New Boeing 777-200lr

It seems that after all the predictable digs and snipes about the new Airbus A350 just being a warmed over earlier design that Boeing are going to revamp an earlier design to help their 'range' of products on offer to the industry.

David Learmount, operations and safety editor at the world renouned industry magazine Flight International commented today on BBC news that Boeing is - by their own admission - undeniably becoming much more of a niche marketer and questioned whether this was the best way forward..

news.bbc.co.uk...

I think you mean the A380, not A350.

No, he means the A350. There were a lot of jibes on this board and others about the A350 proposal being a 'bodge' of the A330 design (because the A350 is based on the A330 body with new wings), and wouldnt be competitive as such.

Ah... Hadn't heard of that one. My bad then!

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Ah... Hadn't heard of that one. My bad then!

- Richard is (as usual) quite right.

The A350 is Airbus' newly announced competitor to the 787 and completes a 'range' which successfully competes with Boeing at pretty much every point (and beyond) now.

Hence to some Airbus products are all so poor, shoddy, uncomfortable, bodged, unwanted and basically so deeply unattractive to the Boeing-eye!
Good job the majority of the world's airlines don't seem to agree.

sminkeypinkey
The A350 is Airbus' newly announced competitor to the 787 and completes a 'range' which successfully competes with Boeing at pretty much every point (and beyond) now.

you make that sound as though the A350 is better then the 787, which its not. The only thing that will make a A350 more attractive to the buyer is its overall price tag...thats it. The 787 exceeds it in every other aspect.

quote
you make that sound as though the A350 is better then the 787, which its not.


Bit bias towards Boeing coz ur American i think...

[edit on 15/2/2005 by MickeyDee]

[edit on 15/2/2005 by MickeyDee]

Originally posted by MickeyDee
quote
"you make that sound as though the A350 is better then the 787, which its not."

Bit bias towards Boeing coz ur American i think...

I'm probably a little biased, but i try not to be.

and I was talking facts, its more efficient, will be state of art electronics in it, finally bigger windows, cabin pressure, lighting will be done by LED's and will make it feel more relaxing, some redesigning to make the inside larger then it will be. things like that all contribute for it to be my choice...The one thing that Airbus has going for its A350 its its dozens of millions cheaper.

Im from the UK but not bias. I believe Boeing will always be the leading manafacturer of aircraft and would definitly buy their aircraft if i was ever to start my own airline. Not that thats gonna happen.

And does anybody have any info on teh supersonic liner Boeing are building???

Originally posted by Murcielago

I'm probably a little biased, but i try not to be.

We all seem to be a little biased on this board, but it takes a man to admit it.

and I was talking facts, its more efficient, will be state of art electronics in it, finally bigger windows, cabin pressure, lighting will be done by LED's and will make it feel more relaxing, some redesigning to make the inside larger then it will be. things like that all contribute for it to be my choice...The one thing that Airbus has going for its A350 its its dozens of millions cheaper.

Hmmm, now bigger windows, cabin pressure and lighting really dont add anything to the aircraft - 99.99999999999% of people just 'buy a ticket' and dont really care what aircraft its going to be on. There will be the few who choose what ticket based on the aircraft, but they really arent enough to count as a statistic

The major thing that the 787 has going for it is efficiency. It uses a zero bleed system for the engines (standard engines bleed air from the engines to power the hydraulics, the 787 powers its electronics from an APU 100% of the time). The all composite build system is both a bonus and a bust, because it allows for cheaper construction, and a lighter aircraft, but it also is a LOT harder to repair than metal panels. (the A380 is 1/4 composite too, incase noone knew that).

The A350 will consist of new composite wings and tail sections, and run off the same engines as the 787, albeit with hydraulic bleeds. It will be less efficient than the 787, but not dramatically so. The A350 will also have more room, because its built on the A330 body, which is wider than the 787 is.

The 787 has been listed at around $120million USD per aircraft (theres a link to this in one of my previous posts in a older thread). Normally, aircraft are discounted below the list price but Boeing has stated that for the 787, the list price is the price you pay. The A350 has been targetted for a price point of $100million USD (again, post in previous thread - I cant be arsed looking for it ).

Ok, Im going to post my favourite line now

Will the 787 be efficient enough to save an airline $20million USD over the 7 - 10 year life span of the aircraft (airlines like to keep 'new' aircraft for between seven and ten years, after that major maintenance work is required regularly, so they get rid of the aircraft then, mainly selling to smaller airlines or airlines in other countries which have less strict maintenance requirements)? Who knows.

You beat me to it Richard. The link to the previous thread is this one -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(and you originally believed the price point to be $90 million USD......although with the $ drop in value lately I suppose that might move back and forth a little with some things being priced in USD $ and some not)

[edit on 15-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Ok, here are some sources to back it up:

JAL buying 30 aircraft for $4billion = $133million USD an aircraft.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

China Airways to buy 60 aircraft for $7.2billion = $120million USD an aircraft.
english.sina.com...

Boeing quoted as saying the price point is $127.5million USD.
www.bizjournals.com...

But it looks like better data has come to light since I last searched around - Airbus have placed the A350 at $150million USD initial price point (mainly due to the high $ price at the moment). Im not sure exactly what Airbus are up to with this It looks like Airbus are going to compete with the 787 directly on efficiency according to sources, and that initial price point is both open to negotiation and fluctuation in $ price (since Airbus sells in Euros and the dollar has devalued dramatically in recent times)

money.canoe.ca...

Some info about the A350:

Airbus said its new plane will have the same cockpit and similar on-board systems to its existing A330 jet but will weigh eight tonnes less, even allowing for its heavier engines. The new engines, to be supplied initially by General Electric Co., will benefit from new technologies developed for the 7E7

With a catalogue price of about $154 million US, the A350 will enter service in the first half of 2010 in two configurations, Airbus said - of which the longer-range version will have a range of 15,900 kilometres with 245 passengers in a three-class cabin.

Boeing says its furthest-flying 7E7, due to take to the sky two years earlier, will have a range of 15,700 kilometres with 217 passengers on board and a price tag of $120 million US.

Airbus' Leahy also predicted that the A350's operating cost per seat would come in "six to seven per cent" lower than the Dreamliner's.

[edit on 15/2/2005 by RichardPrice]

Okay now how exactly is the 777-200LR a warmed over project? So is the A340-500 and A340-600 warmed over projects as well???.

In regards to price I have no doubt that Airbus will be able thanks to the generosity of the "EU Deal" be able to sell planes at below or a break even profit margin simply to generate market share. Its worked to this point has it not? Before you get all irate, please show me data that separates Airbus profits from its parents EADS and BAE? Hard huh? I tried for my OP?ED series and could not find the data broken out.

I didn't make the comment of course but my interpretation (of the comment not the plane) would be that the 777-200LR is a warmed over version of the 777-200, as it takes the original and makes it better. But the 777-300 is not a warmed over version of the 777-200, it is just a different version of it

Therefore, to illustrate it with the example you chose, A340-500 and A340-600 are not warmed over versions of the A340-200 because they are distinct from it but the A350 could justifiably (in this context) be called a warmed over A330 as it is the same, but not the same, if you see what I mean.

I'm very tired at the moment and full of beer and curry so this may not make a lot of sense

edit; Oh and Fred, please give the monetary thing a rest as you just sound bitter now, we've all debated this every which way, in some very good debates too I think, and we are clearly never going to agree but you seem to be banging on about it in almost every Airbus or Boeing related thread. Why not just let the commission come to its conclusion and then we can start again

[edit on 15-2-2005 by waynos]

Airbus is a privately owned company, with the only shares being held by EADS (80%) and BAe (20%). Therefor, 100% of profits go to these companies, after Airbus has invested whatever it needs. Why should that matter anyway? Where does Boeings profits go? Oh, thats right, its a publically traded company.

I get that. Its the logic in the opening post that I am confused by. Unless we are starting a wholy brand new plane ie. 787 or A380 every plane flying by and large are improved version of the inital launch aircraft. I used the -500 and -600 as examples cause following that logic they are simply warmed over versions of the inital A340 or would it fair to say that the A330 is a A340 missing two engines to compete with the 777 or 767?

Yes that is so, the 737 has been warmed over so many times its a wonder it hasn't gone off

I think sminkey was getting at the dismissive attitude displayed by some 'Boeing fans' (for want of a better term) towards the A350 just because it wasn't all new. Like saying 'well, what about that then?'

A310 was a warmed over A300 but A330 and A340 were all new parrallel designs, I'm 'warming' to this theme

Originally posted by FredT
I get that. Its the logic in the opening post that I am confused by. Unless we are starting a wholy brand new plane ie. 787 or A380 every plane flying by and large are improved version of the inital launch aircraft. I used the -500 and -600 as examples cause following that logic they are simply warmed over versions of the inital A340 or would it fair to say that the A330 is a A340 missing two engines to compete with the 777 or 767?

No, in most cases airbus A3XX-N00 aircraft are pre designated, for example at launch the -300, -400, -500 and -600 would have been known to exist at some point in time in the future. They are planned aircraft. If theres a -390 or some other non -N00 aircraft, then theres been a non planned improvement to the aircraft. Generally, -N00 models are stretches, shorts or longer ranged aircraft.

For example, the A380 will be launched as the -800, with the -900 (longer) and -700 (shorter) to be known to exist at aircraft launch.

An aircraft not known to exist at launch, and billed as a major upgrade to the fleet, can be seen as a warmed over version of a previous aircraft.

Generally, non announced versions of aircraft do not get rollout parties - if one does, then its a sign that its been 'rereleased'

No need for any undue excitement Fred, Richard and Waynos have been perfectly correct in his suming this 'warming over' or 'warming up', er, up -

"I think sminkey was getting at the dismissive attitude displayed by some 'Boeing fans' (for want of a better term) towards the A350 just because it wasn't all new."

Quite.

Airbus is a privately owned company, with the only shares being held by EADS (80%) and BAe (20%). Therefor, 100% of profits go to these companies, after Airbus has invested whatever it needs. Why should that matter anyway? Where does Boeings profits go? Oh, thats right, its a publically traded company.


that's 100% correct boeing is a publiclly traded company so they have to make a profit or no one would want to buy their stock. airbus is a private company so they really dont need to make a profit and more importantly they can actually lose money on planes as long as their owners ( if they happen to be publically traded ) make a profit. which if i was airbus i'd dump planes on the world below actual cost even if it ment taking a loss on them.

sounds like something the sopranos would set up to launder money