B787 The Wrong Aircraft???? [Archive]

norodnik

2nd Mar 2005, 05:38

Omark,

you've got to be kidding!!!!

23 hrs non-stop to Sydney "sounds attractive to frequent flyers"

I think NOT!!!!

And don't just take my word for it, go look at the loads for the A345 and the order book for the 200LR (EVA just about to cancel/convert, leaving only PIA)

As freighters, these planes may have merits but you have to face up to the facts that PAX's don't like being in the air that long. Ever wonder why the A380 can't fly non-stop to Sydney ??

Boeing is in a mess at the moment. Lack of integrated anything means Airbus look, sound and feel a lot more joined up. Airbus have a strategy whilst Boeing is clearly divided up into its respective product divisions.

End result, nice aircraft, but they all look like they have different father's. (and thats not good for overall economics as we all know!!!)

aztruck

2nd Mar 2005, 10:02

Drap-air

2nd Mar 2005, 10:16

do you know what economies of scale actually means??

the 380 can hold up to 850 passengers, the 787 can hold 250. if your figures are correct, the boeing will be over 4 times more fuel efficient than the airbus.

it may be able to do x number of trips to new york than the airbus, but an airbus can carry over three times the number of passengers. so it only needs to go once.

saves time, saves flight crew saves landing fees and most importantly, instead of doing the extra trips from lon to new york the airbus can be off somewhere else earning its money - makes no sence at all

Omark44

2nd Mar 2005, 10:20

No Norodnik, I most definitely am not kidding, business travellers, who are usually the most frequent travellers, will relish non-stop services. Actually, via Singapore or Bangkok, the journey time LHR/SYD is roughly 20.30 flying plus a transit of approximately 1.30 on the ground, total 22 hours, so the non-stop aircraft should do it in a little under 20 hours. With the option of sleeper seats in J and F class this will be a popular flight. EY pax will be happier to get there in a shorter overall time, especially if the price is right and the seat pitch is increased from standard EY that we know today.

At the risk of repeating myself, (since this subject has been hammered to death on other threads), I don't agree that Airbus have got it all right and Boeing have got it all wrong, far from it.

Boeing actually got it right. They did a study of the market and came to the conclusion that whilst a very big aircraft would be desireable for a few routes by a few operators the market would never be big enough to sustain a large enough order to break even, certainly not in competition with anyone else. This conclusion was also influenced by the fact that many Boeing customers were already showing signs of ditching their B744s and moving to a versatile range of B777. Boeing decided to approach Airbus and offer a consortium for VLA which Airbus rejected. Boeing then pulled out and left Airbus to go it alone. If Airbus think that they will simply replace the B747 and fulfill orders in excess of 1000 aircraft then they are woefully mistaken.

159 orders before the first aircrarft flies isn't really as significant as it may seem given todays financial environment. Operators are cashing in on major discounts that are currently being offered in order to satisfy THEIR needs, they don't actually give a stuff if Airbus breaks even just so long as Airbus honour their contracts and support the aicraft they deliver. Contracts that will have been very carefully written/agreed to by the operators. Major carriers each require a relatively small number of A380 type aircraft to satisfy their individual requirements on the relatively few routes that can sustain them.

The A380 is a very, very long way from break even at the moment and 'break even' is fast moving towards the horizon as the project becomes more and more over budget. The 159 orders may well represent around 70% of total demand, should this be the case then Airbus will be in a financial quagmire.

Torquelink

2nd Mar 2005, 10:29

All true but I think the point being made is the need for / economic viability of extreme range. Ultra long range aircraft such as the 787-8/9, 772LR and A345 clearly have to offer an increased level of comfort to get people to stay in the a/c for that length of time: which reduces the number of seats: which means that all the costs of an 8,500nm sector have to be amortised over a relatively small number of seats: which pushes up the required fare: which, thus far, it seems not many pax are prepared to pay. I read somewhere that SQ attempted to charge a premium for SIN - LAX and NYC but couldn't sustain it. It seems there's a point where the combination of extreme range and capacity results in seat sector costs which are unviable. The sales performance of the 772LR and A345 seem to bear this out. I'm sure that the 787's technology will still help but I doubt to the extent that will generate many new ultra long haul point to points. However, I suspect that the same technology will ensure it wipes the floor with the competition on more typical 5,000 - 7,000 nm sectors.

:D

gixerman

2nd Mar 2005, 10:31

Don't underestimate the wow factor associated with the A380, especially with some of the more ambitious plans for internal layouts. It will be a tough call non-stop or more comfort, PAX are a fickle lot.

I might be wrong, but Didn't Boeing poo poo fly by wire in the early days?

Aztruck, enjoyed the programmes enormously.

JetDriverWannabe

2nd Mar 2005, 11:20

freighters flying for 23 hours. No Way!
None of todays freighters can fly any where near that distance. Take the Longest range Freighter today. The 777-200LRF. It can only flying 5800NM with full load. Assuming an average speed of 450knots. Thats still only 13 hours.

I am sure airbus can easily make a A380 airframe that can easily do LHR , SYD... but soo much space and weight will be taken up by Jet-A that it won't be economically viable.

As for the fuel cost per seat mile for the 7E7
As for cost per seat mile. I suspect that the A-380 will be the cheapest.

Assume a passenger is 210lb each..

A380 can fly 555 of these passengers 8000NM
MTOW = 1,235,000lb
Load = 555pax x 210 = 116,500lb
OEW = 608,400
The fuel load of such a trip will be.
MTOW -Load - OEW = 510,100lb of Jet A.
Assumming Jet desnity = 6.7lb / gallon, Thats 76,134 Gallons of Jet A

Lets take the 787-800 , it can fly 224 passenger 8500nm (www.boeing.com)
MTOW = 480,000 LB (www.boeing.com)
Load = 223pax x 210 = 46,800lb
OEW = 185,000Lb
Assumes 20% weight saving on 767-400ER (764ER is 227,000 from www.boeing.com)
Fuel load will be :
MTOW - load - OEW = 248,200lb of fuel
That is 37,044 Gallons of Jet A.
A380
76,134 / 8000 / 555 = 0.0171 gallons per seat mile

B787-800
So the fuel per seat mile = 37,044 / 8500 / 223 = 0.0195 gallons per seat mile.

i.e. the A380 uses 0.0171/0.0195 *100 = 13% less fuel per seat mile than the 787-800

The B787-800 is not 20 % more efficent..infact, With these set of numbers, it will uses 13% more fuel than a A380 per seat mile

Saying that. lets add the A332 Figures in
Airbus A330-200 range is 6750NM with max pax
MTOW = 513,000
OEW = 268,000lb
Load = 253 x 210 = 53130lb
fuel = 191870 lb or 28637 gallons.
A332 works out to about .0167 gallon per seat mile...but remember for 6750 NM

Ah, add 772LR too
Range with 301 Pax is 9420NM
MTOW = 760,000lb
OEW = 320,000 lb
Load = 301 x 210 = 63210lb
fuel = 53440 gallons.
53440 / 9420 /301 = 0.0188 Gallons per seat mile.

A345 Range 9000NM , 313 seats
MTOW = 840,000lb
OEW = 385,000lb
Load = 313 x 210 = 65730lb
fuel = 58100 gallons
58100/ 9000/313 = 0.0206 Gallons per seat mile.

As you can see. For C market ranges. the A380 leads the way in cost per seat mile.

DW11

2nd Mar 2005, 11:28

Not only that but the turn round time of a 787 and the fact that it's going to be whizzing about at .85 means that it could do 3 new yorks a day- means more choice and flexibility on scheduling.

aztruck,

You may want to have a re-think about whizzing in connection to mach.85. 3 new yorks a day might also need a slight rethink.

yintsinmerite

2nd Mar 2005, 12:14

No Norodnik, I most definitely am not kidding, business travellers, who are usually the most frequent travellers, will relish non-stop services

No way - while 23hrs may be good for business, as a business traveller it is most definitely not something that I would relish in any class of travel, yet alone back where posh people fear to tread. It does strike me that the potential for passenger misbehaviour on a 23hour flight is pretty high. I've seen people at screaming point after 10 or 11 hrs - imagine that doubled.

conor_mc

2nd Mar 2005, 12:48

I don't know yintsinmeritem, I used to do quite a bit of long haul business travel for a few years. One trip I've made a few times is Dublin-Heathrow-Singapore- Auckland-Wellington. When you throw on the connections to/from the hubs, eliminating any stopover starts to look that bit more appealing - on a journey that length, sitting around airports isn't much better than sitting in an airplane.

Having said that, I'm not too sure about doing it in Economy but then again I'm 6'2" so the thoughts of 2 hours, let alone 20, in an economy seat gives me nightmares!!! ;)

norodnik

2nd Mar 2005, 12:55

If people wanted to fly for 23 hours non-stop then there would be orders as long as your arm for the planes that can do it.

Pax's don't want to (at least the eco ones) and Airlines can make more by stopping over.

The ONLY advantage I could see for flying > 15 hours would be if it meant I didntt have to stop over in the US and be questioned by the servants of the 4th Reich

Wizofoz

2nd Mar 2005, 13:36

As an Aussie living in the UK all I can say is, when talking about long sector times, what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative?

My family are traveling back home in August. MAN-KUL 14hrs, 5 hour transit, KUL-SYD 11 hrs = 29hrs plus entertaining two tired kids for five hours before going through the agony of getting them on board the next flight.

One 23 hr sector (Actually more like 21)? Where do I buy the ticket?

conor_mc

2nd Mar 2005, 14:15

norodnik, flying for more than 15 hours isn't for everyone but that doesn't mean it isn't for anyone.

Believe me, people don't fly all the way to Australia/NZ etc just to have a 3/4 hour stopover in Singapore or KL. Aircraft limitations have necessitated stopovers, but I guarantee you that if it were more economically viable to fly direct from say LHR-SYD, we'd all be doing it. Why, because it'd be cheaper.

From a business pax point of view, if I had to be in SYD on a Monday morning, and had a choice of leaving on a Fri night or a Sat morning, I'd probably take the Sat morning flight to have an extra night at home with my family.

It's horses for courses really.....

Packsonflight

2nd Mar 2005, 14:58

Gixerman: the wow factor only lasts for one year max, but a new aircraft is a 30 year program.
JDW: the A 380 only goes for 5600NM

The big question remains unanswered: Why are Boeing not selling more of the B787? Is it possibly because the airlines don´t want it´s huge range(8500nm) but simply a B767(5-6000NM) replacement. Keeping in mind that aircraft built to fly 8500nm is uneconomical on shorter routs. fx It needs bigger wing to carry the extra fuel load, and that wing causes extra drag.

Wizofoz

2nd Mar 2005, 15:46

Packson,

You seem to be under the impression sales of the 787 are dissapointing. They've sold almost 200 of an aircraft that only exists on paper. That's about the asame number that Airbus has sold of the A380, and it's stitting on the tarmac.

Caslance

2nd Mar 2005, 16:00

They've sold almost 200 of an aircraft that only exists on paper.Actually, they haven't. Not yet, at any rate.

Boeing always quotes a single figure as the total of firm orders and commitments. Don't take my word for it - check out their website and press releases,

The number of actual sales must, therefore, be lower than the "headline" figure, otherwise why would Boeing make the distinction in the first place?

JetDriverWannabe

2nd Mar 2005, 16:01

Yes, 5600NM is the range max payload range for the A380F (333,000lb payload)

6600NM is max payload range for A380 Pax (200,000lb)

Lets take a look at why the A330-300 and A330-200 have wiped out B777-200 and B767 in regional medium range work. Then you may understand why Boeing needs the 787 series.

The A330 to alot of operators is alot more flexible.
You can put 32 LD3 containers into a pax A330-300 and 26LD3 in a A330-200...

The B777-200 can carry 32 LD3s and 301 passengers with a 508,000lb MTOW. 294,000lb OEW

The A330-300 can carry 32 LD3s with a 507,000lb MTOW , 263,000lb OEW......

Its no wonder the why A330-300 wiped out B777-200 for regional flying....the plane is 20,000lb lighter and can almost do the same job...

The B767 wasn't very flexible in terms of freight capacity. Thats why most airlines with sizable freight operation got the A330 instead of them.
The Boeing 767-300 could only carry 15 LD3 containers. or up to 4 pallets... A330 could carry 10, b772 can carry 10..

Actually , for the 7E7 , the underfloor frieght capacity is much improved, about 20 to 24ish with the standard cargo bay gas tanks .

The 787-800 is about the size of a A330-200... Fuel capacity will most likely about 37,000 to 40,000Gal range.. that would most likely mean a large center fuel tank which might eat into cargo capacity.

The more you think about it, the more the 7E7 looks like the composite version of the A330-200...

BusyB

2nd Mar 2005, 17:03

Nice work Jetdriverwannabe but what about the 777-300 and how does the range compare for the 200's

casual observer

3rd Mar 2005, 01:08

OEW = 185,000Lb
Assumes 20% weight saving on 767-400ER (764ER is 227,000 from www.boeing.com)(www.boeing.com)

Your estimation is way off. The -400ER is a 5,600nm aircraft. The B787-8 will be a 8,5000nm aircraft. (You might want to compare the OEW difference betwwen the B777-200A and the B777-200ER.) If the OEW of the -8 is 20% lighter than the -400ER, then Boeing would probably need materials that would be 40-50% lighter than today's aluminum!

Its no wonder the why A330-300 wiped out B777-200 for regional flying.

Wipe out is an exaggeration. Before the B777 was launched, Airbus already had 120-130 orders for the A330-300s. Neither the A330-300 nor the B777-200A has been a hot seller for the past 15 years. The A330-300 picked up some pace after Airbus started offering the 230t version of the aircraft.

The 787-800 is about the size of a A330-200... Fuel capacity will most likely about 37,000 to 40,000Gal range.. that would most likely mean a large center fuel tank which might eat into cargo capacity.

THe B787-8 is smaller than the A330-200, but it will have about the same cargo capacity of the A330-200.

JetDriverWannabe

3rd Mar 2005, 02:15

B777-300 and 777-200ER additional strengthening to increase the MTOW.

The baseline 777-200 MTOW was up to 535,000lb
777-300 and 777-200ER have MTOWs of 660,000lb and 635,000lb
Both the 773 and 772ER have center fuel tanks and fuel capacity increased from 31,000 gallons ot 45,000 gallons.
777-300
773 can carry 368 pax 5955NM
MTOW =660,000lb
OEW = 347,800lb
Load = 368 x 210 = 77280lb
Fuel = 235,000lb = 35062 Gallons.
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0160 Gallons per seat mile.

The 777-300 is structrally limited. If you fill all 368 seats on one, you can only fill in 77% of the fuel tank. (35000 out of 45000)
777-300ER
The interesting bit is putting the 777-300ER into the equation. The 777-300 ER can carry 365 pax 7880 NM
MTOW = 775,000lb
OEW = 370,000lb
Load = 365 x 210 = 76,650lb
Fuel = 47890 gal
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0167 Gallons per seat mile.

The Range increase on the 777-300ER is mainly due to the fact the the 777-300ER airframe could now be loaded an flown with a full pax load and a 100% full gas tank. (well the gas tank got bigger by 2000 gallons only.)

A340-600 HGW
Ah, Since we did the 773ER, we must do the A340-600 too :)
Range with 380 pax is 7900NM (up from 7500 on the original A346.
MTOW = 837,000lb
OEW = 400,000lb
Load = 380 x 210 = 79,800lb
Fuel = 357,200lb = 53,300 Gallons of Jet A
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0178 Gallons per seat mile.

A340 and 772ER
Ah we got into A340....so the good old A340-300 vs 772ER debate

A340-300E
Can carry 295 Pax 7400NM
MTOW = 609,000lb
OEW = 288,000lb
Load = 295 x 210 = 61950lb
Fuel = 37153 Gallons
Fuel cost per seat mile = 0.017 Gallons per seat mile

B777-200ER
Can carry 301 Pax 7730 NM
MTOW = 635,000
OEW = 299,000lb
Load = 301 x 210 = 63,210lb
Fuel = 40713 gallons
Fuel cost per seat mile = 0.0174 Gallons

With the above estimates, we can say fuel burn wise, the A343 and 772 ER are pretty similar. The A340 however has less than stellar takeoff performance and climb performance and as a results suffered from more Takeoff weight restrictions which reduced payload and range.

What about low cost ?
lets take a look at the seat cost on the work horse of a typical LLC fleet. The 737-800
It can take 189 pax 3383 NM

MTOW = 174,200lb
OEW= 91,300lb
Load = 189 x 210 = 39690lb
Fuel= 43210 lb = 6446 Gallons
Fuel per seat mile= 0.0101 gallons per seat mile.

I wonder why the low cost model won't work on long haul ? Simple, becoz with long haul A/C, alot of fuel will be used to carry tons of jet fuel around.

THe B787-8 is smaller than the A330-200, but it will have about the same cargo capacity of the A330-200.

B7E7
The 7E7 is shorter but wider. 4M less length will lead to the loss of about 4 LD3 containers.

Length = 56 M
Span = 60 M
Cross section = 5.74m

A332
Lenth = 59M
Span = 60M
Cross section = 5.64M ..

Okay the 787-800 is slightly smaller. About 2 to 3 % smaller.

Okay, you think 180,000lb is too light.. Lets say, its the same weight as the 767-400 then..
230,000lb
the 787-800 can carry 223 pax
MTOW =480,000lb
OEW = 227,000lb
Load = 223 x 210 = 46,830 lb
Fuel = 203,100lb = 30,700 Gallons.
Fuel per seat mile = 0.0159 gallons per seat mile.

Touch'n'oops

3rd Mar 2005, 06:02

I am in favour of the non-stop flight. I have flown the 19 hour trip from SIN-LAX. At first it seemed really a daunting flight for a 6' 4" guy in EY. But SIA had increased seat pitch, width, leg space, TV screen and threw a bar in the back so people could socialize and get very pissed!!!:ok: :ok: :ok:

Remember aircraft tech. stopping in Japan will burn considerably more fuel on their extra taxi and climb. Plus the airline will have to pay for the extra landing fees and ground personnel. whereas the non-stop removes these factors.

Boeing's solution of sending a squadron of aircraft to satisfy demand on a long haul route is seriously flawed.
Case in point, CX has three flights a day HKG-LHR. Two of their flights depart half an hour apart and are always over booked!!! Why? because that is when people want to fly. No-one wants to do the day flight (often carries pax unable to get on the night flights), which is extremely tough on the body. Therefore a large aircraft like the A380 is needed.

The squadron of aircraft works well for the short haul business, offering people different times of day to arrive and it is not a slog like long haul.

speedbird_heavy

3rd Mar 2005, 08:00

I am in favour of the non-stop flight. I have flown the 19 hour trip from SIN-LAX. At first it seemed really a daunting flight for a 6' 4" guy in EY. But SIA had increased seat pitch, width, leg space, TV screen and threw a bar in the back so people could socialize and get very pissed!!!

But that space comes at a premium....

When I booked to fly to SYD I decided to stop over in Hong Kong for 2 nights on the out bound flight and Dubai for 2 nights on the way back via Bangkok. Granted the stop over in Bangkok was only 2 hours but we visited to wonderful cities (HKG & DXB) which we wouldn't have done if the flights were non-stop.

It just goes to show that Airbus have a better strategy than Boeing. For Airbus to make an aircraft that will go head to head with Boeings new design, all they have to do is fit the same engines and a new wing to an already economical design. The A330.

casual observer

3rd Mar 2005, 21:10

JDW:

Your figures are still wrong, but at least they are in the ballpark. I forgot to mention, the engines on the B787 will be a lot heavier than the ones on the B767.

One thing you failed to correct is your statement in your earlier post that the B787 won't burn less fuel per seat than the A380. Based on your new calculations, the previous statement becomes incorrect.

Your length argument that the B787-8 will hold fewer LD-3s than the A330-200 is wrong. For example, the B747-400ER is longer than the A340-300 but it has about the same cargo volume. The A330-200 doesn't need all the fuel capacity of its huge fuel tank. So, there is some wasted space there already. Another reason why you can't just compare the lengths directly is Boeing's fuselage doesn't taper as much as Airbus' fuselage.

BlueEagle

3rd Mar 2005, 22:03

Casual Obs. Should that read "B767-400ER" in your post?

casual observer

4th Mar 2005, 00:57

Should that read "B767-400ER" in your post?

No. I meant B747-400ER. The B747-400ER is 70.7m long with a cargo hold volume of 151 cu m. The A340-300 is 63.6m long with a cargo hold volume of 161.4 cu m.

POLISH_EDDIE

4th Mar 2005, 09:40

A380 in Exeter...hmmm A380 in Glasgow....er...no. 787 is 20% more fuel efficient per pax mile than any other aircraft=300 pax to New York burns 20% less fuel than 300 equivalent bodies in an A380. Economies of scale go out of the window. Not only that but the turn round time of a 787 and the fact that it's going to be whizzing about at .85 means that it could do 3 new yorks a day- means more choice and flexibility on scheduling. Is every other airline in the world going to tie its schedules to the arrival of the inbound whale from wherever?
The 787 is a very interesting beast, composite, fly by wire, electric start engines and air conditioniong, cabin alt of 6000 feet, and ...it looks good!

oops that should be "conditioning".

And 787's got a nice shower, right? :D :cool: I wonder if they gonna put it on a real plane though. ;)

Now our Polish airline, LOT is looking for replacement for their 5 767's (2 x 200ER's and 3 x 300ER's)... They wanna buy either 6 A330-200's or 6 787's... I have a doubt which one they should choose... Of course it'll be all political decision but 330's would come sooner and are already flying while 787's are still in desiging process and may not be as good and effective as it sounds now... We'll see. They look nice though. ;)

Packsonflight

4th Mar 2005, 13:22

Stop comparing apples and oranges, the choice will never be between the 787 and 380 because the service will have be dence enough to sustain the 380, and take advantage of the cheapest seatmile available. Fx Iberia in the latest edition og Flight, they say that they have no route dence enough to for the 380. And that is a big company.
Glasgow will not have the problem of handling the 380 in forseeable future, because it only fits routs serviced by, or to dence for the 744 today. Maby around 100 airports in the world.

The composite fuselage of the 787 may not be so much of a brakethrough. When Airbus was designing the 380 they initialy wanted to make ALL the fuslage of GLARE (composite/aluminium material) but the launch cusomers stopped that, and made them have aluminium in the lower part of the fuselage (inpact area) because Airbus could not guarantee them short repair time with normal mechanics after minor impact with groundhandling equipment. Three weeks ago Emirates was asking Boeing for proof or demonstration that the composite fuselage would be repairable in short time and without a special team from Boeing

MarkD

4th Mar 2005, 13:24

The 380 is for operating to airports with the need to push more pax per slot - preferably at both ends - LHR, NRT and so on.

The 787 is for flights which involve at at least one end a second-tier airport where operating two slots is more efficient than one, like why EI replaced 741s with 767s and 330s way back when ETOPS became a runner.

Fuel burn is important but if you need to get 555 pax out per LH slot rather than a fuel efficient 300 then 787s won't do it for you.

West Coast

4th Mar 2005, 16:08

Thanks MarkD. for pointing out what seems to have eluded some. The two planes are not in competition (except for hearts and minds) any more than a 757 and a 747 are. Different aircraft for different missions. I don't know who's market beliefs are correct but Boeing and Airbus have different views as to the direction of air travel. Opposite directions seems to describe their prognostications. As such they are building planes for radically different markets. As to the better plane? If as an airline exec I need a plane to fly from Memphis to London, its the Boeing product. If its from LAX to London, then the 380 would get the nod. These head on comparisons be it from airchair execs here or even from the builders seem simple minded.

rubik101

4th Mar 2005, 17:01

Not heard much from 6000PIC. (page1. 2nd post)
Perhaps he should get some hours in!
Mr Boeing, like Mr Kipling, builds exceedingly good aeroplanes.
Not always, but generally. I'm sure the 787 or whatever comes in the future will find a place in the market, just as the 707 through to the 777 has done pretty well for them in the past. Dreamliner was a toe in the water and they found it cold. We all make misteakes!

Packsonflight

4th Mar 2005, 17:31

After the Dreamliner episode Mr Condit said "we where just checking the marked, we are good at that"!!!! He was fired last year because of the Pentagon scandal, another big Boeing problem.

db767

5th Mar 2005, 16:31

What do you mean "after the Dreamliner episode"?

I thought the 787 was/is the Dreamliner. Do you mean the Sonic Cruiser episode?

ETOPS773

5th Mar 2005, 17:20

Polish Eddie,
I`ve been hearing noises that LOT would recieve discounts to become a A350-800 launch customer.3 way battle huh!

I`m not really a big fan of Boeing,but if the 787 keeps its promises of being more comfy on the inside and having lower cabin altitude,I would pay a bit more to travel on it rather than another plane as long haul travel is horid,and I have to do alot of it :{

Facts are it will be a successful aircraft,that will break even (just look at the orders in asia!) and make Boeing and the customer airlines a healthy profit-end of story.

Packsonflight

5th Mar 2005, 17:35

Db767 You are right, Sonic cruiser it was. They build so many paper aircrafts.!!!

JetDriverWannabe

5th Mar 2005, 19:05

The A330-800 has limited chance of being as efficent as the B787
From looking at the boeing website, it states that the B787 is about 30,000 to 40,000 thousand pounds lighter than the A330-200. If this is true, I don't see how an A350 can possibly be as efficent as a B787.

The problem with the A330 airframe
Have a look at the airbus A330 airframe. The problem with the A330 airframe is that the wing was a optimized for both twin and quad engines.

Ever noticed with the same wing the A330-200 has MTOW of 509,000lb and the A340-300 gets 606,000lb ?

This is becuase in a quad jet, the outboard placement two CFM's help reduce the stress placed on the center wing box structure. This allows the plane to support more mass in the fueslague. In the A340, this meant that a center fuel tank, center MLG, could be inconcorperated.

Only the later A330-200 had a center fuel tank. BUT if you noticed. The OEW (270,000lb + Max fuel (242,000lb is almost = MTOW (~507,000lb). (i.e. the center gas tank in only useful for a Military Tanker, surprize, surprize)

(This was the same with the 777, The original 777-200 A market does not have center fuel tank. Only the later strengthed HGW ,772ER and 773 had it, but it added 5,000lb extra weight )

What Airbus has to do to give the A330 airframe 8000NM range with a useful payload
Airbus basically needs to increase the MTOW of the A330-200/A350-800 by 250pax x 210lb = 52500lb
They might need to increase fuel tank size by from the current 36,872 gallons by say 5000 gallons to just below 42,000 gallons. That is 33,500lb more weight. (for ref. b777-200ER has 45,000 gallons)

The A330-800 will basically need a MTOW increase from the current A330-200 MTOW of 509,000lb to at least 560,000 to 595,000lb minus the weight of a new composite wing ~ this is very close to a A340-300.

Inorder to extend the range of the twin jet A330/A350 airbus will have to.
+ Increase the MTOW the aircraft so that it can actully lift a useful payload along with all the gas.
+This will probably mean new landing gear.
+Slight increase in fuel tank capacity.
The only way this can be achived with a new wing.
This new wing will most likely
+ Have a slightly larger volume for larger wing tank size.
+ Much Stronger Wing Box section to support higher MTOW in twin jet design.
+ More powerful engines to support the increased MTOW. my guess is 85,000lb class.

This new wing will most likely increase the weight the A350-800 .

If airbus choose to decide to increase the fuel tank capacity by 5000 Gal, then the A350-900 will really give the B777-200ER and a hard time.... so don't be surprized if Boeing have considered 65M to 70M derivatives of the B787 ...

By comparision, the B777 airframe MTOW has grown from 535,000lb to 766,000lb, at the cost of around 25,000lb weight gain. (thats over the weight of standard 100 pax).

Packsonflight

5th Mar 2005, 21:50

JDW Acording to Airbus the new wing on the 350 is going to be 13t lighter, but the new GE 72000lbs engine will be heavier, so net weight gain will be around 8t

POLISH_EDDIE

6th Mar 2005, 10:15

Polish Eddie,
I`ve been hearing noises that LOT would recieve discounts to become a A350-800 launch customer.3 way battle huh!

That's interesting! Well... I know that Chirac, Blair and Schroeder sent letter to Polish Prime Minister and wrote in it that LOT should choose Airbus aircraft. :) It'd be really bad for Poland's position in the EU to order Boeing aircraft again... That's only political point of view. ;)
As far as I know LOT wants either 6 A330-200's or 6 787's... I haven't heard about offer for A350-800 though it'd be interesting!

zkpilot

28th Mar 2005, 11:25

Both A/c have their uses... big global carriers - EK, SQ, QFetc etc would have use for A380 hub to hub to move the numbers in cattleclass. smaller airlines however -NZ, ANA etc would have more use for 787. Air NZ for example could fly direct from Auckland - Chicago or Auckland - Toronto. There would never be a need for 555 seat a/c for this route but 200-300 would definately be a usefull option and would save pax approx 2-4 hours... 14 hours instead of 18 sounds good to me! also save on fuel burn ( 2-4 hours flight time + 10 tons taxi/takeoff fuel) ..it all adds up. the lower cabin altitude would be nice too. Its going to take a lot of time embarking/disembarking pax on a A380 not to mention offloads!! I think it will be more successful as a frieghter than as a passenger a/c.

-zkpilot :)

Flightluuvr

31st Mar 2005, 22:35

As of March 24, 2005:

Boeing aircraft sales: 239
Airbus sales: 44

read details:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2019909/

March 31, 2005 (today):

EADS/Airbus stock downgraded to "sell"

1:54am 03/31/05
EADS cut at Merrill on flat profit seen at Airbus (FR:005730, BA) By Aude Lagorce

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Merrill Lynch cut European defense company EADS (FR:005730) to "sell" from "neutral," saying it believes that accounting changes, currency, delivery mix and lower margin deliveries to low-cost airlines will hold profit at Airbus flat for 2004-2008. The broker told clients that it would rather hold shares in U.S. rival Boeing (BA) , noting that it has become more focused on market share in civil aircraft and that its 787 model is doing well. "A rising order book could dilute investor perceptions that Boeing was a clumsy has-been against the swift and sure-footed Airbus," the broker concluded.

BrightonGirl

1st Apr 2005, 01:05

I hope I don't sound extraordinarily dense, but "cabin altitude of 6,000 feet" ??? --- I'm just pax and rather unknowledgeable at that, but would someone please explain to me what this means? (I am smart enough to know that it's not the plane's cruising altitude.) Please be gentle. Thank you very much.

Sunfish

1st Apr 2005, 01:41

it means that the aircraft is pressurised to the equivalent air pressure you would expereince if you were 6000 feet up a mountain.

The aircraft is designed with a "maximum pressure differential" in mind that means roughly that when you are flying at 40,000 feet your "cabin altitude" is maybe 10,000 feet.

The 787 is designed to fly direct city to city pairs and avoid the congestion horrors of flying to Heathrow, Chicago, Atlanta, Sydney Houston Narita etc.

It is thus the direct competition to the hub and spoke model that the A380 caters to.

ironbutt57

1st Apr 2005, 04:10

6000 ft cabin altitude is lower than current models by an average of 1500ft or so....:ok:

MikeKnight

5th Apr 2005, 12:08

6000' also means you can't get boozed quite as easily.

ATSA2

5th Apr 2005, 20:07

all this talk of orders/options for these aircraft is missing the point a bit....Take a look at the balance sheets for the big players in the Airline business..... You will observe lots of big RED numbers! The truth is, most airlines are hanging on by their finger nails right now, and have been since way before 9/11. The only guys making any kind of operating profit are those slimming down on every expense, and that includes new aircraft! Whilst Toulouse and Seattle may shift a few big airframes out of the door over the next couple of years, we are not going to see significant sales of either for a few years yet, there is a lot of slimming down and bankruptcies to go! Boeing 747/767/777 will still be around for quite some time, as will A300/310/330/340.
Yes Boeing can point to some big sales in Japan, and Airbus can crow about the middle east ordering a couple of dozen A380s, but the main markets, ie USA and Europe wont be forming an orderly queue just yet!
Having said all, that, I would be more inclined to flog my Boeing shares than my EADS shares at the moment! the A320 family is still outselling the B737 retreads, unless Boeing come up with a 737 replacement soon, they will be up a certain creek without any paddles!