PDA

View Full Version : 777-9x to kill off the 747-8 program


Frogman1484
17th May 2013, 00:28
Assessing the A350 program
by leehamnet
News from EADS that it is beginning to consider another Airbus A350 assembly line, or ramping up production more quickly than currently planned, to accommodate increasing demand for the -1000 validates a desire expressed months ago by John Leahy, COO of Customers for Airbus, that he could see more -1000s if he had the capacity to build them.

Delivery slots for the A350 are essentially sold out to 2020. Orders for the -1000 stalled in part because of this, in part because Airbus tweaked the design, in part because Boeing engaged in an effective campaign to cast doubt over the model and in part because Tim Clark of Emirates Airlines and Akbar Al-Baker of Qatar Airways can't resist negotiating in the press to pressure Airbus to do more.

We believe the -1000, at 350 passengers, is a bit small. It compares with the 365 passengers in the Boeing 777-300ER. We felt from the start that Airbus should have had at least 30 more passengers. But the -1000 threatens the -300ER. Airbus claims the -1000 will have 25% lower trip costs; even Boeing's own presentations grant the -1000 about 20% lower trip costs.

With Boeing planning a 350-passenger 777-8X and a 406 passenger 777-9X, the need for a larger "A350-1100" becomes acute. Boeing has had the monopoly with the 777-300ER, which will be broken by the -1000. The 9X will retain a monopoly; Airbus, to be fully competitive, needs to match this size.

This will mean a new wing and larger engines, of course, no small investment. There is already a huge gap between the -1000 and the A380. The 777-9X, which will be more efficient than the 747-8 (and which will kill the dying 748), will eat into the A380 demand. So will an A350-1100, but better to do so from within than to see your competitor take the sales.

The A350-900 is moving forward with continued market demand.

This leaves the A350-800.

Boeing engaged in a public campaign to cast doubt on the viability of the -800. Airbus has poorly defended the airplane, and its efforts to switch customers to the -900 further casts doubt. But officials insist the -800 has a future. The question is, when?

The current entry-into-service plan for the family is the -900 in the second half next year (we think it could slip into early 2015); late 2016 for the -800 and 2017 for the -1000. There are only two -800s scheduled for delivery in 2016, with the bulk in 2017, when the -1000 is due for delivery in reasonably sizable numbers.

We're told from several sources that Airbus is switching customers from the smallest model to larger versions in part to de-risk the program. Schedule on the -900 is already tight and resources are focused on this sub-type. Switching customers relieves pressure on these limited resources.

Another reason, expressed by Leahy: the -900 is more profitable for Airbus (though we are also told reliably Airbus is offering incentives valued at "millions of dollars" to switch).

Leahy also says switching to the -900 gives customers earlier delivery slots. We're not quite sure how, but this is what he told us.

We believe the increasing demand for the -1000 will prompt Airbus to resequence the EIS, moving the -800 from 2016/2017 to 2018. This will open slots in 2017 for the -1000 and ease integration pressure for Airbus.

But will Airbus keep the -800? Our checks in the market with customers so far suggest the answer is yes. Abandoning the -800 will totally cede the middle-twin-aisle sector to the 787 and we doubt Airbus wants to do this. The A330 will be approaching its 30th year from EIS in 2024, and by then will reach the end of its natural life cycle, if not somewhat before. Airbus needs to come up with a solution to replace the A330 (perhaps that ever-talked about NEO?).

Airbus needs to address (1) the absence of a competitor to the 777-9X, (2) the future of the A350-800, (3) the absence of a new technology competitor to the 787-8 and (4) the successor to the A330.

leehamnet | May 16, 2013 at 4:54 am | Tags: 747-8, 777-300ER, 777-8X, 777-9X, 787-8, A330, A350, A350-1000, A350-800, A350-900, Airbus, Boeing, John Leahy | Categories: Airbus, Boeing | URL: Assessing the A350 program | Leeham News and Comment (http://wp.me/pcvQh-2jo)

bm330
17th May 2013, 04:43
Did you even read the article?

The demise is of the 350-800. NOT the 747-8.

Sqwak7700
17th May 2013, 04:48
bm330 Did you even read the article?

The demise is of the 350-800. NOT the 747-8.


Did you read the article? Guess you missed this bit.

The 777-9X, which will be more efficient than the 747-8 (and which will kill the dying 748),

bm330
17th May 2013, 16:51
humble apologies.

It does appear that both Boeing's and Airbus's -8x programs are in peril.

cxorcist
17th May 2013, 21:26
... except the 747-8 will be around for a very long time as a freighter. The A350-800 (if they are built) will probably be long forgotten while 747-8Fs are still carrying the lion's share of the world's air cargo decades from now.

Frogman1484
17th May 2013, 23:12
Yes you are correct in saying thatbthe 800's are doomed as a passenger type.

This does mean that the 380 is the most likley choice for the future in CX....or the 777-9x:cool:

cxorcist
18th May 2013, 00:06
Froggy,

I still think the -8I will end up a part of the CX fleet in the next couple years. They may be leased, and I'd be surprised if CX orders more than a dozen. They might be part of a larger order which includes 777-9X and possibly the 787-10X, which will eventually be a replacement for the A330 fleet.

I agree that the production lifespan of the -8I will probably be less than half what the -400's was, but I think that has more to do with the 777-9X than the A380, which I do not believe CX will ever operate.

Frogman1484
18th May 2013, 09:18
Why would you buy the 748 passenger version? It make's no sense to do that!

Why would you get the 748 when you can get the 777-9x or a A380 which will have a lot more variants in the years to come.

cxorcist
18th May 2013, 19:25
Let's have this conversation in a month or two...

Sqwak7700
19th May 2013, 02:09
... except the 747-8 will be around for a very long time as a freighter. The A350-800 (if they are built) will probably be long forgotten while 747-8Fs are still carrying the lion's share of the world's air cargo decades from now.


We are parking 744s, not sure the world air cargo market is as important when fuel reaches a certain level and margins get smaller. A 4 engine aircraft can not compete with a twin. You are right that B748F will be a around for a while, but only because it has no competition in that small niche that is getting smaller.

You will see a lot of 747 freighter work going to 777s and A330s. Well, we are already seeing that. Does not take a genius to notice the greater number of 777s in the cargo ramp at HKG.

cxorcist
19th May 2013, 03:09
Sqwak,

All true, except the per tonne or cubic meter (for volumetric comparison) costs of a 748F are better than both of the twins you mention. So your statement about 4 engine aircraft not being able to compete is incorrect unless you were referring to trip costs. Of course, just about every commercial aircraft in service today has a lower trip cost than the 748 except the A380, which makes sense based on size. Agree?

broadband circuit
19th May 2013, 04:03
You will see a lot of 747 freighter work going to 777s and A330s. Well, we are already seeing that. Does not take a genius to notice the greater number of 777s in the cargo ramp at HKG.

Very true, however, I've been told by people who have knowledge of the cost-benefit calculation methodology (whose credentials make their opinion credible), that although the twin is cheaper on a shorter sector, there is a flight time limit where you reach MTOW and you need to start offloading freight. Apparently the 777 freighters we had ordered (and then "traded"), would have struggled to do Nth America (read ANC - HK) unrestricted. Add to the equation that the 747-8 can physically carry more boxes, and it all gets very complex.

The practical outcome is that at the moment, the 747-8 is the best for going across the Pacific, whereas the 777F variant we'd ordered would have been more suitable for regional, India, Middle East, and Europe via India/Middle East.

So, one day we probably will get 777 freighters, we might just have to wait until there's a freighter version of the -9x.

Frogman1484
19th May 2013, 04:25
747-80 for freight yes...not for pax. 777-9x or A380 for pax.:ok:

cxorcist
19th May 2013, 04:33
Well that settles it then Froggy. Like I wrote before, just wait a couple months...

cxorcist
19th May 2013, 04:38
The freighter version will be based on the 777-8X, not the -9X, just as the 777F today is based on the -200, not the -300. It's all about the payload/range equation. There is no point having a big long freighter if you can't get anywhere (read NAM) in it when it's full.

ASH1111
19th May 2013, 05:09
Premium Pax love the 74, and the 380, they do not care for the 777, as the product and privacy are inferior.

Cathay had better get it together. Once the HKG'ers get a taste of that BA 380, and it gets around, look out!

Efficiency and frequency matters much less in long haul Mr. Swire, if your product is deficient.

Frogman1484
19th May 2013, 05:28
Cxorcist...I have nothing to settle with you.:ok. Face it the 748 pax version is dead.

Anotherday
19th May 2013, 05:49
If a panicking Boeing offers the 747-800 for next to nothing who knows, we might buy them. They tried the same with the 767-X and 757-X and failed miserably when the 330 wiped the floor with both of them.

3 years later the delayed B777 finally arrived. The 380 may do the same to the 747-800 and force Boeing to get serious about a next gen for both.