As Airbus
begins assembly of its largest twinjet to date, the A350-1000, it faces a
crucial decision about whether to add an even bigger version to its armoury to
enable it to go head to head with the Boeing 777-9X.
Source: FlighGlobal
Toulouse’s
strategy in the “big-twin” sector is just one of the potentially life-changing
decisions it is facing.
Official
details about “A350-1100” is sketchy as is any official clarity on where Airbus
is in its decision-making processes and a decision to launch could be linked to
the “A380neo” decision.
Source: France Bleu
Although
Airbus is vague about whether it will stretch the A350, others (Qatar
Airways CEO and Boeing)
are more certain about the likelihood of such a development.
Rob Morris,
head of Flightglobal’s consultancy arm Ascend, believed the “A350-1100 could be
an elegant way to plug the gap” in the Airbus product line between 350 and 550
seats.
Source: Airbus
But Airbus
might want to see the -1000 to fly, and maybe even the -9X, to have an idea of
their relative weight and performance, he said.
“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,” said 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.”
Source: Marina Lystseva
Morris pointed
out that Cathay Pacific has ordered both types, illustrating that the two types
are complementary “and not all airlines or routes will need an aircraft of
higher capacity than the 777-300ER”.
However he
added 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.”
Based on the article “The crucial decisions facing
Airbus over A350 and A380” published in FlightGlobal.
I don´t think Airbus is under pressure to „fight“ the new Triple 777 with an extended version .The Boeing model has already seen it´s order peak, including the ME3 and some others. A few more will follow, but that´s it!
ReplyDeleteThe 777x is only good if you cramp in a lot of seats(10 abreast), because it´s still a heavy plane compared to the A350. On every start you have to lift an additional 30 tonnes or so, and the Airbus model is only at the beginning of its career!
.This, for me, is a turning point for Airbus. Whether to build the A350-1100 or not. I dont think there is a market there for the aircraft. As anonymous has said the 777-9x is struggling with orders and the A380 has not seen an order in two years. I think that market has gone, the reason i think that is because of the lack of orders for the A380. demonstates to me that the point to point mass delivery is not what the business class customer wants. What they want is a regular schedule, not one a day where 400/500 passengers are sent as one. There isn't any diversity for the business man. Nearly all orders by the airlines are for aircaft that are wide,medium sized. The 787 and the A350 fit that bill. I think the A350-1100 is a non runner. RR hasn't as yet developed an engine for such an aircraft and GE would be reluctant (same as the A380neo) to get involved without a proven market plus it is tied up right now anyway.
ReplyDeleteJC
Good points. This and the fact that who were at one point interested in the A380 now want frequency rather than just one massive movement of passengers. And to piggyback on your business man comment, carriers are starting to eliminate first class and increase the business class offering.
Delete@JC
DeletePerhaps you're unfamiliar with basic market analysis.
There are generally four main categories of aircraft market analysis. These are:
1). New markets (LCCs, ME3 etc).
2). Replacement cycle
3). Natural growth (i.e. function of world economic growth)
4). Right sizing
As for the 787-8/-9, A330-300X/-900 and A350-900 - they all seem to fit all four categories, at the moment. For the 350-seat, 777-300ER market segment the replacement cycle is not there, yet. The first 777-300 was delivered less than 11.5 years ago. In contrast, there's currently a large replacement market in the 300-seat market segment (i.e. older A330s, A340-300s, 777-200s and 777-200ER). However, any order placed today for 787s and A350s won't likely be delivered before the end of the decade - due to the large backlogs. The A330-300X/-900neo, on the other hand, have more near term delivery positions.
Now, you seem to be oblivious to the impact of new markets and natural growth. Your world seems to be a static one.
Continued.
Continued.
Delete"As anonymous has said the 777-9x is struggling with orders"
The 777-9 is not struggling with orders. Any available delivery position is at least 6 years out. Also, the 350-seat market is currently saturated with 777-300ER - and the replacement cycle for 77Ws is not going to start for another 5 years, or so. My problem with the 777-9 is not the number of orders that programme has currently booked, but that 777-9 IMO is going to be highly vulnerable to a direct competitor a decade hence - be it a re-winged A350-1000 or an all new "super twin".
-
"...and the A380 has not seen an order in two years. I think that market has gone, the reason i think that is because of the lack of orders for the A380. demonstrates to me that the point to point mass delivery is not what the business class customer wants. What they want is a regular schedule, not one a day where 400/500 passengers are sent as one. There isn't any diversity for the business man."
When it comes to a market analysis for the A380, one should at least note that it's different from all other aircraft since it's not a direct replacement for the (former) largest aircraft - the 747-400. The A388 is 50 percent bigger than the 744, so you'd be looking at new markets, natural growth and right sizing rather than the replacement market.
Now, Emirates is creating new markets, has a phenomenal growth rate - the reasons for which that is apparently not understood by certain US centric individuals - and finally, Emirates is right-sizing the usage of A380s with both frequency and capacity (i.e. DXB-LHR vs. DXB-CPH etc.). While Emirates expands at a rapid rate, many of the legacy blue chip airlines seem to be more preoccupied with reducing risk by concentrating on the replacement cycle and right sizing.
A radically upgraded A380, however, would IMJ radically change the picture. The current wing could be re-engineered, incorporating a downward hinged wing tip device – as explained in the new Airbus patent in the link below - in order to increase the wing aspect ratio upwards of 40 percent. That's a 20 percent reduction in fuel burn, right there. Add new engines, greater usage of composites etc., and it may look as if you’d be able to reduce trip fuel burn of the current A388 by a staggering 35 percent.
Link to Airbus patent: http://goo.gl/26KUcX
As for "regular schedule" - well the further you go the less important frequency is, as opposed to flight times. Also, many long-haul routes do not tend themselves for frequency. For example, departing North/South-East-Asia for Europe late in the evening, means that arrivals are slotted in early in the morning. Earlier departures would mean arriving into Europe in the middle of the night at airports that have strict night-time curfews.
So, your "regular schedule" thing seems to be more of a US-centric world view "thing". Just because frequency is the name of the game in the US domestic market, doesn't mean that the same "thing" holds true all over the world, right?
-
"RR hasn't as yet developed an engine for such an aircraft and GE would be reluctant (same as the A380neo) to get involved without a proven market plus it is tied up right now anyway."
Well, had GE developed an engine for the 777X when that programme was launched two years ago?
Rgds, Karl
You never never know. They-1000 design was completed years after the 777-x was announced. Just like they surprised all with the extra fuel capacity of the A350 wings, I'm sure the -1000 is easily stretched into 777-9 competitor. I'm sure it was planned for it years back.
ReplyDeleteFurther to comments above,it would also bring into question the viability of the A380.neo. I dont doubt the ability of Airbus to build it but with only one customer (I'm not convinced about Clark, he could cancel just as easily) or maybe two; is not suffient in my mind for the huge outlay for Airbus and RR with a non profit return.
ReplyDeleteAirbus would be wise to concentrate on aircraft for two decades hence and forget both the A350-1100 and the A380neo.
JC.
"Airbus would be wise to concentrate on aircraft for two decades hence and forget both the A350-1100 and the A380neo."
DeleteBased on your earlier "writings", I wouldn't bet on Airbus taking your ill-founded advice into consideration.
Karl
Airbus should concentrate on immediately launching A350 and A380 Neo's with new RR engines and other improvements to create a significant efficiency gap between it and the 777X. No -1100 would be needed then.
ReplyDelete