Cathay poised to place order for widebodies

[SMOC]

Cathay poised to place order for widebodies (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/01/342501/cathay-poised-to-place-order-for-widebodies.html)
By Leithen Francis


Cathay Pacific Airways will shatter Airbus's A380 sales aspirations as it prepares for a widebody buying spree, with deals for long-range twinjets but no near-term plans to order the superjumbo.

The Hong Kong airline, which is a major Boeing 747 operator, has long been a target for Airbus's A380 salesmen. However, according to industry sources a request for proposals issued by Cathay in November centred on Airbus A330/A350s and Boeing 777/787s.

The airline is expected to finalise these orders this year, with one source suggesting that a decision will be made in June, ahead of the northern summer holidays.

Cathay chief executive Tony Tyler declines to comment on the RFP, citing commercial and confidentiality reasons, but confirms the airline "is evaluating new-generation Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 aircraft".

Cathay Pacific already operates 17 Boeing 777-300ERs

The Oneworld carrier needs new widebodies to cater for market growth and allow it to phase out older aircraft, say the sources. The carrier has also said publicly it wants to retire its ageing 777-200s although Tyler says the phase-out will not begin this year.

Cathay operates 20 747-400s, some of which are more than 20 years old, and Airbus and Boeing have been trying hard to secure deals to replace them with A380s or 747-8Is.

The airline was involved in the A380 programme from the start, taking part in early A3XX customer focus group meetings 15 years ago. Airbus remains bullish about the role that Cathay's main base will play in the ultra-large aircraft sector, forecasting that Hong Kong will be the largest hub for such aircraft over the next 20 years.

The airline is already a customer for the cargo version of the 747-8, with 10 on order, but industry sources say Cathay has no near-term interest in ordering ultra-large passenger widebodies. One option could be to streamline its fleet by adding more 777-300ERs to replace the 747-400s.

Cathay already has a large A330-300 and 777-300ER fleet, with Flightglobal's ACAS database showing 32 and 17 aircraft, respectively. Orders for eight A330-300s and 13 777-300ERs (plus six options) are held. Deliveries of the A330s will start at year-end and conclude in 2013, says Cathay, when the last of the firm -300ER orders are also due.

Place your bets, B787, A350, A380, B748i or more B777-300ERs?

And how many will be for KA :eek: Scope anyone????

[The Wraith]

B777-300ER and A350.

[Flaps10]

I agree. Mixed order of A350's & 777-300ER's to both phase out older 747-400's and to expand our network.

[kmagyoyo]

A350 to replace A340 and older A330. More 777-300ERs as the 787s too small.

No payrise due to massive capital outlay :}

[Air Profit]

hmmm.....let's see:

British Airways - A380
Virgin - A380
Qantas - A380
Emirates - A380
Singapore - A380
Air France - A380
Korean - A380

....of COURSE we don't need a new large 4 engine aircraft....we're Cathay Pacific..!

[SMOC]

pssst air profit...........CX invented aviation

[Skylion]

Cathay have always believed ,not that the A380 is too big, but the-800 is too small to get the best economics out of the overall design concept. With its massive wing and relatively short fuselage, the -800 is to the ideal A380 what the 747SP was to the 747. As result they are likely to stand aside until the stretch becomes available-and that is on hold while Airbus continue to grapple with production difficulties and need to avoid more expenditure on the aircraft. Emirates have also long been reported as keen to get the stretch in as soon as possible.

[spannersatcx]

VS cancelled/deferred 380's and getting 330's for operation from Apr 2011. 380 is a dead duck, not enough capacity for freight.

[Mr. Bloggs]

Don’t think CX will go with an un-trusted A350. They will wait until the performance/reliability/figures are what Airbus states.:confused:

They will drive the 400’s into the ground like the classic’s as no one wants them, except airlines that will pay rock bottom prices when they are finished and sell to the lowest bidder. It’s the devil they know. Remember, most of the 400’s are paid for one would think.:ok:

The 777 is supposed to be to end of all aircraft but me tinks out of JNB they have a problem. The best A/C out of JNB is the 400. Depending the 400 config, the 400 still carries more passengers, but we are a premium passenger airline.:ugh:

787 us too small and a 747-8 passenger will do well on the HKG-LON route where it EGLL has limited capacity.:D

But………………

[Near Miss]

I too think they will purchase the A350 (guessing -1000) and more B773ER. It would not make sense for them to go too much with one manufacturer. If they continue to order from both, they can play them of each other for the best price. And CX is ALL about the money.

The A350 will replace some of the A333 (non ADS a/c), and all of the A343, on routes like the Middle East, India, Australia, and even Rome. While the B773ER will continue to replace the B744.

I do however believe that a larger aircraft is also needed. The B748i holds 100 odd more pax than the B777ER, ie about 30%. The A380 makes sense into places that are slot limited. Isn't the new UK Government not only stopping the expansion of LHR, but are also going to reduce the number of movements? I am sure that either of these aircraft will be offered as a combined deal with their twin engined little brother.

Either way, more aircraft is a good thing. Maybe I won't have to wait until my 53rd birthday until I have the seniority for a command. :hmm:

[Ex Cathedra]

A350s most likely.

They will need a jumbo replacement eventually. The ER might be a money maker, but it's just not big enough on some routes.

[trevfly]

Looks like KA will therefore be getting some more worn out heaps of Euro cr@p from lady gaga green brushstrokes acrossthe road..

Oh, and do remember to turn off that SAT NAV during pre-flight :ugh:

[sirhcttarp]

more A330's and 777-300ERs in the mean time...

Then when they're assured of delivery slots...

787-9's to gradually replace A330's and A340's for Middle East and OZ
A350-900 or -1000 to gradually replace 777-300ER for EUR and NAM

In the mean time fly the 400s till bits fall off.

[Air Profit]

no matter what they order....they better make sure it has a toilet in the @*%^&$^ cockpit...!!!:ugh:

[SMOC]

There are 3 thing guys on the -400 miss when going to the 777.

1. #1 Engine
2. #4 Engine
3. The cockpit toilet.

[kmagyoyo]

no matter what they order....they better make sure it has a toilet in the @*%^&$^ cockpit...!!!

Toilet in the cockpit...luxury! Back in my day we had crew rest in the passenger cabin trying to sleep through the 3 hour, 130 dB dinner service!

(its still my day unfortunately)

[Oval3Holer]

Meanwhile, what are WE doing about securing a big pay increase? They'll need crews for these new planes. Cargo is double that of last year and front-end revenue is way up, according to GMA. Where is OUR share? Shall we let ANOTHER chance slip by, just like we did in 2008? I bet we will. A CX pilot only looks to better HIS or HER situation, not that of the entire pilot body. CX has counted on this for many years and will continue to do so. The ONLY way the pilot group will secure increases in pay and benefits is through industrial action, a mass exodus, or a dried-up pilot pool. What do you think the chances are of any of these situations existing this year? :ugh:

[longreach]

according to Bloomberg this is 787 v 350 and the VLAs are completely shunned:

Cathay Is in Talks to Buy Long-Range Jets, Shuns Super-Jumbos - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=BA%3AUS&sid=ajNo0TC_BATE)

Definite requirement for long range twins with large cargo carrying capacity. I presume this will match the 789 with the 359. Interestingly, the 789 has virtually the identical pax capacity as the extensive 333/343 fleet, but the 359's capacity is more based on the 772, a very unsuccessful type at CX.
Does this leave the 789 as the favorite here, or do CX want to upgauge pax capacity?

[Lemon Drop]

more pax capacity = more bags in the belly = less cargo capacity

[&&&]

They are not going to replace 773ER's. This is an airbus pilot fantasy. They will be in the fleet in 25 years time. They MAY order the A350-1000 for aditional capacity but i think they are really interested in an A330 replacement and the smaller A350's may also be ordered or 787's if they have bribed the right people for slots.

[TopTup]

Curious... who's going to fly them?

Is CX still over-stocked or has the age 65 changes and CEP fixed any future demands? (Not that I'm going to comment on either one of those issues. Been done to death.)

[jed_thrust]

Well, I guess it is going to be Boeing, given the request for Test Pilots notice out tonight...

[Saturn]

Um correct me if I am wrong, hasn't Airbus had a lot of problems with their products?

CX had to ground the A330 fleet after they first got them.

An AA A300-600 tail completely snapped off the airplane sending everyone to their deaths.

An AF A330 plunged into the Atlantic killing everyone on board.

The A380 problems have not even been sorted out yet.

They (Airbus) had to give up on the A340-500/600 cause it could never perform. We gave those away.

Oh yeah I almost forgot, WE JUST HAD AN A330 NEARLY CRASH IN HONG KONG!

And CX wants more of these things??? I say go all Boeing. You'll get a good deal from them and it will help training costs immensely. B747-8is, B777-200LRs and 300 ERs and 787-8/9s. I do not even wanna ride on an Airbus!

[spannersatKL]

Saturn
I assume you live to the west of New York.....
Nothing wrong with supporting the Seattle product, but you need to look at the overall package on offer from both vendors surely? Didn't the 777 have a small issue at LHR a year or 2 ago? If you are old enough you would also know of the issues with the B744 at introduction and if even older then the issues with the B747 and the P and W engines at the start. All new products have 'issues'!

[Saturn]

Very fair point. However, I would argue that the Boeing products have NOT been a problem for CX as the Airbus has, twice now!

I would argue the savings involved in training would be great as opposed to having different products as well as interchangable parts. The 747-8, B777 and 787 are more very common. If the company is really looking to save $$$, I would think that is the way to go. This is really more opinion than anything of course. I just happen to really think Boeing is a better product.

There are many companies that are either Boeing or Airbus only operators. No reason we can't be. I think that either company will be giving us a great deal. CX colors on any aircraft is a real sales tool.

I hope for the Boeings. More anyway.

[quadspeed]

...for the Airbus A380 anyway. Seems they're all going to Dubai.

ILA: Emirates orders 32 more Airbus A380s (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/08/342948/ila-emirates-orders-32-more-airbus-a380s.html)

90 A380s for Emirates.

[parabellum]

90 A380s for Emirates.


Is the latest order on top of previous orders or just the confirmation of previously held options?

[Toruk Macto]

Too risky to only operate a single manufacture as if major problem that causes a grounding your screwed.

[Eyes only]

Definite requirement for long range twins with large cargo carrying capacity.

I can imagine the friday update ..."no money in passengers"

[Ex Cathedra]

The A350 looks pretty good...

The 787 is too small. The -900 equals the A350-800 in size, and its larger variant, the -1 has a shaky future.

The A350 family, between the -800 and -900 can provide a one fleet replacement for the A330, A340 and regional 777s. The -1000 can eventually replace or supplement the -300ER.

A mixed order wouldn't make any sense and would cost a bundle in training and maintenance.

I really doubt we'll see any grey&green 787s anytime soon, despite the ludicrous theories of the fervent Boeing cheerleaders on here.

[Thunderbird4]

So much for that theory (787 - too small)

Cathay Discusses 787, A350 Order, Shuns Larger Planes (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-08/cathay-discusses-787-a350-order-shuns-larger-planes-correct-.html)

[HKJunkie]

These are new orders in addition to the 58 or so previous

[Flaps10]

Boeing has 866 orders for the 787 and Airbus has 530 orders for the A350 WXB. When deliveries do start, we'll be many years down the list.

While it's always great news when we order new aircraft, I was hoping for more 777's or 748's which could be delivered MUCH sooner allowing for upwards movement in the pilot ranks over the next 3-5 years.

Oh well, whats another couple years as an S/O...

[Ex Cathedra]

So much for that theory (787 - too small)

They will keep publically claiming that they are interested in both products and officially keep talking to both manufacturers until they announce the order.
You can't expect to get the best deal if you don't play on the competition.

787 order would only be part of a mixed order, and that is unlikely.

[EXEZY]

The 787 looks ridiculous, A350 is far better on the eye. Not that aesthetics get in the way.

[EXEZY]

http://www.eglobaltravelnews.com.au/airline/cathay-set-to-buy-boeing’s-long-range-dreamliner-not-the-a-380.html

It's official! 787 it is, A350's to follow. Time to command still 26 years though.

[bugsquash1]

Its not official, some reporter with no idea as usual.:=

I'm betting 350's with Scarebus taking 330's back as part of the deal.
Different variations will suit KA and CX long and short haul, also common training.

I'm also betting minimum 747's for pax routes with max 777's less fleet swapping!

Now for the kicker I think management should go all Boeing for CX and all Bus for KA and make KA short to med haul and CX med to ultra long haul.
Good for the DPA and the AoA couldn't give a rats:E

[Near Miss]

I am still betting on A350s. I imagine that they are a lot cheaper to buy than the B787. And why not the -1000 over the other two? It has only a slightly reduced range (still over 8000nm, pretty much JFK) and it carries the most people (350 in three class, so 400 plus once CX packs them in). The -800 is heavier (fees), shorter, and has fewer seats than the A330-300. Sure it can go a long way, but isn't that why we have the B777-300ER? But what do I know? :8

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Toptup: Curious... who's going to fly them?


Probably the new DEFOs they are now recruiting:

Cathay Pacific - Careers : Careers Home (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/careers/flying/fo_requirements)

cliff
LFW

[sinkingship]

It will be A350 to replace older A330, more 777ER.

[MilPilot]

Probably the new DEFOs they are now recruiting:

Cathay Pacific - Careers : Careers Home

cliff
LFW

Cliff,

They have had that DEFO ad up forever ;) What makes you think that things are looking better for DEFO hiring right now?

[spannersatcx]

It's that old it still has A340-600 on it.:zzz:

[Toe Knee Tiler]

Equipment for low cost carrier.

[mcdude]

For CX A350-1000, (44 LD3s, 388 pax in 2-class, deliveries start 2016)

For KA, 787-9, (38 LD3s, 288 pax in 2-class, deliveries start 2015)

Or a combination thereof!

Out of the running, A380 (only 38 LD3s and too many seats)

[longreach]

Any updates here? Some press had CX making their decision by the end of last month. CX haven't traditionally announced at airshows but maybe there will be some news in the next week?

[geh065]

Tyler is in the UK at the same time as the airshow...

[The Stunned Mullet]

I note that the Oxford University Tiddly Winks Society (OUTS) of which TT was a founding member, also has it's annual contest at the same time....;)

[quadspeed]

Oh. Missed the boat again.

FARNBOROUGH: Emirates orders 30 more 777-300ERs (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/19/344690/farnborough-emirates-orders-30-more-777-300ers.html)

Does anybody have any idea where CX is actually going? What is the company goal besides being bought and repainted by Air China?

[Saturn]

Is where we are going if management does not change its tactics. They are really dropping the ball but sadly I am no longer surprised by the inemptness. We have a team from the special olympics running the show. Employees pissed off, bad press with a spate of recent incidents, self promoting egotistical sycophants (Love that word). How about that cabin product? Great work Tony the Tiger, back to cereal for you!

I'll say it again, this company makes money in spite of itself. It's really just the wrong people in the wrong positions.

WE NEED REAL LEADERSHIP NOT A BUNCH OF RICH KIDS FROM ENGLAND PLAYING WITH DADDIES MONEY! Enough already.

This company is a great airline and though I bitch and complain, I like a lot of the people I work with. The problem is our management call it a business and run it like a bank, spending a dollar to save a nickle. "That's a different budget and a different department", horse****! It's an airline and needs to be run better.

This could be a great place to work for EVERYONE! Those old colonial days and ways of thinking DO NOT WORK ANYMORE!

Basically, the patients are running the asylum and until we get the crazies under control and sedated, things won't change!

Where's William Wallace when you need him?:ugh:

[Humber10]

Saturn. That's harsh and an insult to those in special olympic teams.

[FIRESYSOK]

CX is making an agonizingly slow demise, gents. EK continues to crush the competition and will continue to do so, making money without being propped up. We're still playing around with crusty BCF's; 772's that no one else will touch; falling behind everyone in queue for new aircraft if there is an order placed. That is looking to be a big if. Enjoy it while it lasts...

Perhaps we'll see some new A350's in the year 2020. That should all but seal our competitive edge..

[Neptunus Rex]

Saturn
You are so wrong. The old colonial style did Cathay proud. The company was one big family, with everybody looking out for everybody else. Salaries and conditions were the best in the world, and the company made huge profits, of which a generous part was shared by all staff. There was no acrimony between different parts of the company and it all seemed to work.
It was when the MBA/Beancounter attitude arrived that the rot set in.
When the company was run by gentlemen, it was run well and everybody happily gave their all.

[Air Profit]

At the present rate of growth, Emirates is on target to double the size of their airline in the next 6 years. That means anyone joining now can expect a command in 6 years or less. Put's CX in perspective doesn't it? :bored:

[buggaluggs]

I hear they're wheeling and dealing for up to 10 ex JAL 744 freighters too....on the cheap of course....just what I need MORE freighter flying!! :uhoh:

[geh065]

Jal operates a large fleet of BCFs with only two full freighters and they are not even ERFs...AND they have the wrong engine type. Don't see it happening despite the rumours.

[geh065]

...seems I might be wrong. Rumours are that the two JAL GE powered 744Fs have already been purchased.

[buggaluggs]

Well what's one more engine type..... at least we've got them all now!!

[Sqwak7700]

Those 400s are still shown as registered to JAL.

Interesting that we sold one of our classics to Southern Air and we are now leasing it from them for extra capacity.

The incredible shrinking airline. :rolleyes:

[BusyB]

I understand CX has a contract to carry cargo to LHR and Sydney for Singapore and Qantas due their A380's being unable to carry freight as insufficient hold space when full with pax bags:ok:

[Zeke]

I understand CX has a contract to carry cargo to LHR and Sydney for Singapore and Qantas due their A380's being unable to carry freight as insufficient hold space when full with pax bags

SQ operates 3x777-300ER, an A380, and a 744F a day to SYD. The A380 takes up to 7 pallets of cargo. They have no requirement for CX to take their cargo.

QF operate one 744 and one A380 a day from SYD to LHR, they also load up to 7 pallets of cargo on the A380. They also have a contract with Atlas to provide dedicated 744F freights, they fly around with QF call signs, and often transit HKG. They have no requirement for CX to take their cargo.

[BusyB]

Zeke,
I stand corrected if that is the case:ooh:

[HEALY]

or order enough fuel in ANC

[AsiaMiles]

It is hard to believe some of the ridiculous comments written in this forum.
If you read the papers occasionally you would know that oil production from the North Slope in Alaska peaked in 1988 and has been decreasing every year and the new administrations policy on exploration does not help.

Flint Hill the largest refinery on the North Slope and the owner of the main pipeline to ANC has already shutdown one of its production units because of a lack of oil.

This means the amount of jet fuel produced and available in ANC will decrease each year because there is more profit for the oil companies from from diesel and unleaded gas. No-one is willing to ship oil into ANC because of the Valdez accident.

[HEALY]

Actually Asiamiles that fascinating history of oil production in ANC had sod all to do with the fact that more than enough fuel was and still is available in ANC. We just couldnt touch it (mind you that rumour was only from the refuellers and ground crew).
But you are right, there is some idiotic stuff on this rumour network isnt there. I really should be spending less time golfing, fishing and drinking and more time reading the paper in Pacific Coffee.:}

[Baywatcher]

Shame we can't overfly the place

[BalusKaptan]

And what do the last few posts re fuel have to do with new wide bodies?:*

[HKG Phooey]

Well that didn't happen did it?

[longreach]

A350 it is!

[tiger321]

Longreach, you seem pretty sure. Care to mention where your info comes from? I haven't seen any official announcements.

[A. Le Rhone]

Sorry to be a little cynical but....warmed-over 767 or A330. Hard to get excited about it.

[geh065]

Quite a few of them too I hear. More than 29. Less than 31.

[longreach]

Apparently it's 30 A350s to be announced today with the 1st half financial results. Model(s) unknown but I don't think the -800 will be considered. Definitley -900s and possibly some -1000s.

[longreach]

maybe later, but this order is all A350.

[goathead]

ok so this announcement went as expected 30x A350 .....midsized long range jets , ok .Then what are going to replace the 744's surely not 773er's and if the 380 is ruled out( that I just heard Tony quoting )then that only leaves room for 748 right , or am i completely wrong ?

[Rook]

I guess all orders are good, but have you seen the redesigned nose on the 350? The original one looked good, but the new one looks horrible. These guys just cant make good looking airplanes.

[freightdog188]

http://www.airbus.com/typo3temp/pics/a4e849f52e.jpg

[Rook]

looks like someone took a 330, put a b146 cockpit on it and 777 wings.

[iceman50]

Rook

Since when did the 777 have winglets?

The nose looks nothing like a 146 either need glasses?

Just a Boeing man are we.:D

[EXEZY]

I bet they'll have a list of OEB's and defects just like the rest. :}

[Rook]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/A350xwb_nose_2009B.png

looks a bit like a 146 to me.

http://www.widebodyaircraft.nl/a350sing.jpg

and the wings look more 777 than bus to me. Minus winglets, but those aren't wings of course.
Not really a boeing man, just observing. They all pay the same.
You can me my wing man anytime.

[mcdude]

What does SCMP mean by this (http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8e1b39247cd3a210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Companies&s=Business)?

"The airline entered a preliminary contract to buy 30 long-range Airbus A350 jetliners, powered by Rolls-Royce engines, at a catalogue price of HK$60.84 billion. The aircraft will be delivered between 2016 and 2019.

Cathay also intends to exercise the options to acquire six General Electric-powered Boeing 777s at an estimated cost of HK$12.48 billion, bringing the outstanding firm orders for the twin-jet planes to 18 from 12.

The new aircraft will replace existing B747 and A340 jets as well as accommodate future passenger demand growth, Cathay chief executive Tony Tyler said. The airline has an option to buy 30 additional A350s in the future.":confused:

[Night Watch]

Cathay Pacific leaves door open to ultra-large airliners, despite big twinjet deal

By Max Kingsley-Jones

While Cathay Pacific has decided that the Airbus A350 and Boeing 777 will become the core of its fleet, the door is still open to a potential future deal for the ultra-large A380 and 747-8I. Airbus remains convinced that the Hong Kong airline will one day buy its double-decker.

Cathay says that its decision to have the A350-900 and 777-300ER "at the core" of its long-haul fleet follows "a thorough evaluation of our requirements as we approach the retirement of the 747-400 and A340-300". Cathay, which operates 15 A340-300s and 22 747-400s, adds that it does not plan to replace the entire fleets of these two types with the new aircraft, but "only the older ones". These orders will also be used to accommodate fleet growth.

Cathay Pacific A340
Cathay Pacific is to retire its older A340s, replacing them with A350-900s and 777-300ERs

The airline is guarded about the status of any ultra-large aircraft order discussions, saying only that is not currently considering a deal for either type "but we continue to evaluate our fleet development needs".

With Airbus forecasting that Hong Kong will be the world's number one hub for movements of ultra-large aircraft over the long term, it remains convinced that Cathay will eventually become a customer for the type.

"It is a question of timing. Looking at the big picture, I'll bet that in five years' time Cathay will have ordered by then," says A380 marketing chief Richard Carcaillet.

"It's up to us to an extent, and it's up to them to make the move - but they know they need the aircraft. It's down to commercial discussions and fleet planning."

[Captain Dart]

Regarding the A350 order, and from personal experience of the introduction of the A330 to Cathay Pacific, I can only quote Chuck Yeager:

'Never fly the A-model of anything'.

[Ex Cathedra]

'Never fly the A-model of anything'.


There have been over 500 A350 ordered before CX did. The thing will have flown 1000s of hours by the time they get their hands on the first one.

[Sqwak7700]

There have been over 500 A350 ordered before CX did. The thing will have flown 1000s of hours by the time they get their hands on the first one.

Not a very accurate statement. Order numbers have nothing to do with delivery schedule. It is not necessarily in sequential order.

[Ex Cathedra]

Well that's true, but CX is rather late to the game and no matter what sort of deal they got with Airbus, I'm fairly certain they just couldn't secure early delivery slots at this point.

The first delivery is due sometime in 2016, which, according to the current schedule, is 3 years after its introduction into airline service. At the planned production rate, that means that at least 300 aircrafts will be in airline service by then.

It will be out of its teething phase, and the design improvements and weight reductions planned for the -800 will probably have been introduced on the -900 too.

[Bograt]

Weight reduction like this:

Airbus Wing Breaks Early In Load Test (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/16/204716/airbus-a380-test-wing-breaks-just-below-ultimate-load.html)

They took too much metal out. Note that "it broke within 3% of the target, which shows how good our modelling is."

WTF? It broke early. Your modelling predicted that, and that's OK?

[Bograt]

Order cancelled (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/06/345886/dubai-lessor-dae-cancels-25-airbuses-including-seven.html). This order included 7 A350's.

Coz CX is cashed up and the manufacturers wold rather have cash than an IOU or MOU...

[Ex Cathedra]

They took too much metal out.


No, they didn't put enough in.

The name of the game is to make the wing as sturdy as the certifying regulation requires it while at the same time keeping the weight as low as possible.
Putting too much metal in and making it too strong adds unnecessary weight that bears on the overall performance and operating cost of the aircraft.

Reinforcements were subsequently made and the wing was certified.

And that was the A380, by the way, not the A350.

[Sqwak7700]

too much metal in and making it too strong adds unnecessary weight that bears on the overall performance and operating cost of the aircraft.

I bet that Air France A330 crew were not thinking the same thing as they plunged to the Atlantic from 37,000 feet. :rolleyes:

I don't know how comfortable I am flying in an aircraft that was built only just strong enough. Kind of like hanging from a a wire that supports only your weight down to the exact ounce.

It just leaves no room for the big "unknown" - and we know how many of those we come across in our profession. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to turn this into A versus B, because I think Boeings are slowly moving in that direction as well. Didn't the 787 have similar problems in that they found they need to re-inforce the wing box?

I think airlines are not the only business that accountants have taken over. :yuk:

[Air Profit]

Emirates.....6 years to command on possibly an A380.... We are in danger of becoming a very boring airline....

[HKJunkie]

Quote:
"I don't know how comfortable I am flying in an aircraft that was built only just strong enough. Kind of like hanging from a a wire that supports only your weight down to the exact ounce"

Since when? Certification is for the structure to be tested at 150% over the maximum design load in normal operations. Not "to the ounce".

[Ex Cathedra]

I bet that Air France A330 crew were not thinking the same thing as they plunged to the Atlantic from 37,000 feet.


Good to see you've figured out the exact causes and circumstances of the AF crash. Don't forget to ring up Airbus and the BEA to let them know...

I don't know how comfortable I am flying in an aircraft that was built only just strong enough. Kind of like hanging from a a wire that supports only your weight down to the exact ounce.

You might want to get a new job then. Certification criterias haven't changed in a long while, and the metal you've been flying so far is just as sturdy as any of the new ones coming out now.

[Bograt]

@ Ex Cathedra:

I'm well aware of that being a 380, just pointing out Airbus history. The link clearly refers to it being a 380, and I remember it being report so at the time.

Reinforcements were subsequently made and the wing was certified.


So it was made heavier - and once again they fail to meet their stated range/weight predictions made to the bean counters who purchase these things, and then pay contract penalty fines after the fact.

[Ex Cathedra]

So it was made heavier - and once again they fail to meet their stated range/weight predictions



Er, ...no, they didn't.

Strenghtening the wing only required about 30 Kg worth of reinforcements. Not really that significant on an aircraft that weighs 280 Tonnes empty.

The A380 has met or exceeded every design target performances when entering airline service. It's fuel consumption is slightly lower than forecast, due to better than expected engine burn, L/D performance and general aerodynamics (that huge forehead apparently helps a lot...), and bound to improve with time, all this despite the aircraft being 5T overweight.

For a bit of perspective, the 787 is well above 5T overweight (around +8%), for a much lighter aircraft, and the first batch of airframes will largely miss their design range (-10% to -15%), payload and probably fuel burn specifications as the Gen-X weren't performing as good as expected on the bench, though that will improve.

[bugsquash1]

Soooo my first prediction is true.

350's, less 74's, more 777's

Next is announcement of how many to Dragonair, remember this is a group buy and CX management are already hinting to the flight crews some will be for our network expansion.:ok:

Now, sorry boys (AoA), bottom of seniority list when Dragonair gets all the 350's because your not looking after your junior pilots and they will soon revolt, then management will use divide and conquer.:E