A350 delayed (again)
 

If it delays another 5 years, it'll almost be as late as the 787.

Seriously, has there EVER been a new aircraft type delivered on time??

This is important because further delays will inhibit CX's ability to grow while creating opportunity for competitors, assuming they have the aircraft and crews, etc. Those -400s and 340s will be around that much longer because of 350 delays, and those jets will deliver an inferior product and economics. It's too bad really because the 787-9/10 will likely be better aircraft anyways. I guess we will have to wait until this time next decade to really know for sure.

Just like RA65, aircraft purchases mean faster time to command.....to be right back where 80% of pilots were before joining this awesome company....albeit at 2-10 times the pay.

True, but at what cost to your health, and I am not talking polution. I am talking about this caring companys track record of court cases involving employees and the all check no train culture.

Just 1 more month before the court of final appeal hears the 49er case...

cxorcist,

Have a day off. We get it - you love Boeing.

Bet pump,

I don't love Boeing, I dislike Airbus. They lie constantly about their aircrafts' capabilities and seldom get called on it, in public anyways. They have yet to build an aircraft which can carry full pax and decent cargo and go anywhere near the published range (ie 330, 340, 380). I'm taking a wild guess here, but the A350 will probably be no different. Their wing technology is at least 5 years behind Boeing, and they build throw away aircraft that don't last. For evidence, how many successful Airbus P2F conversion programs have there been? One, the A300. The only reason their aircraft sell is because the cost of ownership is lower than the Boeing equivalent. How? With higher labor costs than Boeing, I'm pretty sure this has much to do with public funding from their socialist parents. I don't respect that at all. Why should Euro tax dollars subsidize the global airline industry? It's sad and pathetic really.

I'll take the rest of the day off, thanks.

CXorcist

Actually a fairly large number of A310 P2Fs were done as well, although mostly to Fedex. There is/was a conversion programme for the A320P2F, but it has been shelved for the time being not because it isn't popular, but because the A320 is so popular with airlines that there is not enough feed-stock to keep a P2F conversion line up and running! They have just launched the A330P2F, although they are going to have difficulty finding feedstock for that as well because of the A330s popularity. (They launched it mainly to appease Qatar's CEO who threatened to buy a large fleet of 767Fs). Similar story for the A340, there is not enough feedstock to make a conversion line viable although there is a third party who are about to launch their own non-permanent P2F programme for the A340-300.

Have you got any documentation to support that? It's a new one on me.

Ta. :ok:

The design payload for any aircraft made by Boeing or Airbus does not include any cargo, it is purely a nominal load based a paper configuration (Boeing uses 210 lb (95 kg) per passenger with baggage).

The design payload of the 744 is 416 passengers paper configuration (39,520 kg) with a design range of around 7,200 nm. The 744 should be able to do ORD, JFK, YYZ, DFW. It is flat out doing YVR, LAX and SFO even with the reduced seat counts Cathay use.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/sta...47_payload.pdf

To carry ANY cargo, the seat count is reduced or the range, they do both on the 744.

It is amusing you mention the technology difference, a long standing Captain converting to the 777 fleet recently from the Airbus made an interesting observation of the 777, "Its a dumb blond, beautiful body, but no brains". That is someone who has seen both sides, unlike yourself.

Ask how many of the 777 pilots know how the 777 VNAV actually works, or how the smart radar paints nothing with cells everywhere.

How many CX/KA BCFs have been destroyed so far ?

They were a great investment.:ugh:

Just one actually, B-HOZ.

Quote CXorcist ''With higher labor costs than Boeing,''

Your spelling gives away your nationality. Bias because it's not made in the US of A?

SWH,
It's just a real shame that captain didn't just stay on the Airbus!
As for the 777, It is ten times the aircraft the 330/340 is. Our first are almost twenty years old and have worked hard, yet they still fly with rarely an MEL item in the book when you turn up at the aircraft. Also, the oldest 777 and the newest ERs are basically identical in the flightdeck.....they built it right in the first place and have no need to change anything. Airbus can barely keep aircraft built in the same month the same.
As for the 350, well, good luck with that when it is up against the 777X!
:ok:

Pot calling kettle....
 

Cxorcist, you say:

A 25 millisecond Google search found articles relating to a recent WTO ruling that Boeing isn't whiter than white as far as subsidies go. Apparently, Boeing has received in the order of $4 billion in illegal funding so this subsidy business isn't something that only Airbus gets up to.

I suppose you could (and probably will) dispute the amount each manufacturer received.

That's my twopenneth anyways.

STP

Boeing has been listed by the DoD as the worst defence contractor for never delivering on-time and always over budget. EADS on the other hand has been listed as the best for being ahead of schedule, on budget and easiest products to integrate.

Asia Miles,
Tell that to those countries who ordered the A400 Military transport. You might wish to Google it and then review your post!:D

Experts: Boeing 777X could have edge over Airbus A350 1000
Puget Sound Business Journal by Steve Wilhelm, Staff Writer
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 2:47pm PDT
Enlarge Image

Boeing image
An upgraded 777 will likely mesh composite wings with an aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage. Pictured, Boeing assembles its 1,000th 777.

Sponsored Links
Double Discount promotion
Receive double interest rate discounts on select new auto refinances & purchases
wellsfargo.com/doublediscount
Get Listed Here

Steve Wilhelm
Staff Writer- Puget Sound Business Journal
Email
As details emerge about Boeing’s plans for an updated 777 jetliner, the “777X,” as it's being called, this is increasingly looking like one area where Boeing may be able to maintain a firm capability lead over Airbus.
Analysts are saying the bigger and more efficient 777 (it’s already the world’s biggest twin-engine jet), will stay ahead of Airbus’ planned A350 1000 in size, and possibly in efficiency.
“We want to make sure we have an airplane with greater capability than what comes on from Airbus,” said Boeing Commercial Airplane CEO Jim Albaugh, neatly summing up Boeing’s strategy during a March 14 JP Morgan conference call with analysts.
During that call, he expressed enthusiasm about prospects for the 777 upgrade, saying the combination of a new fiber composite wing and new engines will increase overall efficiency “pretty dramatically.”
“If we can satisfy ourselves the risk is acceptable, we'll take this to the board,” he said, referring to a planned program launch.
Another widely rumored upgrade to the aircraft likely will be a switch to building the fusealge from a new aluminum-lithium alloy. Using the new alloy, an advance over the traditional aluminum Boeing now uses, would allow the company to reduce the aircraft’s weight significantly without requiring significant changes in how it’s made.
All of this will add up to a larger aircraft able to carry just over 400 passengers about 8,000 miles, compared to about 350 passengers for the competing Airbus A350.
(Airbus sized the A350 between Boeing’s 787 and 777 to compete against both. Whether or not that was wise will partly depend on how efficiently Boeing can upgrade the 777.)
Boeing’s tactics “are going to pose a significant challenge to the largest A350 variant and could potentially undermine its business case,” said a recent story in Aspire Aviation.
That story said the new plane could burn 15 percent less fuel per seat than the current model.
Development of the new model will be orchestrated by Scott Fancher, who ran the 787 program until a recent job swap with Larry Loftis, who had run the 777 program.
On March 14, Albaugh suggested the main reason for the switch was to tap each person’s skills.
“We wanted Scott to help develop what 777X will be,” Albaugh said, adding, “Already, after two weeks, I’m very pleased with the results.”
STEVE WILHELM covers manufacturing, aerospace and trade for the Puget Sound Business Journal. Phone: 206-876-5427 | Email: [email protected] | Twitter: stevewilhelm108 Click here to sign up for the PSBJ Daily Update.

One at a time here:

Geh, I thought it intuitively obvious when mentioning the A300 that I meant the 310 as well. So how many Boeing aircraft have had successful conversion programs? Well, the 72,3,4(Classic and -400),5,& 67 - count them, 7. Did I miss any? As you rightly point out, the 777 will probably happen when the aircraft become available. I think the 330/40 conversion (should it ever happen) will have limited utility because the MZFW is so pathetically low. Hence, the need for that bulbous nose wheel housing on the production A330F, which seems like a good freighter as long as you're not planning to cross the Pacific with it.

Turin, my evidence regarding wing technology is mostly empirical. Sorry if you were hoping for equations. Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage. How long has it taken Airbus to even get "sharklets" on the 320? Wow, way behind. The 777, it still has no equal after how long? You going to tell me that is all about the engines? A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old? And the 787/350, well the race is on but who believes Boeing is not light years ahead in working (and patenting) carbon fiber technologies and processes. I think the A350 will be massively delayed as Airbus will run into problems relating to assembly and Boeing patents. We'll see...

Swh, I'll accept what you wrote, but most (if not all) long haul airlines reduce the seats from the manufacturers' numbers. Again I'll go empirical, which airplanes can fly HKG-JFK with a full pax load and reasonable (10-20T) cargo? One (perhaps 2), the 777 and maybe the -8I. If any of you throw the A380 out there, we all know that thing would be lucky to even carry all the passenger bags on this route, much less any cargo (ref Qantas who runs a 744ER as cleanup behind the A380 to LAX if you need evidence). The A340-5/6 simply does not cut it on payload or fuel burn. I'm not that familiar with the A330-200 long range bird, but it doesn't seem all that popular.

I'm not going to argue about cockpit technology as Airbus does seem to be more well liked. However, I do think being able to feel the aircraft can be useful to a pilot, something Airbus controls do not allow. This might have been particularly helpful in the AF accident over the Atlantic.

With regard the the -400BCFs, this aircraft will be a cargo workhorse for generations. The destruction of a single CX BCF, I'm told, has more to do with a down cargo market and not wanting to sell capacity to other airlines. Fuel prices and the delivery of 10 -8Fs might have something to do with it as well...

Jizz, You are an idiot! Get a new name and start posting with some IQ...

Dan, actually the computer corrects that spelling for me. Too much hassle to always go back and fix it just to make the monarchs happy. My bias is against the socialist elites running Airbus. They wouldn't last ten seconds in a real capitalist economy without government help. The blue-collar "labourers" at Airbus have my utmost respect as fine manufacturers of the second rate designs they are given.

Kasompe, the 777X really does look posed to seal the deal on long haul, wide body aircraft. It will have better seat economics than the A380, -8I, -300ER, and 350-1000. It will carry more pax and cargo further than its predecessor. What a nightmare for Airbus...

STP, more google searching. $15B+++ for Airbus and $5B for Boeing. Half of that $5B came through NASA on "space related" research. Much of that $5B had direct defense (ie gov't) contract implications as Boeing is the third largest defense contractor in the world since acquiring McD. No doubt, there is some technology cross-over, but it is nothing compared to the predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years. This is not apples to apples... I expected better from you of all people.

Asia Miles, A400... Oh sigh. How many C-17s could already be in operation if the money had just been used for those instead of building this hair-brained disaster? Arrogance is so expensive!

I'm pleased to see my post garnered so many responses. It is good to hear of google searches and the like so we can cut through the media hype and drivel to arrive at the real story, which we (pilots) fly everyday. Boeing is far from a perfect company, but Airbus makes me want to throw up every time they hold a press conference or release. They are the biggest liars in the industry. The Euro press props them up every chance they get, and the NAM press loves to rip on Boeing. It seems a bit unfair as this has a real impact on public perception.