top of them with similar range and payload and substantially lower seat-mile costs," he said, referring to a key barometer for jetliner efficiency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/dubai-airshow-idUSL8N13424X20151109