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.

KAA/KAC/HOZ are history. KAB, KAD, HMD, HME, HVX, HVZ already deregistered in various forms of destruction.

He did come from something else before the Airbus, and yes it is a shame he left. The Airbus fleet has lost a lot of very good trainers to the Boeing fleet. I see the Boeing fleet office has let some of their more robust people take different directions outside of training.

Come on, pull the other leg, you are up to the block 14 or so software update, it is not the same aircraft that left the factory. And the only reason Cathay still has them, nobody wants a 777 that you cannot load cargo into (even Biman Bangladesh Airlines said no to them), some bright person decided to put the small cargo doors on the early 777s.

Notice how Singapore Airlines replaced their regional and medium haul 777s with A330s ?

You obviously never flown one then, they fly the same. What are these big differences you talk about ? Removing ADFs ? Location of the camera ? The style of table ? Different IFE systems ?

I do not expect the first A350 to be as good as an A350 that will came off the production line 10 years later. That is the same for any new aircraft. Even in CX there is a few tonnes difference in empty weight on the 777-300ERs, and that was a mature airframe to start with over a short production span. The A350 will still be a lot lighter, faster, and more fuel efficient than the 777 or 77X.

We read about that idea before, that is how Airbus initially decided to upgrade the A330 against the 787. Look how that turned out.

They are doing this by playing with seat counts. They are proposing to remove a few inches of insulation from the cabin to make wider, and increase the seat count that way. Cathay would have to use the skinny 747 economy seats and 7 across in business in a 777X to take advantage of this, and you would end up flying with them empty on long haul flights like United does from EWR.

What is the MZFW ? Can this be changed ? (I know the answer to both).

The block between the nose gear and fuselage is to make loading easier, it is not actually required, all A330s can still be loaded without it. You will notice the new 737MAX has copied the nose blister idea as well to get some additional engine clearance.

5% advantage in aviation is massive, how is Airbus able to sell any ?

So how has the market got it so wrong ? Why have 30+ airlines changed from 737s to A320s ? Why did Dragon order the A320 ? Why is the market split 50/50 ? is it due to "your" numbers being "questionable" ?

The A320 wing is still very efficient, the sharklet upgrade is more than just a winglet, it is a series of aerodynamic modifications starting from the wing/body fairing out. With the 737MAX, Boeing will be on their 3rd wing for the type. Winglets alone actually cost fuel and payload on short sectors, that is why some 737NG operators within the same fleet have aircraft with and without winglets. They are used for different routes. The winglet in the 737NG was not actually developed by Boeing either.

The technology to build the one piece fuselage sections actually came from a company called North Sails, it is their 3DL composite tape layup technology used to make massive sails on a flexible mandrel that was adapted to build the fuselage barrels. They built the first composite barrel for the sonic cruiser concept, which was the technology basis for the 787. Boeing does not have a lot of composite patent technology, and they actually did not build much of the 787 in house until the bought a few of their failing suppliers out to try and get the project back on track.

Do you realise that every single aircraft flying has cracks in it, even brand new out of the factory ? Why have you not mention the various ADs over the years with widespread cracking found on the 747 ? The upper deck cracking has come up again this year, that was the issue of an AD back in 2005, the AD did not fix it.

If you were to actually understand the role a rib plays in the structural load path of a semi-monocoque wing construction, you would realise how much this was a media beat up. Sure they need to be fixed at some point, it will not however cause a wing to fail.

That would be why the A330-300 has replaced the 777-200 as the de-facto medium haul wide body. Singapore Airlines is in the process of replacing their 777-200 fleet with A330s on medium haul route to Australia etc. Malaysian has indicated they will be doing the same with their 777-200 fleet. Cathay has tried a number of times to offload their 777-200s as well.

A340/A350/A380. The 747-8I would not make it, the tail fuel tank is still not certified, Lufthansa 747-8I aircraft have it deactivated like a BCF.

The 777-300ER is even limited LAX-MEL, they are diving into NZ for fuel occasionally. The QF 744ER (which they have 6 total) only has around 300 seats in it (Cathay has more economy seats in our 744s than they have for the whole aircraft). The 744ER cargo hold has less room in it due to the additional fuel tanks. What you are talking about is not a regular occurrence.

The A380 has a lot of range over the 747-8I, and SQ have recently announced they will be upgrading their SQ1 service Hong Kong-San Francisco to A380s later this year. China Southern also plans to deploy A380s Guangzhou-Los Angeles at the same time. Routes that you have previous claimed the A380 is incapable of flying. JFK is actually shorter in terms of air nautical miles.

There are 744BCF conversion slots available worldwide now, and 744 passenger feeder stock available at bargain basement prices (Lufthansa, Thai, Cathay, Qantas, Malaysian all trying to offload, some only 10 years old). Airlines are just not getting BCFs, Cathay is trying to get rid of them. The experiment did not work, as a freighter, they are no where as good as the 744ERFs.

Air China also has three of their BCFs they are trying to get rid of (B-2460, B-2458, B-2456).

The true value of a lot of that is not known, Boeing got to keep the patents and intellectual property at zero cost as a result of that research. Boeing in percentage terms has been spends a lot less on R&D than Airbus has, the reason being they were being funded externally by the US taxpayer.

Boeing benefits from them as well. They have the EXIM bank which is the US government lender that loans airlines worldwide (except in the US) the money to buy US made engines and aircraft. The WTO only looked at the relationship between the US and Europe, to have real understanding of the picture with Boeing, you need to include other countries like Japan, Korea, China, and Australia who have all subsidised Boeing civil projects. Japan for example subsidised the 787 wing development by 3 billion US dollars alone.

The main difference between the European repayable loans, and the Boeing subsidies is that the loans are being repaid, while the subsidies are not. the Japanese Government still has not be paid back a cent in the subsidies it gave on the 767 development. The WTO found the European repayable loan mechanism legal, their assessment was the interest rate being paid was below commercial rates.

The European governments today get a royalty fee for every A320 and A330 series aircraft built, even after the governments loans have been fully paid off, that is why they are so keen to participate. The governments that have supported Boeing get nothing like that.

A large number, however the A400Ms role is not the same as the C-17, it can do a lot of things a C-17 cannot do. The same reason why most countries operate C-17s and C-130s, different aircraft, different roles.

SWH,

All the registrations you reference are classic 747s except one. Very deceptive.

You are confident that the unbuilt A350 will be more efficient than a 777X which has not even finalized its specs? Get real joker!

Yes, I know the max ZFW for the A33/40. And yes, I know they can be increased. So when will we actually see one. There is no shortage of A340s available for conversion. I can't wait to see a 340F limp off the runway!

The A320/737NG numbers are not questionable. The answer to your question about 50/50 split lies in the fact that the Airbus is much cheaper, but it will cost more in the long run due to lost efficiency and reliability. You can find the dispatch reliability numbers for yourself...

The carbon fiber technology I was referring to is not fuselage construction but attaching the wings to that fuselage. Good luck Airbus! I understand they are hand drilling each rivet. That shouldn't take too long...

Let's not pretend the A380 wing crack problem is a non-issue. It directly affects production rates and eventually all the wings will need to be fixed. This will likely result in increased time out of service. You would like to compare this to cracks on 20 year old aircraft. Ok, but I'm not sure that's a great comparison.

The 748I tail tank is a non-issue. With a realistic load, it won't be used anyways. The -8I certainly would make HKG-JFK with 400 plus passengers. The question is how much cargo it would be able to take along. I suspect the limitation will be volumetric, not performance based.

Just because the A380 will be doing those routes proves nothing. The question is what load they will carry into the wind coming back. I suspect it won't be pretty based on Qantas' experience. You don't deny that the A380 can't even carry its own bags on the LAX route.

I'm not going to argue the whole WTO case, but let's just agree that Airbus has had heaps of help trying to get caught up with Boeing. Have they caught up? I would say no. Boeing garners a higher premium on average for its aircraft. This is why its profit margins are significantly better.

Cxorcist, the aim of my post was merely to point out that Boeing too have been recipients of illegal funding as your original post on this thread might have led the casual observer to think that Airbus are the bad guys and Boeing are knights in shining armour, so to speak. I opened the door for you do discuss the amounts involved but I rather hoped you'd do so in a less dismissive manner - I expected better from you of all people. Be that as it may, simply because the Boeing figure is lower than the Airbus figure doesn't make it any less illegal. I had planned to go into details about the funding but swh has written a more concise summary than I might have.

Whatever the outcome of this A vs B thread, I don't get any choice in which equipment I fly and there's no pay differential between the types so I try not to get heartburn over it. Yes, Boeing make good aircraft but so do Airbus. Oh, and by the way, I haven't spoken to one Boeing pilot that truly understands VNAV whereas I've spoken to hundreds who completely understand the other brand's version thereof but hey, maybe I'm being narrow-minded.

STP

STP,

Fair enough on the subsidies. WRT VNAV, the moment I stop understanding it I revert to basic modes (which is pretty much after the initial descent). I am still pretty good at my three times tables, so it usually works out well. Cheers.

I think it is a bit unfair to compare Boeing's history and heritage to Airbus which is a relatively new company in comparison. So it isn't any surprise that Airbus do not have the same number of freighter converted aircraft; Boeing have produced so many more airliners in their history. Also, planes aren't built the way they used to. Planes like the 707, 727, DC8 etc were built like brick sh*thouses and perfect for the rough world of freight especially when ending up in African or South American operations. I would be surprised if even Boeing's future aircraft such as the 787 will be capable of such things and in fact with the carbon fuselage, who knows whether they will even be able to cut a freight door in it to make a BCF!

Out of interest cxorcist have you ever flown an Airbus? Do you hold an aeronautical engineering degree? Are you privy to statistical information from the Engineering Department at Cx, or even worked in that Department? Have you even ever worked for the Planning and Purchasing Department?

If you're forming an opinion based on information provided by Richard Quest and trying to argue your point without having any of the credentials above, well the only clown here is really you!

I am not an A verus B guy! I've flown both and they each have their pros and cons from a pilot's perspective. But I have to admit, the 330 is a great workhorse around the region. The 340 on the other hand....the sooner we get rid of them the happier I will be.

Exactly what I was about to say!

As we're all entitled to our opinions here, you're all comparing Apples to Apples, O days to Reserve Days....... bla bla!
Whatever aircraft you fly, like it or not, you'll be fatigued, overworked, underpaid, COS abused, divorced, stuck in HK forever, grumpy, and waiting for the AOA to save you.
CX will buy, lease, steal BOTH brands, so suck it up and enjoy the Middle East or North America/Europe, whichever aircraft you fly!:{:{

The reference of the 777 to a blond is perfect. Now what would the 380 be?

David Puddy from Airbus recently claimed that the 350 wouldn't be more than 12 months.

Dragon,

Thanks for the thorough rebuke. You feel all better now? Your notion that one must belong to one of those departments to have a valid opinion really only shows that you're the clown. How would an aeronautical engineering degree help? We're not building them here. We're judging based on strengths and weaknesses. I think an Econ degree or MBA might be more useful because this is really all about money.

You might be surprised how much good info can be gleaned from the CFP if you have a few other numbers like BOWs and pax carried. From there, figuring cargo weights is pretty easy. Subsequently, it is not difficult to generate a good idea of an aircrafts' capabilities throughout the network. Perhaps you should role up your long sleeves and try it some time when you can't sleep on an overnight.

For the record, I never insinuated that the 330 was not a good aircraft. Clearly, it is the backbone of CX's medium range and regional operation. However, I'm not sure it will be a good converted freighter. Time will tell. In the meantime, enjoy your roster...

cxorcist

That's you shot yourself in both feet now!

Ice,

Perhaps you've noticed... Successful airlines are not run by pilots, or aeronautical engineers. I would never argue that those backgrounds couldn't help, but they are equally likely to be harmful. At the end of the day it's all about dollars and cents, and some airplanes are better than others at generating those profits.

Cheers.

Cxorcist
 

Boeing is better because blah blah blah......

Both will get you from A to B. Stop flogging a dead horse

And through the night!

As will both a Ferrari or a Kia. Doesn't mean one isn't better than the other for the driver. Though of course it is irrelevant if all your job really means to you is getting you and your passengers from A to B.

I've flown both types and yes, all they do is to get passengers from A to B. What else does YOUR Boeing do that makes it so special? Please do tell.

As for your very lame Ferrari vs Kia argument, firstly it's not an apples with apples comparison, but let's pretend it is. When stuck in bumber to bumber traffic, I'm sure the Ferrari will do wonders with its racing gearbox and stiff clutch, whilst the Kia will really shine around the Nürburgring.:ugh:

If thats all this job means to you then there is little point of arguing with you. For some of us, that feeling of excitement we experienced on our first few flights in a Cessna still exists to some level even all these years later. I feel sorry for you if that feeling has left you.

Cxorcist

You say:

I don't mean to appear obtuse but since when has the ability to convert a passenger aircraft into a freighter been a criterion for deciding how good an aircraft it is? Further you said earlier:

Surely that falls under the fiduciary responsibility of the board of any company so that they can create a better return on their investment? I hold neither an Econ degree nor an MBA but I would have thought that principle might have been a pretty pivotal theme in the course.

Using your logic, if we assess an aircraft by its cost of ownership and ability to be converted into a freighter then why are the BCFs going? I would have thought that they are owned outright (standing-by to be corrected) and they've already been turned into freighters, ergo, they must be brilliant aircraft surely?

I know you were joking about VNAV but if you do use V/S or FLCH(?) from TOD then the FMC must be a TUPOS, IMHO. :)

STP