It is a Rumour network after all....

[Cavallier]

As great an aeroplane as the 777-300ER is, I often wonder if it is wise for CX to put all its eggs in one basket ? As of September the triple will be serving every long haul destination on the Cx network.

The Cav

[cxorcist]

My understanding is that A350s are long haul aircraft. So I don't think CX will look to replace regional 777 or A330 with them. It seems to me that CX will have to choose between A339 and 787-10 if they want a true regional replacement. They may choose to intentionally misuse long haul aircraft on regional routes as they do now with A340, 744, and 77W; but I don't think that replaces the need for a regional fleet.

There are indeed more A333s coming. That would lend one to believe that A339 is the logical successor. However, A339 only makes fuel over A333 on routes above approximately 3 hours due to increased weight from the bigger fanned engines and wingtip extensions. So, I don't see the NEO being a slam dunk by any means.

You brought up the aging fleet of 772/3s at CX. Clearly, there is still a place for larger regional aircraft. Note all the 747s flying regionally. So, to argue that the 787-10 is too big does not make sense.

If CX were to buy 787-10, then it does open the door for 787-9 for new, long, thin routes beneath the A359's size. I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying it is a possibility. This might be more necessary if US and Euro carriers start flying 789 from medium size cities to HKG (ie Norweigan Air).

[Frogman1484]

why would they complicate things and bring in another aircraft type?
Think about the different spares and ratings, crews etc etc.

It makes more sense to continue down the line of another 330 variant.

[SMOC]

They may choose to intentionally misuse long haul aircraft on regional routes

While it may look like misuse, it's actually always been a huge bonus for CX, unlike other major long haul operators CX can effectively use these aircraft between long haul flight as they've done so since the 747 first arrived. Many other airlines have to park the aircraft for long periods either at home base or an outport waiting for appropriate flight timings and have large other fleets to do the "domestic work". CX can chop and change between 275-350 seats basically as they see fit to contribute to the A330 regional work. CX has always had very high aircraft utilisation compared to the rest of the world.

[jacobus]

However the Cav's point about placing all your ULH eggs in one basket remains valid. It wouldn't take a huge leap of faith to envision the -777 grounded. It doesn't have to be engines; APU, some other spurious AD etc and then we are well and truly f@cked.

[China Flyer]

Step-aside gearbox.

Ah, yes. Bring back the grounding of '95 (or was it '96?).

Dream rosters, they were.

[jacobus]

96 methinks. All those aircraft diving in to Clark. I think one even went to Subic. Fortunately did not last err long before Rolls Royce threatened to sue the arse of Hispano-Suiza and it got fixed. However that is exactly my point. It very rarely is solely engine related as they are such over engineered bits of kit. Save the GENx 2B apparently. !!!

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

My understanding is that A350s are long haul aircraft.

Another error in your understanding.

Singapore launches lower-weight 'regional' A350 - 7/22/2013 - Flight Global

Originally Posted by cxorcist

However, A339 only makes fuel over A333 on routes above approximately 3 hours due to increased weight from the bigger fanned engines and wingtip extensions. So, I don't see the NEO being a slam dunk by any means.

They are not expecting an empty weight increase, you plucked that 3 hrs number out of thin air like your other "facts".

FARNBOROUGH: Airbus outlines A330neo engineering demands - 7/16/2014 - Flight Global

[cxorcist]

swh,

The A359 regional is the exact same airplane as the A359 (long haul). All Airbus is doing is reducing the certified MTOW and lowering the price. I'm not sure how that changes the fuel burn on regional flights. Please explain that...

Wrt A339, the airplane is gaining weight. The A350 style wing extension and winglet increases weight. Right? With regard to the NEO engines, the Trent 7000 will be based on the Trent 1000, which weighs a tonne more than the Trent 700. So that's two tonnes more weight plus the weight of the winglets and extension. Based on those numbers, the break-even is indeed between two and three hours depending on payload.

Let's keep in mind that the A339 still has an eight-abreast, 1970s era fuselage and a 1990s era wing and empennage. So, if you think that competes against a 787, I have a bridge to sell you. It's big and red.

[cxorcist]

Another point on the A359 regional...

It will use the A350-800 engine? Really, what A350-800? What engine is that? Oh, the 75K version. Is that a different engine or just a derate? Thought so.

Between A359, A359 regional, and A339NEO; all you really have is a chocolate mess that canabalizes each other. Nice offering there, but what about above and below. What a disaster! The A350, despite a good looking -900, is a failed strategy. The A358 is dead and the A350-1000, launched in 2006, has fewer firm orders than the 777X launched in 2013

"Something is not very right" in Toulouse!

[swh]

Originally Posted by redneck

All Airbus is doing is reducing the certified MTOW and lowering the price. I'm not sure how that changes the fuel burn on regional flights. Please explain that...

It is a NPV analysis, fuel burn is only part of the picture. Obviously the numbers line up for Singapore Airlines to order it.

Originally Posted by redneck

The A350 style wing extension and winglet increases weight. Right?

Seen nothing to suggest it will be any heavier than the winglet it is replacing, around 10 years ago Airbus flew much larger winglets on the A340 test bed as part of Awiator research programme, they were significantly larger and 30 kg lighter each side.

Originally Posted by redneck

Trent 7000 will be based on the Trent 1000, which weighs a tonne more than the Trent 700

The Trent 7000 will be an iteration more advanced than the Trent 1000-TEN that is featuring on the 787-10 (and 787-8/9). The Trent 700 has a certified empty weight of 6160 kg not including the nacelle (EBU). The Trent 1000-A2/C2/D-2/E2/G2/H2/J2/K2/L2 has a certified empty weight of 6096 kg, and the nacelle is part of the engine weight.

In short the new engine will be lighter, and the pylon will be smaller (lighter) to give more ground clearance to install the larger fan.

Originally Posted by clueless redneck

So that's two tonnes more weight plus the weight of the winglets and extension. Based on those numbers, the break-even is indeed between two and three hours depending on payload

There is no "extra tonnes", Airbus has outlined the engineering involved in the article.

And just to go a little further to explain how out of touch you are with reality, 2t on a 4 hr flight will not even cost 250 kg on an A330 today, with the Trent 7000 it would not even be 200 kg, i.e. less than 50 kg an hour. The Trent 7000 will burn around 450 kg per hour per side less than todays Trent 700. To burn an extra 2.4t in in 3 hours, would require the aircraft to be more like 20t heavier, not 2t.

Originally Posted by clueless redneck

Let's keep in mind that the A339 still has an eight-abreast, 1970s era fuselage and a 1990s era wing and empennage. So, if you think that competes against a 787, I have a bridge to sell you.

You can put 787 seat width in an A330 and go 9 across like they do with Cebu Pacific with the 420 seats on their A330s, just like many airlines use 10 across in the 777. It is also about comfort, the A330/A340/777/A350 all have 18" seats. Some 787 operators have 8 across in economy, some 9.

The A330 has competed very well again the 787 in the past years, I think the A330 has outsold the 787 every year in the past 5 from memory.

Originally Posted by clueless redneck

The A358 is dead and the A350-1000, launched in 2006, has fewer firm orders than the 777X launched in 2013

Boeing is presently only listing 66 firm orders on their website for the 777X (CX, EY, LH). CX has ordered more A350-1000s than 777Xs.

[Steve the Pirate]

swh, point of order, if I may. This thread is entitled "It is a Rumour network after all...." and not "It is a Fact network after all...." Please be advised accordingly

STP

[White None]

I may be being a little Cavalier but..

As great an aeroplane as the 777-300ER is

, Thanks!

wonder if it is wise for CX to put all its eggs in one basket ?

Yes please

As of September the triple will be serving every long haul destination on the Cx network.

Yaay!

Cheers - White None (Age 6 3/4)

[cxorcist]

Trent 700 Dry weight: 4,785 kg (10,549 lbs)

Trent 1000 Dry weight: 5,765 kg (12,710 lb)

Trent XWB Maximum dry engine weight: 7277 kg (not including fluids, nacelle and aircraft interface parts)

So basically, you are WRONG unless the 7000 ends up sinificantly lighter than the 1000 (XWB got heavier). Add to that, the strengthening required in the wing to have a larger engine, and the airplane gains weight. That's it and that's all.

Same tired old fuselage and empennage. Same old wings with a fancy A350ish device at the end. Nice new engine, but more weight. Airbus knows it's a second rate airplane. That's why they are selling it cheap vs 787.

I think it's sad that you are so emotive about this that you revert to name calling online. Would it make my posts better or worse if I were to call you "Eurotrash"?
There are lots of sites for doing what you do. Try Vero Venia. He used to work at Airbus as an engineer and will set you straight on the facts.

[swh]

Originally Posted by redneck eating humble pie

Trent 700 Dry weight: 4,785 kg (10,549 lbs)

Trent 1000 Dry weight: 5,765 kg (12,710 lb)

Trent XWB Maximum dry engine weight: 7277 kg (not including fluids, nacelle and aircraft interface parts)

So basically, you are WRONG unless the 7000 ends up sinificantly lighter than the 1000 (XWB got heavier). Add to that, the strengthening required in the wing to have a larger engine, and the airplane gains weight. That's it and that's all.

The numbers below (and previously stated) are from the EASA certification document for each engine, not Wikipedia.

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia entries like you does not know the difference between a basic engine and a dry engine. The Wikipedia entries would be close to the basic engine weight for each. For the Trent 700 that would be the dry engine minus the nacelle, intake, cowl doors, CNA and thrust reverser. The Trent 1000 includes the nacelle as part of the basic engine weight (the Trent 700 does not), that is what gives the appearance of being heavier when in fact the whole pod (dry engine) is lighter.

See page 5 EASA Trent 700 TCDS http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...2-29112013.pdf

5. Dry Weight: Dry engine weight (kg) 6160
(Not including fluids and Nacelle EBU)

See page 7 EASA Trent 1000 TCDS http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...4-10092013.pdf

5. Dry Weight:

Engine Models
Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H


Maximum dry engine weight (kg) Without SB 72-G319 5936
With SB 72-G319 6033

Including nacelle EBU items certified as part of the engine but not including fluids.

Engine Models

Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000 D-2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, Trent 1000-L2

Maximum dry engine weight (kg) 6096

[cxorcist]

Well swh, you got me there. I read that the NEO engines would be substantially heavier than the CEO on another website. I cheated by verifying a Wikipedia. I can't say that delving into EASA documents ever crossed my mind. My apologies.

There is still just one problem though. The Trent 1000 is a bleedless engine architecture. The Trent 7000 will not be. You think there might just be some extra weight (and drag and lost efficiency) in there? I do. Just another crazy thought from Clueless Redneck.

You still haven't addressed A330NEO / A350 canabalization... Or that heavy 1970s fuselage... Or that old 1990s wing and empennage...

The ONLY ways the A330NEO competes with the 787 (or A350 for that matter) is by being cheaper and more readily available. It will be effective at that, against both airplanes, as a second tier option for second tier airlines.

The A330NEO will be like the 767-400. It was a valiant effort, but in the end just outclassed by a more advanced design.

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

The Trent 1000 is a bleedless engine architecture. The Trent 7000 will not be. You think there might just be some extra weight (and drag and lost efficiency) in there?

Neither the Trent 1000 or GEnx is a "bleedless" engine, they both use bleed air for internal scheduling, control, and engine anti-ice. The Trent 1000 has always been designed for both the 787 and original A350. It was the engine chosen back in 2005 by Airbus for the original A350, which is now is back as the A330-800/900.

I do not know how much will be in it, you have one architecture using 4 times as much electricity requiring double the number of larger generators, and one requiring more bleed air. Some of the weight on the 787 moved from the engine into the fuselage with the large electric motors driving the compressors in the packs, however the ducts from the engine to the fuselage were replaced with cables.

Airbus has stated that they are moving away from pneumatic control with the Trent 7000 to electrical, the savings they identified were in maintenance not in direct operating costs.

If there were significant savings, I would think Boeing would have offered it as standard on the 747-8, 737MAX, and 777X.

Changing architecture would significantly add to program risk, the first A330-900 is due to fly in about 2 years.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

You still haven't addressed A330NEO / A350 canabalization

Airbus is still saying it is going to build the A350-800, it is in the same size class as the A330-900 however designed for ULH.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Or that heavy 1970s fuselage

The "1970s" A300-600 and 767 have around a 20-25,000 kg lighter empty weight than the similar sized 787-8. It is an unfair comparison for the 787 as it is designed as an ULH aircraft, where the A300/767/A330 were originally regional aircraft. I honestly do not know which fuselage would be lighter.

From what I understand, the 787-8 is slightly heavier than the A330-200, with weight reducing. 787-9 I understand to be presently heavier than an A330-300. This should not be much of a surprise, as they are designed for different markets.

Or that old 1990s wing and empennage...

The wing and tail on todays A330 is not the same as first one that rolled off the production line. A330s delivered from next year will also feature new inboard slats. The A330-800/900 will have other changes including wing twist. Todays A330 already has a span slightly greater than the 787, and they will add about 4 meters to that with the A330-800/900.

They could have put a whole new wing on the aircraft, which would have added significantly to program risk and cost with negligible benefit over the routes that most A330s are using on today. By not going with a new wing, Airbus is conceding the ULH flights to the 787. The would be looking at their bottom line, the A330-800/900 upgrade is touted to be around a 2 billion investment, the 787 in excess of 30 billion.

The yield on each A330-800/900 sale would have to be higher than a 787 sale given one is a fully amortized program with a modest investment, and one is works in progress still encountering significant R&D expenditure.

[cxorcist]

Finally, a non-emotive and logical post. Thank you.

I don't really have any argument with what you wrote except to reiterate, that I mentioned the 787-10 for CX. The -10 is the competitor for the A339 despite being slightly larger. It is a true short and medium range aircraft, like the A339.

Those who think CX does not need an A330 and regional 777 replacement are wrong. The misuse of long haul aircraft around the region is a wise business practice for CX, but it does not cover all the regional requirements. A dedicated regional fleet is necessary.

CX will choose either the A330NEO, A350R, or the 787-10. The A330v2 would provide nice commonality of course, but the -10 would be better able to replace both 777 and A330 due to its larger capacity, pax and cargo. The A350R isn't really a regional aircraft at all, just a derated version with lower MTOW. So, that's really just further misuse of long haul aircraft.

[broadband circuit]

CCQ/MFF

The real question is the cockpit layout of the 330NEO or 339 (whatever it ends up being called)

Will it be a current 330 design, or a 350 style?

Either way, CCQ is happening. If Airbus are smart, they'll make it as close as possible to the 350 cockpit, and you'll see either MFF or maybe even a common rating.

Don't dismiss the potential cost savings of commonality. You can be sure the bean counters have it on their spreadsheet.

[swh]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

It is a true short and medium range aircraft, like the A339.

The 787-10 is a stretched 787-9, or more accurately a double stretched 787-8, i.e. a stretched ULH machine. To coin your phrase "So, that's really just further misuse of long haul aircraft". It is constrained by the 787-9 wing and gear, which constrains the range. It was not designed as a regional aircraft, that what was left over after they metaphorically "stuck a couple of plugs" in the tube.

Originally Posted by cxorcist

but the -10 would be better able to replace both 777 and A330 due to its larger capacity, pax and cargo.

Passenger capacity depends on seats used, to get 9 across in a 787 the seats would not be common (skinny) with any other aircraft in the fleet.

With a new type, comes a new simulator, a couple of new engines, other spares, additional training, etc etc. Effectively another aircraft worth of capital investment that has negative return.

Originally Posted by broadband circuit

Will it be a current 330 design, or a 350 style?

A330.