27
May
Boeing to make up lost grounds on all fronts
by Daniel Tsang
/ 38 Comments
Daniel,
there are some errors in the section where you talk about the engines of the B777X:
1. The GE9X fan diameter is 132.5 inches and thus LARGER than the GE90-115B, which has "only" 128 inches. The larger fan is needed to have the SFC advantage (via higher bypass ratio) versus the GE90. This of course comes with more weight and drag compared to the GE90-115B.
2. The "right" T/W ratio is a very complex "function" of wing loading, take off and climb performance, cruise performance and so on. Taking this measure as an indicator of the overall aircraft performance is not correct - otherwlse the A340-300 would be a best-seller until today...
aeroturbopower
aeroturbopower,
That isn't what I heard from a Boeing official on a recent conference in Sydney. The 777X GE9X engine will be "slightly smaller" than the GE90-115B engine.
http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20130410.html
The GE9X engine will have "key features include a 132" diameter composite fan case". That compares to a 135" GE90-115B engine fan case diameter.
Sounds different though here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-ge-opens-five-year-development-effort-for-777x-engine-383794/
Maybe GE is talking about the inner fan case diameter? Anyway, it's odd...does GE know what they are doing?
Great work, piles of information :)
This speaks volume to the superior economic performance that the 407-seat 777-9X will have over the 350-seat A350-1000, which Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) of marketing and business development Mike Bair said in a May 7 investor and analyst conference in New York as having the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane.
That's a bit disappointing. Boeing uses tiny seats (First at 60 inch, Business at 40 inch 7 abreast, leisure class narrow economy seats) versus Airbus (First 80 inch, Business at 60, the wider economy seat option). That makes a hack of a difference in aircraft seatcounts and thus per seat economics.
Blindly copying it and drawing resulting conclusions in this article, unnecessarily devaluates it for serious readers. Should Airbus put in tiny Boeing seats in their A350/A380 seatcounts to improve the aircraft economics on Aspire Aviation? Nah..
On the World Coverage picture, the A330s are crossed! Pretty aggressive marketing.
In the real world Airbus is increasing A330 production to > 100 / year, it has a healthy backlog.
In a few weeks w'll see signings for fresh, enhanced A330s from Qatar, Oman and SriLankan.
Rumors are Delta is in the market too.
Small detail: all are 787 customers.
Putting a bomb under "The Dream team" slide..
The A350 is a total unknown and being flouted as a given. For the first time its been noted here (though glossed over in the implications) that there are massive structural changes in the aircraft in the first 17 units.
Airbus did not go slow on this one, they scrambled trying to come up with some kind of composite form so they could claim they too had a composite aircraft (they would have been far better doing an upgrade of the A330 with AlLi fuselage, new wing and engines like Boeing is doing with the 777)
There was no research behinds a frame and panel composite as opposed to Boeing spun fuselage with a great deal of research and experience in military projects (and note that the 787 has had no issues of question on that part).
So, A350 is thrown together,r then redesigned on the fly. Where the issues start to come out is speculative. It may be in flight test, it may be in structural test or it may be like the A380, show up after they enter service or combination of all 3. They will show up and they will be show stoppers.
Also to its detriment, section 42 is NOT composite, its aluminum because they could not figure out how to do composite form for the cockpit period (too difficult). That integration for an all aluminum structure into a composite airframe behind it is difficult enough, but you can add into it that it will require a separate inspection protocol as it has the same issues that current aluminum structures have with corrosion. So part of the plane is one one inspection schedule and part is on a much higher requirement (and that assumes there are no issues with the composite frame and panel materials and assembly). .
If anyone thinks the 787 battery problem was an issue, the long term problems on this plane are going to be astonishing. Frankly it has all the indicators of a nightmare to own and will require a massive bailout.
Greg, it almost seems you hope the A350 develops major issues to finally get the spotlights of the Dreamliner dramas.
I understand section 42 is the way it is because it was cheaper and lighter. Its very similar to the A380, composites would add a lot of weight to make the section lightning and bird strike proof. On the A380 the tail is CFRP, the mid section Glare and the nose Al. Function also determines choice.
"(they would have been far better doing an upgrade of the A330 with AlLi fuselage, new wing and engines like Boeing is doing with the 777)"In which case you probably would have concluded it was old, inferior technology & Airbus just could't do composites, correct?
"The A350 is a total unknown "I saw this sentiment more. The yet to be launched 777X is sure to dominate & the A350 is still undefined. A disconnect with reality it seems.
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/images/headers/homepage/header-A350_XWB_out_of_paint_shop_homepage_big.jpg
Lots of emotion on here. Lets be real for a moment.
Neither Airbus nor Boeing are doing anything remarkable or exceptional.
Airbus:
- A320ceo/neo: great aircraft, doing better than the 737 but it is much younger also (EIS 1968 vs. 1988) so very much expected.
- A330: absolutely fantastic aircraft, a quiet acheiver, like Jennifer Lopez, it gets better with age... Airbus has a good thing going with this aircraft, not much wrong with it.
- A350: relatively unknown product as all new clean sheet aircraft are. Has the potential to do great things for the company. Slightly late (compared to you know what) but also has the potential to be delayed further. Queit roll-out, battery change and whatever else is not really wonderful - Airbus just learnt from Boeing's mess/disaster up so it should not be passed off as them being a better, more serious airframer.
- A380: great aircraft with no competition (is the 747-8i even playing the same sport?). Had its own hiccups (wings...) and has not been selling well at all. However, it remains a truly exceptional way to travel until the novelty wears off.
Boeing:
- B737NG/MAX: icon of aviation, getting a bit long in the tooth but still remarkably competitive.
- B747-8: another icon of aviation, a legend in many enthusiasts eyes, great as a freighter but not much else these days, also late and not quite up to scratch, a waste of money aside from Freighter sales (which will most likely be good).
- B777: absolutely fantastic aircraft, somewhat of a game changer at launch (2 engines, ETOPS, capacity vs. 747), not much wrong with it.
- B777X: unknown, nothing new just trying to be more cautious, could potentially work very well.
- B787: where to start... A PR and financial trainwreck! Had the potential to do great things but Boeing ultimately wasted that chance. Bad luck, bad management, certain level of arrogance or a combination of the 3 are responsible for this. However, there remains a glimmer of hope. It seems that the programme is finding its feet and is on the route to recovery.
So it is quite clear that neither of the manufacturers should be pleased with themselves right now. It is also clear that people should not take things at face value and believe the PR garbage that A & B will try to feed the public. They both have a lot on their plates and need to start delivering. Anything can go wrong at anytime.
Singapore Airlines has 57 777s in service of different subtypes.
As of today it seems Singapore Airlines has 70 orders and 40 options on A350 XWB's.
With a stated intention to convert some into A350 into A350-1000s.
Boeing got SQ as launch customer for their new 787-10.
Singapore Airlines ordered 30 Boeing 787-10s, probably for Scoot.
I think Boeing will have a party tonight because of this.
Until 10:00 PM or so.
That is a great order. I am looking forward to some (hopefully most) -900s being converted to -1000s. The B77W does great things for them and I look forward to the A35J doing more of the same.
I not only hope to see the a A350 fail ( though I hope there is no loss of life) I expect it to fail on a messed up approach.
I don't think anyone should hand a company tens of billions in launch aid each time they want to build an airplane (US, Europe, Canada, China, Russia etc)
And yes all side support their various industries with indirect aid and benefits, but Europe goes beyond anything remotely like the US and gives Airbus the money (under false guise of saying the A380 will start to repay that fake load at no interest after they sell 1500 in its life when the 747 through 5 iterations has barely sold that in a different world with a market to itself.
You can add in stupid statement that the A350 is superior because you can replace a panel if the hull gets damaged. Silly and stupid and sad PR nonsense based soley on that was the only technology they could find that let them build a composite fuselage. No one is going to that insanity of replacing a panel, they will patch it like they would any other damage and rightfully so.
I do not admire the desperate position that Airbus put themselves into by sitting on their laurels once they had actually come out with some good aircraft in the A320 and A300/330 line (but not since) (no I am not impressed with the A380 that is a one trick pony as it is optimized to passengers and its belly freight that makes the money on all but select routes)
Granted I think Boeing current management is a joke that is bent on the illusion of maximizing profits while they gut the company for what it was and could do. I think Boeing would be better off with Airbus management who mange a messed up structure amazingly successfully..
And I do acknowledge the absurdity of Airbus launch aid being a major benefit to the US industry as they supply a significant content on each Airbus aircraft.
So, we have Boeing shooting itself in the foot because of corporate management and Airbus shooting itself in the foot because its not a profit making enterprise as much a social division of 4 governments.
I would like to see the 787 succeed because despite the stupid approach to how it was done, its truly a technological change that has shook up the industry (Mullaly got them committed and now they are stuck with it!).
The massive prolonged state support Boeing gets in dozens direct and indirect ways, that brought them where they are today, is a kind of taboo in US ;) They prefer to stick to the national blue eyed free market innovator image.
The stretch 787-10 and 777X might "bracket" the XWB, it seems pretty useless if the action is in the middle; 320-350 seats long range.
A few more CX, UA, BA, SQ like XWB orders, and Boeing might be back to the drawing board to make up lost grounds.
Hey keesje,
With your confidence in the A350-1000 the way it is, you should not have to stretch the truth by including UA to make your case. I believe UA only has firm orders for A350-900's (25).
Michael, carriers like UA ordered the A350 and expressed strong interest in the -1000.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/01/us-airbus-united-idUSBRE8A01BV20121101
If Boeing waits until all rumours about possible -1000 orders are no longer rumours, they are years late.
keesje, I know about UA interest in the -1000. It's crazy to think Boeing is still delaying the 777X to see what Airbus does. I'm quite sure Boeing is in close coms with UA.
My objection with what you said is that you slipped in a non-existent UA -1000 order just to make your case sound stronger. If UA decides to go -1000 then, by all means, feel free to brag about it. But let's not brag about something before it actually happens.
? why ? I feel no need, I didn't work on this aircraft..
If anyone think the two situations are the same, they are refusing to accept the sun rises in the East and sets in the West (and in this case that is a double inuendo as Toulouse is East and US is West)
The WTO action proved the following.
1. Both side get significant state or individual European Nations internal support. Granted in the US its gotten far worse with the state competing with each other to see who can fall over whom to not just reduce taxes but the next step is to pay a Corporation to do business within state borders.
If you actually read the WTO case, you will see that Germany, France, UK and the rest do the exact same thing (in providing infrastructure more typically). That is relatively equal offset financially regardless of what they call it between US State aid (or welfare) and Internal European Nation support
The key part is that this is SEPARATE category from the so called launch aid.
2. The other part is that the US does do basic Aeronautical Research. Its not launch aid. and WTO ruled legitimate. Europe has historically ridden on US coattails though they now do some of their own. The US has foolishly generous (or stupid in my opinion) in letting all that be accessible to the world.
3. The US does not provide LAUNCH AID period. Launch Aid was and is the hugest part of the programs. So, along with the individual European nations internal infrastructure and other support, they have also thrown in and continue to throw in 10s of billions of so called launch aid. If the program does not meet the numbers (European secret numbers by the way, not published), then they do not have to repay.
Thats a pure give away or a severely subsidized rate depending on the situation. The A320 series does make payments. The A380 does not. If it was real load, then they would be paying interest on it all along and they do not.
We do know the forecast for the A380 of 1300 aircraft. As of 13 years into the program they have (230?) orders. So, no interest payments, its not a loan.
Thats simply welfare. You are giving money away with no return as the basis is selling aircraft, not a loan. . You don't sell that many per the secret agreement, you don't ever have to repay a dime and even if you do reach the secret number, you are so far in arrears on your loan you are bankrupt.
I would be happy to see anyone refute that or provide any documentation that the US does the same thing.
I think the main selling point for the A350-1000 is the fact that it offers better than 777-300ER economics with the same cargo capacity, better range and more comfortable 9-abreast seating (without needing to go to 10-abreast, irrespective of whether or not it is possible). That is the bottom line. The 777-300ER was and still is a fantastic aircraft, one of the most successful EVER, and that is why people are so unwilling to see anything outshine it. However, its days are numbered and that is extremely difficult to say because I really love the 777-300ER.
"what you said is that you slipped in a non-existent UA -1000 order just to make your case sound stronger."
I did not say that. I said:
"A few more CX, UA, BA, SQ like XWB orders, and Boeing might be back to the drawing board to make up lost grounds."Not explicitly / only -1000s. IMO the real, strongly neglected, problem for Boeing is it is hard to offer a direct competitor for the fast selling A350-900 XWB.
The (probably excellent) 787-9 is smaller, the (probably super efficient) -10 is aimed at medium range markets and the (not existing for 7 yrs) 777X way bigger, heavier and needs a moderately popular 10 abreast economy cabin to look good on CASM.
Meanwhile the A350-900 moves on. In the market and on the platform.
http://www.pdxlight.com/engrun1.jpg
Boeing hesitating with the 777X for 5 years now, makes you wonder what is happening behind the scenes. Maybe they underestimated Airbus again, believing their own Powerpoints? http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-26-at-16.25.05.png
IMO there is no parity in the market at all at this moment and I hope it will be there again soon. Getting the 787-9 out in good numbers and having them operate reliably is of crucial importance to Boeing in the next 2 years.
Thanks for misplacing your comment as a reply to mine, Keesje. The only acknowledgement I have received in a sea of rather intense debate... :)
I agree with you the 773ER is a pretty good buy. Boeing has hundreds of slots to fill from late 2016 until 2021. A good deal for a good machine with quick delivery. I can see airlines taking the opportunity.
keesje,
"IMO the real, strongly neglected, problem for Boeing is it is hard to offer a direct competitor for the fast selling A350-900 XWB."Thanks for your explanation. I think I understand what you are getting at now. Here are a couple of comments/questions in response.
Isn't what you are saying here just as arbitrary as what Boeing is saying about Airbus not having models that can directly compete with the 777-900X or the 787-8? Like you said above, it all depends on where the action is. It seems to me that right now the widebody market is being limited by the supply side. You say that the A350-900 is fast selling, and it is, but the same was said of the 787. Because the 787 is only now getting to market, the sales have plateaued for the last 3, or so, years. This could be because all the slots have been sold for the next 7 years (assuming 10/month).
The same is true for the A350 although the backlog is not yet as large but it will get there. Leahy even brags that he could sell more if he had the production slots. I think the same could be said of the 787. So, where is the action? It seems to be where there is a efficient, high tech product that is available in a reasonable time frame, 7 years or less in the future. This does not necessarily mean that the action is only on the "sweet spot" defined by the A350.
"The (probably excellent) 787-9 is smaller, the (probably super efficient) -10 is aimed at medium range markets..." "Meanwhile the A350-900 moves on. In the market and on the platform."Lets be fair here. You're saying the 787-9 and -10 might meet their goals, while assuming the A350 definitely will. In reality you should be acknowledging that the A350-900 has much more to prove than the 787-8 or -9. The 787-8 is flying and is performing very well even while heavy and with overly thirsty engines. Yes, there was the battery embarrassment, but that has been solved, along with the weight and engine SFC issues, and production was never affected. The -9 will most certainly benefit from all of those hard lessons, and the road to certification has been mostly traveled before with the -8. On the other hand, you have the A350-900, which is coming along relatively smoothly, although it has suffered unexpected delays of its own. It has not even started flight tests yet, let alone certification, production ramp-up and EIS, but you're talking as if it has. There are still many bridges to be crossed, and production ramp-up is going to be the most difficult, with all of the early block changes that are planned. I'm not saying it will not be a good aircraft, I'm just saying that it has a lot to prove yet, more so than its smaller competitors.
"IMO there is no parity in the market at all at this moment and I hope it will be there again soon."What do you mean by this, that Airbus is dominating the market?
"Getting the 787-9 out in good numbers and having them operate reliably is of crucial importance to Boeing in the next 2 years."Yes it is indeed. The same is true for Airbus and the A350.
So what happened with the Easyjet order? Looks like Boeing didn't even come close to that one. Though there's still a chance for the C-series I guess.
And Silkair still remains the only defection, for now...
Bryan,
I'm currently on leave until this Fri, but will nevertheless respond.
Boeing did have an early lead against Airbus in the race & was the case when this analysis was published.
However, Airbus made a last-ditch proposal with a per unit price in the low-to-mid US$30 million range which Boeing couldn't match, as Boeing will make a loss otherwise.
Hence easyJet got a price even lower than the 2002 A319 deal (which WTO wrote black-and-white as a causualty of illegal launch aids Airbus enjoyed & one could argue for this A320neo order as well):
http://corporate.easyjet.com/media/latest-news/news-year-2013/18-06-2013-en.aspx?sc_lang=en
While Boeing lost easyJet & Lion Air, Norwegian Air Shuttle, at least Boeing put up a very good fight which rendered these deals as money-losing or profit-less for Airbus.
Hope this helps,
Daniel.
Ahh yes, so Boeing lost the order, but at least they made sure to drive the deal down for Airbus not to be able to make any money off of. But if Boeing had won the order, it'd have been at a profit right?
Unfortunate to see that what while the NEO has succeeded in eating into Boeing's market share with four customers, all the MAX has become is a profit "spoiler" to drive down Airbus prices, but not actually winning the order themselves. Sad.
Maybe lower trip costs, fleet coomonality, engine choice and fuel consumption played a role, just guessing..
Boeing had a great launch with the 787-10 at Paris with the BA and UA orders.
I think there are dark clouds are appearing above the 777X, Udvar & Al Baker are saying the wrong things and this one:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/photogallery/big/800x600_1371712410_A350-1000_United.jpg
after BA, SQ, QR and CX is starting to have strong 777X supporters ask questions.
Maybe the 777-9X would be moderately excellent and 2021 is a long time.
Now that the 787-10 has been officially launched, I have a few questions that I hope someone here can answer. What is the range of this aircraft in the real world with around 250-300 pax, their bags and CARGO? How much do head winds affect an aircrafts range (are we talking 500nm, 1000nm)? I have seen a slide (on another site) from a Boeing presentation of the 777X cabin. Has anyone else seen anything who can shed anymore light on that?
The narrow body market is what it is. It is a large market and the 2 OEMs will split it either 40/60 or 50/50. It is the wide body market that seems to be getting more interesting by the day. With Airbus having their wide body line-up somewhat set in stone, it will be interesting to see what Boeing does - especially with the 777X. Will the 787-10 be good enough and will the 777X be able to compete?
I think the 787-10 will do excellent at 9 abreast in the back at routes up to 4000-5000 NM.
Payload range will something lik ethis, 1 passenger + luggage is ~100kg, so 30t at 300 passengers.Add e.g. 20t of cargo, reserves and the range is 4000-4500NM with the same load/ conditions a A350-900 flies 1000NM / 2 hours further or takes 10t extra payload. And has a wider cabin.
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart787-10333359.jpg
Thanks Keesje for your reply. So it will be a good aircraft for airlines that don't require more than that.
Boeing and Airbus have reversed rolls. The A350-900 is the new B777-200ER and the B787-10 is the new A330-300, only the new aircraft are more capable and more efficient than the aircraft they seek to replace. One thing to consider though is that the B787-10 is very efficient and the A350-900 is not far off, if it is not equally efficient. Many airlines may choose to buy the A350-900 since it offers greater flexibility in range and payload for when they may need it. The A330-300 and B777-200ER were far more different/distinct in their capabilities.
One more thing, has anybody considered the fact that Boeing was very innovative when they designed the cross sections of the 777 and 787. These aircraft can have comfortable 8-, 9-abreast seating when oil is at $20 a barrel but also offer the flexibility to their owners of going 9-, 10-abreast when oil hits $120 a barrel. At $20, the A350 will be remarkably efficient and comfortable. At $120, however, it can offer no chance of more seats (=higher revenue) or be terribly uncomfortable...