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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Step-aside gearbox.
 

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

Dream rosters, they were.

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. !!!

Another error in your understanding.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :E

STP

I may be being a little Cavalier but..
 

, Thanks!:D

Yes please :D

Yaay! :D

Cheers - White None (Age 6 3/4) :ok:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A330.

"There will be no changes to the center wing box, but the wing will be extended, twisted and strengthened to handle the 5 tons of additional weight."

Airbus: More Than 1,000 Orders Coming For A330neo | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

"There are also some penalties to be counteracted: 1% because of increased drag (the fan diameter is increased to 112 from 97 in.) and 2% because of additional weight."

Hey ...who gives a **** about all of this!
Cx is not going to buy the 787 as it will not introduce another aircraft type in its fleet...now stop trying to prove you have the biggest dick...and no life beyond stating facts that no one cares about.:ok:

Froggy,

You should know, as French polling has shown, that Frogs have the biggest d!cks. So that's really not the issue. The issue is outright deception by Airbus marketing. It's nothing new but wrong nonetheless.

PS - I'll be LMAO if CX orders the longest Tupperliner.

Thread drift
 

How are they going to crew all these new jets you lot are talking about ? Only via cadets / icadets ? , lowering there upgrade std's? ( clearly in evidence with current crop of S/O's ) who wants to come here anymore ? Im interested to know how you lot think all these new shiny jets are going to be crewed
Standards are clearly going down hill these days , self induced by a sycophantic mgmt
:D

cxorcist, does it really matter?

You or I do not have a say in what they order or not. We don't even have a say on what type we fly. I also think that Cx has missed the boat big time on the A380 and possibly on the 747-8. At the end of the day it is not my responsibility to point out the obvious mistakes they make.

I also know that the 787 is a very nice piece of equipment , but then the A350 , 777 and the A330 (Neo or not) are also just as good, I would also love to fly the A380 or 747-8.
The bottom line is that they are not going to order them for me or you. They do not want to introduce another fleet type in to the business. So with that idea in mind, I can see them ordering more new 777's and most probably more A330-900.

So at the end of the day it does not matter what the new weight is or what each engine' s wet weight is and if it's winglet extensions are connected with superglue or speed tape.:ok:

Good question goathead.

How exactly do they plan to crew these aircraft??? Even if they are flooded with applicants (which I doubt for C scale), I seriously doubt they can train at the required rate.

Could we afford all the A380 downtime while all the doors are replaced?
Surely we've missed no boat......

"That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700."

Swh,

Would you like some humble pie? Or does this guy not know what he talking about either? So, it's looking like over 3 tonnes additional engine weight plus the 3 meter wing extensions plus wing strengthening weight. So, as I believe I stated earlier, weight neutral is BS. You're looking at about 5T extra OEW. It's just a fact. It'll still be a good airplane, but this can't bode well for short haul missions. If Airbus could have taken 5T out of the A330CEO, don't you think they would have done so already?

http://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new.../#.U9AS2mS9Kc0

Not really, you are so dishonest. The actual quote is
"the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 7000", not what you posted "the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 700". I doubt Mr Goodhead said that.

We have already covered the basic and dry engine mass differences, it is the mass of the overall pod that is important. The certification documents have covered that. There will be less than 1% difference in mass between the Trent 1000-TEN on the 787-10 and the Trent 7000. The changes are in the front bearing, gearbox bleed system, and FADEC.

FARNBOROUGH: Trent 7000 weight to be close to 1000's - 7/14/2014 - Flight Global

The only interesting part of that article was the table, as the Trent 700 datum is the 772 EP (Enhanced Performance), which is a couple of percent more efficient than the engine in use with CX.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/173a34971...xo3_r1_500.jpg
http://37.media.tumblr.com/9594c42b6...t4wxo2_500.jpg

The activation of the centre wing tank and wing strengthening is already part of the 242t MTOW A330-300, that is the datum aircraft Airbus has used for the A330-800/900. The 242t weight variant (which is the 82nd weight variant for the A330) was announced in 2012, deliveries start next year. It is not the aircraft CX has, the new A330-300s CX are getting at 235t MTOW, they are known as weight variation 55.

Airbus offers new 242 tonne A330 takeoff-weight capability to extend market coverage *| Airbus Press release

That statement came from Airbus looking at the entire upgrade, not me.

“We’re trying to head back to an almost neutral [weight] position,” said Airbus executive vice-president for programmes Tom Williams during the Farnborough air show.

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

swh,

Back to name calling... Nice!!!

The whole article is about the difference between the 700 and the 7000, not the 7000 and the 7000???

You are the one who is dishonest. They are talking about increased weight. 3500 pounds is almost 1.59 tonnes. Assuming there are in fact 2 engines, that's over 3 tonnes. The wing is not just swapping winglets for the new style A350 winglets. They are extending the wing over 3 meters. Are you telling me that does not gain weight? Are you also telling me that a heavier wing with heavier engines and wingtip does not require additional strengthening. Of course it does. Whether this is part of an ongoing "improvement" process or not is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the OEW is climbing from just under 125T to nearly 130T. While that may be a good tradeoff for long haul, it is most assuredly bad for shorthaul. It is far more (approximately 10T) than the similar sized 787 or A350.

Here's the whole paragraph. It's pretty obvious that the article is comparing the Trent 7000 to the Trent 700. Or am I smoking something?

"The fan hub for the Trent 7000 is smaller than the hub for the Trent 700, enabling additional improvement in the bypass ratio without having to further increase fan size. The smaller hub saves more than an inch in fan diameter, and associated additional weight. Of course, with a fan that is 15% larger, the low pressure turbine requires two more stages to move the additional size. That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 7000. Even with that additional weight, and additional drag from the larger fan, the Trent 7000 delivers 11% better fuel burn on wing than the Trent 700."

For those interested, this blog is written by an ex-Airbus engineer and invokes some informative comments by readers.

The A330neo is a good aircraft | Vero Venia

The person who has knowledge of the program, i.e. Tom Williams has said next to no change. If you want to believe a blog over him, that is your prerogative. Having just rolled out the A320neo (with more than 4dm increase in fan diameter), I think they have the best handle on what it takes.

Yes plural, not singular.

An engine also needs a nacelle, intake, cowl doors, CNA and thrust reverser. You have the actual certified numbers from EASA provided to you. If you also want to believe a blog or Wikipedia over EASA, that is your prerogative.

Was it Colonel Mustard, in the Billiard Room with the dagger? :)

STP

STP

Get off the thread!! This is for AVNerds who really give a crap about all these really impressive numbers. It's not a replacement for anything missing, they have full lives but time to woo chicks with stats on the side.

Cease and Desist - (Prof Plum I reckon anyway)

swh,

If you want to believe an Airbus sales pitch over the perfectly reasonable assumption that larger fans and bigger wings weigh more, then that's your prerogative.

Hiding the weight gain within a current MTOW increase does not change the fact that the OEW is going up. As it does, the aircraft loses some of its effectiveness on short range missions, and I seriously doubt CX will be an A330NEO buyer. Notice how, according to you, they have opted to take the 235T version thus far. Why do you suppose that is? You think CX wants a reengined, 25 year old plane carrying fewer pax, less cargo, and weighing ~10T more than the alternative? OK, sure. That makes perfect sense.

Note that I am not saying the A330NEO won't be a good aircraft, it will. Airbus is taking its most successful widebody and improving it. It will be a very efficient aircraft. It just cannot be as efficient as aircraft with newer technology weighing 10T less (787 and A350). That's it and that's all.

A330NEO is a knee jerk relation to a failed A350 strategy (A358 is dead)

Airbus A350-800 dealt another setback | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

designed to preserve market share from Boeing's two pronged attack with the 787 and 777X. It crowds the offerings of aircraft its size and is sure to put pricing pressure on both A350 and 787. Why else would Airbus announce the NEO now in 2014 when this is essentially an A350M1 offering circa 2006? The 787 program is finally coming to fruition with a successful -9 launch and a simple stretch for the -10.

Boeing beavers away on 787-10 Dreamliner - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

If I were Airbus, I'd be crapping my shorts too. A 25 year old design to compete on the small end (787-8/-9) and nothing up top to compete with the 777-9.

http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/...ng-graphic.jpg

Here is an interesting comment wrt the purchase pricing for these NEOs...

BRIEF-Delta comments on outlook, possible aircraft buy

"High 70s, low 80s." What!?! Are we shopping on a used car lot?

Another good article:

Airbus A330-800 and -900neo, first analysis, part 3: performance | Leeham News and Comment

As I wrote before, the short range (2-3 hour) missions look to be the problem for NEO.

"Perhaps more interesting at this first analysis is the decline in fuel efficiency gain when shorter ranges are flown. We have a decline of 20%-30% from 4,000nm to 1,000nm. We can thereby conclude that Kiran Rao, Airbus EVP of Strategy and Marketing, meant something else with the quote “for 2-3 hour missions, the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” (from this discussion with Aviation Week)."

So the sweet spot is medium range (aprroximately 4000nm or 8-9 hours. This is where NEO is most competitive with 787.

Long range? Forget about it... It's not an apples to apples comparison. The 787-8/9 are ultra long haul aircraft. The A330NEO is not. It's long haul at best. That's why the 787-10 is a more natural competitor. As a simple stretch which exchanges range for payload, it's missions are much more closely aligned with the A330NEO. The A359R is also part of the discussion, but unless -10 is eight across only I think it has a hard time competing against a lighter aircraft.

Tom Williams is a engineer and the senior manager in charge of production at Airbus, not sales. He has been responsible for the A350 and A320neo production. He has a lot of credibility as he has been able to deliver his projects.

Since the start of 2012 all A330s delivered to CX were capable of 235t. The CX fleet has 9 different MTOWs, and KA an additional one at 205t.

Well you are very good at making things up, for example the A330-200 lifts 11,000 lb more payload than the 787-8.

That is exactly what I would expect from the Seattle Times or Chicago Tribune. Give the subscribers what they want to hear.

Airbus did not need to, it had no competition in the market. They outsold and out delivered the 787 in the past 6 years while Boeing failed to deliver the 787. The 787-9 was 4 years late to Air New Zealand.

The same could be said for Boeing with the 777X. The engine technology has been around to provide more efficiency, they did not need to invest more money into the 777 program until the A350-1000 came along.

Boeing and Airbus are large businesses. They are out to make money, not to make the most efficient aircraft. Making efficient aircraft requires a lot of investment with a lot of risk. Incremental investment on a proven design as we have seen on the 747-8, A320neo, 737MAX, 777X, and A330neo is all about bang for buck. Airbus should be able to recover all of their investment in the A330neo in 18 months of production (2 billion), meanwhile Boeing is saying it will take 1100 aircraft to recover their 787 investment.

That is more than what was reported in the SCMP as what CX paid. Engines and APUs are often "power by the hour", and the interior is known as "Buyer Furnished Equipment".

White none...very true...I wish I had the time in my life to search all of this truly important information!
:ugh:

Swh & cxorcist ,you two are hilarious LOL!!
Perhaps we can convince you to write to the GC and have a Good ole whinge , and use all the energy you spend here typing out all of this BS usefully !!
Better still CC GDLC.......