It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Airbus Airbusted?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:11 AM
Hi carch. Yes, I think that BA is about, ooh, 85% likely to buy both the Boeing models you mentioned over their Airbus rivals, as well as the smaller 787 models as well as it looks to replace its older 767's.

Just a couple of things I don't poarticularly agree with;

The A350XWB is positioned to compete with the 777 more than with the 787

The A350-800 and -900 are only marginally bigger than their 787 equivalents and are in direct opposition to them, only the A350-1000 is aimed at the 777, and then only the 777-200 models, just like the 787-10 is, the 787 itself is by no means a small aeroplane. There is no crossover with the Y3, it looks as if this model is going to have the field to itself when it does appear as Airbus' only ultra large twin-jet project was a truncated version of the A380 which I am sure that everyone in Airbus now regards as an aberration that is best forgotten, after all, nobody at all even speaks of it anymore.

There is a general consensus that the 787 will be more efficient than the A350.

This is news to me Carch, can you point me in a direction where I might see this consensus in writing anywhere? I would have thought that, given how little we know about the XWB combined with the fact that even Boeing doesn't exactly know how efficient the 787 will be until it has conducted exhaustive flight tests, there can be no basis for such an opinion.

Surely it isn't based on the fact that the Boeing uses a composite fuselage where the XWB does not is it? That would seem a very tenuous basis for such a sweping judgement given that nobody knows for sure which one is 'best' yet and what problems/costs might be incurred with either choice?

I also have a question;

The problem is of curse that the A350 is going to be delayed until 2014 a very close date to the Y3 programme launch.

This seems a curious statement to make, ignoring for the moment what I said about the difference in size, for some reason you see the XWB being 4 years behind the 787 as a major problem for its future credibility as airlines wont wait for it and will buy the Boeing and yet being 4-6 years ahead of the Y3 is also a problem as airlines might choose to wait. I don't get it, please elaborate?

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:16 AM

Originally posted by waynos
This is one order I would be very surprised to see Airbus win. I've always felt that this was the one contract that the 747-8I would take for sure, I also expect the 787 to win the other part of the deal.

Not so sure.

How quiet is the 747-8I? Heathrow has the strictest noise regulations on the planet, the A380 was designed very much with noise abatement in mind. If the 380 would be able to fly at times the 747 simply wouldn't, Airbus may well get the contract.

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:23 AM
Possibly kilcoo, but I find it inconcievable that Boeing would allow the 747-8 to be in a postion of losing an order on those grounds. Unless it simply can't be made quieter of course.

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:28 AM
I can't find a link, but a good article in the WSJ today (10/18) by Holman Jenkins about Airbus floats the possibility of Boeing teaming with Pratt and Whitney to bring out a geared turbofan replacement for the 737 as early as next year to exploit the current troubles.
They don't think thier suit with the WTO is going anywhere.

This link has good news to report, however:

[edit on 18-10-2006 by aaaaa]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:21 PM
The 747-8 uses the same engines as the 787, the GE GenEx, therefore any pollution or noise issues should be non existant.

About the new A350, the smaller model the 800 carries aprox 270 people, the next one the 900 carries about 314 and the 1000 carries 350 (these are Airbus claims)
The 787-8 carries 242 the -9, 280 and the -10 (if it comes) 301. The 777-200 carries about 310 and the 300 carries 365/380.

If you look Waynos the A350 is a bigger plane than the 787 which means that it is not a direct replacement of the smaller 767 and A330 but for the big A340's and 777's

The 787-8 has no direct competition, the 787-9 will compete with the A350-800. The A350-900 will compete with 777-200 and the A350-100 with the 777-300.

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by carcharodon
The 747-8 uses the same engines as the 787, the GE GenEx, therefore any pollution or noise issues should be non existant.

There is alot more to noise emissions than just changing the engine my friend.

To begin with, the footprint of noise [but not quite the peak noise level itself] on approach is greater than take-off. Approach is more airframe dependant, with wing/flap efficiency directly influencing noise, and also indirectly through drag [a draggier airframe will mean more throttle on the engines].

The A380 fan is also sized for noise, and not the optimum cruise sfc [surprising to some I'm sure]. I'm not sure if that is the case with the GenEx. Note that the GenEx in the 747-8 is not a bleedless engine like it will be in the 787, so expect that to impact on performance.

Boeing is designing the 747-8 to meet the London Quota Count (QC) 2 metric, which dictates operating hours both into, and out of, London-area airports based on noise levels. The 747-8 will meet the noise requirements for QC 2 classification on both Arrivals and Departures, and also has a significant chance of achieving the next lower classification level (QC 1) for Arrival. This will allow operation at the major London airports without a noise-imposed curfew.

From Boeing

Designed to operate out of any airport where today’s largest aircraft can, using shorter runways and generating half the noise, the A380 complies with some of the world’s strictest noise restrictions (QC1 for landing and QC2 for take off at London’s Heathrow), reinforcing the A380’s growing recognition as the quietest large aircraft in the world.

From Airbus

Unfortunately I cannot find any hard numbers for the actual performance of either 747-8 or A380, just 'targets'.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by kilcoo316]

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:22 PM
More bad news for Airbus and the 380:

Link 1

When the customers send people to the production floor to audit progress, progress stops.

Guess they didn't like what they saw on the other floor, either:

Link 2

[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 29/10/06 by JAK]

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:42 AM

1) In regards to Emirates canceling thier options for the A340-600, its not a really big surprise given that the economics no longer make sence. That long hual thin route segment will go to a 777 / A330 / A350 / 787 type aircraft. Does Emirates have the 340-500 in the fleet or on order? (I don't have my AWST source book with me) Its got some serious range and they may still keep those.

2) In regards to the auditors: Its not that unheard of and in thier position its meer prudence. I doubt Emirates will cancel thier orders for the A380 in any case. Its gets thier people in the loop and also send a strong message to Airbus to get its act together. They will sort this problem out eventualy and are paying a hefty amount of penalties untill they do.

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:48 AM

While none of the numbers about fuel burn etc do not yet exists on an aircraft in development and one on paper the nod as announced has to go to the 787:

1) Engines. The lack of bleed air make reduces the fuel burn in the 787
2) Weight: Composite structures are lighter by and large and even if its only 1% lighter that translates into less fuel burn and even a higher fuel capacity thus more range
3) Airframe: the all composite structure should (In theory, but communism works in theory) reduce MRO costs secondary to a lack of corrosion issues etc. Fatigue life should be increased as well.

Again this is as announced. WIth the A350 still on paper and not set, many changes could be in the works

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 04:50 AM
Yes Fred, as the figures stand in the form of a forecast or target that is correct. I suppose its a matter of choosing the right path and this revelation seems to say that Airbus are giving serious thought to the possibility that Boeing have made the better choice, which is the sensible thing to do I suppose. The Al-Li alloy is also light weight and low density, but not to the degree of composites. This passage is from the page I linked to on the XWB thread;

In contrast to new materials systems such as fiber-reinforced
composites, low density Al alloys do not require large capital investments by the aircraft producer in new
fabricating facilities. This cost savings can more than offset the greater performance increment, which
composites may offer, resulting in Al-Li alloys being substantially more cost effective than composites in some

I suppose the quandary is whether this advantage really works in the aircrafts favour or not. Personally, I have no idea. I suspect neither Airbus or Boeing really knows either, but at least Boeing has made its choice and is sticking to it. Airbus' dithering compares badly. Whichever decision they make they have to make one soon and show some self confidence.

aaaa, to paint the A340 cancellation as just the latest in a long line of blows to hit Airbus is a little disingenuous (even though I know you enjoy it
) as this cancellation has been on the cards ever since the 787 was first launched and Airbus response was being awaited.

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:02 PM
Emirates cancelled all their A340 orders. Tim Clark EK President said that the orders were picked up by other Airline hat he did not mentioned.

Some say Virgin could be that Airline now that they have deferred their A380 until 2013

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:25 PM
Airbus to become Airbust?.. Seeing that terrible landing of their big-daddy with all the eggs in that basket suggested to me the possibility of a design flaw. Just a speculation without knowing of any proof.. but why are they not flying the proto-type around for publicity.

Boeing I think may have a chance now to slip between Airbus and some of it's clientele airliner needs. Go Boeing !!


posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:07 PM
Being in the cards and having the card played is still two different things, Waynos.
I'm not all that pleased, either, because I expected this season of bad news to inflate the value of my Boeing stock, and it hasn't.

I'm hoping little Mary Sunshine will come out and explain how all this is really all good news, somehow.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by aaaaa]

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:27 PM
aaaa, of course its not good news, a cancellation never is. I just mean that it was fully expected and was prepared for and not a sudden bombshell, hence the slots already being offered to and accepted by another airline. Airbus had previously tried to offer Emirates a sort of 'Super A340' to persuade them to stay with the plane and it was rejected immediately.

The speculation that it might be Virgin who are taking them on might be a fuller reason for them wanting to defer their orders for a few years rather than just the extension of their leases on the 747-400's.


Seeing that terrible landing of their big-daddy with all the eggs in that basket suggested to me the possibility of a design flaw.

You posted this in another thread didn't you? It was bollocks then as well

Maybe you could try reading up on the flight test programme which is proceeding beatifully. The current problems are manufacturing ones, not design flaws which affect aircraft handling or performance.

but why are they not flying the proto-type around for publicity.

Are you doing this on purpose for a wind up? Or did you really not see it at Farnborough, Heathrow, Dubai, Singapore, Australia etc etc?

Go Boeing !!

Aah! Now I get it

[edit on 28-10-2006 by waynos]

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Not surprising at all as Quantas has many long range high density routes going into slot limited airports.

However, I would be remiss not to point out the unfair advantage Airbus gets from its gifts er..... "Loans" .

from the same source:

Airbus has also sharply revised down its profit targets for the A380 project, saying it will now have to sell 420 planes to break even instead of 270 as previously announced.

Thats alot of planes and any other company that would have to absorb these losses AND continue to service the debt (which Airbus does not have to begin doing untill the plane is posting a profit) would be devastating.

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 02:44 PM
It took Boeing from 1970 to 1979 to produce that many 747's, after solving a lot of technical problems that plagued the aircraft at inception.

Assumptions that all problems have been solved with the wiring and weight on the A380 might be a bit optimistic, and concerns about flaws that will not be evident until regular service begins remains, as history as provided examples of that occuring on many occasions. (L1011 Cargo Doors?)

I'm taking bets that Airbus will never be able to produce 400+ A380's, and the project has no chance of ever showing a profit.

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 03:17 PM
From FredT's link, and its something I think is being forgotten here!

"We are convinced that these problems relate to industrialisation issues at Airbus and will be remedied, and in no way relate to the technical capacity of the A380."

I can guarantee right now, the airlines and airbus would rather have a wiring delay than have the plane out on time, but underperforming badly.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by kilcoo316]

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:08 AM
Airbus has just revealed huge new orders which, they hope, signals the start of the company's fortunes changing massively.

China Aviation Supplies has signed up for 150 A320 family aircraft and 20 A350XWB's while a new, Ohio based, start up operator called Skybus has signed for 65 A319's, this represents one of Airbus' biggest ever single orders from the USA.



Separately, QANTAS has announced it has chosen to stick with the RR Trent to power its additional A380's but has yet to decide on which engine to go with for its 787's.

edit; I've just tried the links and they both worked for me ok kilcoo. Maybe you (and anyone else they don't work for) could try the Flight website, both stories are on the news pages.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by waynos]

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:41 AM
The links are dead waynos.

I think its the flightglobal servers though

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by waynos
Airbus has just revealed huge new orders which, they hope, signals the start of the company's fortunes changing massively.

China Aviation Supplies has signed up for 150 A320 family aircraft and 20 A350XWB's while a new, Ohio based, start up operator called Skybus has signed for 65 A319's, this represents one of Airbus' biggest ever single orders from the USA.

- Wow, that's what I call a couple of big orders!

It would be nice if folks could read it (weep if you have to
quit the infantile garbage that is to pretend Airbus is remotely like 'bust' - or any of the other childish nonsense that imagines they're going anywhere.

It's been interesting seeing them talked down so hard for the last few months but the truth is they will be around for a long long time to come.....

....let's not kid ourselves, even if they really ever were seriously troubled 'we' European taxpayers would never allow one of our biggest most high-tech industries to die.......same as US taxpayers would never allow that to happen in the US to Boeing.

Whether it be 'soft' military or research contracts or commercial development loans (which on 'our side' at least get repaid back) the upshot is the same; neither of us is going to see our highest-tech biggest plane-makers go to the wall.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in