Emirates cancels 70 A350 orders

[Sqwak7700]

I wonder what happened between UAE and Airbus for them to cancel such a huge number of orders? Maybe they know something others don't about the 350 program?

Either way, a pretty big cancellation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbus...053157514.html

[DevX]

Maybe Boeing offered a better deal with the 777X and GE engines?

[Methersgate]

It is a huge cancellation; for any large company to reverse its policy like this, there must be a reason that will "stand up" in the boardroom. Frankly, that is most likely to be pricing or finance, because it is difficult for an airline CEO to say to his Board, "We totally mis-read the market!"

[wild goose]

Devx
The A350 is not a competitor of the 777-9X.
The 787-9 competes with the A350-900 and the 787-10 with the A350-1000

[broadband circuit]

we are confident that the delivery slots which start towards the end of this decade vacated by Emirates will be taken up by other airlines

Lets see how quickly the CX vultures start circling the carcass looking for an ultra cheap deal on those slots.

[wild goose]

Methersgate
It transpires that the Boeing products are superior to the European ones.
The Emirates board may have ordered the A350's as an insurance policy should the Boeing aircraft not perform as advertised or some other issue.
It makes no sense to run a fleet with both competing types.
The decision to stay with one rather than both, is fully correct.

[cxorcist]

Wild Goose,

"Devx
The A350 is not a competitor of the 777-X.
The 787-9 competes with the A350-900 and the 787-10 with the A350-1000"

Those two statements are actually incorrect.

Airbus does tout he A350-1000 as a competitor to the 777-9X on a seat cost basis despite its smaller size (carbon vs aluminum fuselage). The real question is whether the -1000 will have the range to compete with the 777X. Airbus says it will, but there are reasons to be skeptical (namely underpowered engines). There is no doubt the 777-8X will have greater payload range than the -1000 (same size fuselage), but some believe the -8X economics will not be good as the -1000's.

The A350-900 is actually of similar size to the 787-10. There is little doubt that the -900 will have more range than the -10, but the economics for the 787-10 look significantly better on missions less than approximately 6000nm.

The 787-9 is the competitor to the A350-800 size-wise. Both are to be ultra-long haul aircraft, but the A358 is rumored to be scrapped because it is much heavier than the 787-9 and far behind in the development phase.

So in sum, the A350-900 is the only member of the XWB family that has no direct competitor, but that is only the case for missions over 6000nm.

The A350-1000 seems to be in a state of flux as the final design appears somewhat uncertain at this point. There are rumors that Airbus will actually scrap the -1000 and build a "-1100" to compete more directly with the 777-9X. Either way, I think it is fairly certain to say that Airbus is definitely reacting to Boeing widebody products, and not the other way around. (The opposite case could be made wrt to A320NEO vs B737MAX.)

[China Flyer]

From the ME forum, it sounds like the cancellation is to make way for more 380s.

[Methersgate]

China Flyer - that does seem plausible. Airbus would be receptive to swapping 350s for 380s, the finance could also be swapped fast, and so far as I can tell, Emirates have been getting good results with their 380s.

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

The real question is whether the -1000 will have the range to compete with the 777X. Airbus says it will, but there are reasons to be skeptical (namely underpowered engines).

779X/778X MTOW 775,000 lb, 105,000 lb per engine
A350-1000 MTOW 679,000 lb, 98,000 lb per engine

The A350-1000 has about 6% higher thrust to weight ratio of the 779X/778X, yet it is the one that is under powered ?

You think an aircraft that is 96,000 lb heavier (the empty weight of a 737) might burn just a little more fuel ?

[cxorcist]

swh,

It's all about the wing. I thought you, of all people, would know that. Boeing is not doing the folding wingtip because it looks cool on the ramp. There are very legitimate concerns about the payload range of the -1000. Why do you think they had to change the wing (from the -900)? I'm not saying this necessarily had anything to do with the EK cancellation, however.

That's the difference between Airbus and Boeing. Boeing builds structures with adequate margins for growth and error. Notice how the 787 wing will fly successfully on three aircraft, the 777X wing on two, and the A350XWB wing on, well, one. The A358 won't be built and the -1000 (or -1100 if you believe the hearsay) will require a bigger wing to have anywhere close to the brochure range.

Btw, I thought you were properly discredited in our last exchange wrt SFCs and "the bucket" on engines. You are clearly a novice pretending otherwise. Save your propoganda for the uninformed.

[gipilot]

So nice....

It's so nice to see so many of you going massively technical while missing the simple point.

POLITICS MY FRIENDS. POLITICS. The EU is waging a war against the middle Eastern carriers especially EK. All the major carriers in the EU are feeling the heat of the world's best airline and are suddenly doing something about it. 2 months ago a judge in Italy reversed a fifth freedom right of mxp-jfk off EK. Germany is ROCK solid in not giving them more slots in Germany. France is making it awfully difficult for EK to get their desired extra slots in cdg. You guys remember the Canadian slots issue that ended up with a huge rift between the UAE and Canada? Well same thing here.

You guys can play the numbers for days but the 350 is a FANTASTIC(and I'm a Boeing lover)piece of machine, cancelling 70 airplanes is no joke, it's a serious warning sign to the EU that if they don't open up, there can't be any serious expansion for EK and that they'll dent Airbus' pride. There is absolutely no tech sense in why a carrier that has the best airline planners in years would suddenly just drop ALL their orders for such a fantastic machine. POLITICS.

[cxorcist]

Good points. I agree.

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

It's all about the wing.

You were the dipstick that said it was under powered !!!!

The numbers show the A350-1000 has a higher T/W ratio than the 77X (6% higher), 787-8 (13% higher), 787-9 (12% higher), and 787-10 (5% higher), and 747-8i (5% higher).

and now you are saying it is all in the wing after being clearly shown you were WRONG ?????????

The 77W does not have the same wing as the 772/773, however when Airbus does something to increase the wing area by a similar amount it is an automatic failure ????

Nothing you say follows any logic. You were caught out spinning more crap, so you spin some more.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Notice how the 787 wing will fly successfully on three aircraft

It is not the same wing (side-of-body wing join and internal structure), and only two different MTOWs. It was also not the same wing as the 787-3.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Save your propoganda for the uninformed.

Good mantra for you to say to yourself each day mirror man ?

Which aircraft is under powered ? or do you think for a second they might all have enough thrust to be certified ?

[Sheep Guts]

Isn't this simple hedging. The airlines hedge everything from peanuts and pretzels to fuel. So hedging against a possible 787 failure at the time they ordered the A350, makes more sense. Now being given the 777X option they are hedging again. Remember their own sovereign wealth fund is one of the highest individual share holders at EADS (Airbuses mother company). Maybe they are partial to some information about the A350 development that has forced their hand to change.

[swh]

Originally Posted by gipilot

The EU is waging a war against the middle Eastern carriers especially EK.

The "war" is not unique to the EU, there is justifiable concerns over who is actually controlling some of these so called European airlines. An airline that cannot be named on here is linked to a number of these issues.

EK is not the flag carrier of the UAE, the is another airline that cannot be named on here.

Regionally similar concerns have been made in Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Philippines, Japan, Korea, and even here in Hong Kong with foreign owned airlines wanting to setup airlines effectively controlled from overseas to make use of air service agreements which they would not have access to normally.

Originally Posted by gipilot

Germany is ROCK solid in not giving them more slots in Germany.

This is not really true, they have unlimited slots and capacity into Germany, they could fly to FRA every 30 minutes with an A380 under the current air service agreement. The only restriction is that they can only fly to 4 airports, it is up to EK to nominate which 4 airports they want to fly to.

EK has a desire to add Berlin, Germany is saying they are welcome to Berlin, EK will just have to stop flying to either Frankfurt, Munich, Duesseldorf and Hamburg.

Originally Posted by gipilot

cancelling 70 airplanes is no joke, it's a serious warning sign to the EU that if they don't open up, there can't be any serious expansion for EK and that they'll dent Airbus' pride.

The first A350 was not to be delivered to EK until around 2019 (2019-2023), the additional slots will probably result in a 20-40% increase on the resale of those slots now that launch discounts are over.

Airbus is already fielding request for these slots, some of which may end up just a short drive/fight from DXB.

Originally Posted by Sheep Guts

EADS (Airbuses mother company)

EADS no longer exists, it is now the Airbus Group, with three main divisions Airbus, Airbus Defence and Space, and Airbus Helicopters.

[cxorcist]

Swh,

1) The 787 wing has the same length, span, and sweep on all three models. Of course the heavier models will have a different wing join and internal strengthening. My 10 year old could figure that out, but it's still the same wing.

2) I never mentioned the 77W wing. But since you brought it up, do you think the "A350XWB family" has any chance of selling 1500+ as the 777 has? Were there two different wings, engines, and undercarriages defined before the first aircraft ever entered service? Is the A350XWB really a "family" at all or is it two different aircraft with a common type rating (a la 330/340)?

3) One of the early complaints about the -1000 was it being underpowered. You are correct to point out that this has been "rectified," but it's not the same engine as the Trent XWB on the -900.

4) Name calling doesn't strengthen your case, my underpowered comment was a side note (in brackets) to the main theme of my post which was to correct incorrect comments by Wild Goose. I maintain that there legitimate reasons to question the payload range of the "-1000" whether it be due to the engines, wings, or some other reason. Has Airbus even firmed the -1000's final configuration?

[LapSap]

Maybe politics in EK's case.

From the ME forum, it sounds like the cancellation is to make way for more 380s.

CX will be thinking long and hard about doing this too, given the pending zero slot growth at HKIA from around 2017-23.

Well done to the shopping mall managers at AAHK. Only 6 to 7 years behind the game as usual.

[crewsunite]

A350 - B747-8i

They have been given a excellent deal on the Ozark B747-8i /F on the trade of older B777 , B747F. This on the back of an Asian carrier slow to committ.

By having B748 quad on their books is seen to seriously bring Airbus round to improve A380.

In future having both "new improved" Quads & B777X carring Large amounts of payload (Pax & Frieght) while saving on economies of scale elsewhere, will be a game changer yet again.

Smart! Now we just need them to up the Pilot Package!

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Of course the heavier models will have a different wing join and internal strengthening. My 10 year old could figure that out, but it's still the same wing.

The have commonality, however they are not the same wing, no matter how you want to dress it up.

In 2006 they had the 787-8 wing at 58m, and the 787-9 at 60m, in 2008 they increased them to 60 m and 63 m, and then in 2012 reduced the span to 60m for the 787-9/10. The 787-9/10 share the same span, however the -10 has a fair bit less range. It also has 77W style semi levered gear which is different to the other models.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

But since you brought it up, do you think the "A350XWB family" has any chance of selling 1500+ as the 777 has?

Sure, it will be around for 20+ years. Orders, options, and purchase rights are already over 1000.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

One of the early complaints about the -1000 was it being underpowered.

Again more ignorance on your part, it had a 1% higher T/W ratio than the current higher payload/range model. At launch it had a T/W ratio 7% greater than the 747-8, 14% greater than the 787-8, 13% greater than the 787-9, 6% greater than the 787-10, and 7% greater than the 77X.

The A350, 787, and 77X all have lower T/W ratios compared to the 77W. This is due to the aerodynamics of the airframes producing less drag, and lower thrust required to meet certification requirements.

You are correct to point out that this has been "rectified," but it's not the same engine as the Trent XWB on the -900.

I am trying to understand what the problem is here, the 787-8 alone has over 10 types of engines certified (no doubt will increase) from two differnt manufacturers. The -97 engine should appear on the -900 fuselage in the ULH model, just like the 77L.

The -84 and -97 engines physically are the same size, who knows future -900s maybe offered with derated -97 engines for better hot and high performance.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Has Airbus even firmed the -1000's final configuration?

Yes, first MLG and pylons already cast, first engine being built. Other -1000 specific tooling in the process of being made. First -1000 should enter the FAL end of 2015/early 2016, first flight in 2016.

Originally Posted by crewsunite

Smart! Now we just need them to up the Pilot Package!

I heard their latest Singapore roadshow had no one turn up.