A350 EIS delayed from 2H2013 to 1H2014

EADS announced today (Thursday in France, Wednesday night in Seattle) what many of us have been expecting for some time: the entry-into-service (EIS) of the A350-900 will slip into 2014 from late 2013.

“Maturity of the A350 XWB main components at Final Assembly start remains one of the Group’s top priorities. Start of Final Assembly is now scheduled for Q1 2012 and Entry-into-Service is now scheduled for H1 2014,” EADS said in its earnings release. As a result of the delay, EADS is taking a 200m Euro charge.

The program has had several creeping delays, slipping from an EIS of the first half of 2013 to the second half of the year, with very few deliveries listed in the Ascend data base–just five, starting with launch customer Qatar Airways.

We previously opined that we thought the first delivery would slip into the first half of 2014.

Each delay of the A350 program and the individual models allows Boeing to recover some breathing room on the 787 program and to develop the 787-9. The delay of the A350-1000 greatly benefits Boeing as it decides what to do with the future of the 777, through minor or major enhancements, at a time when cash flow continues to be constrained by the 787 and 747-8 programs and development of the 737 MAX.

The news comes just in advance of the Dubai Air Show, where Boeing is expected to announce a number of 777 orders from Emirates Airlines and possibly other carriers. Assembly of the 1,000th 777–for Emirates–began November 9 in Everett (WA).

Airbus also terminated the A340 program, it was announced in the EADS earnings release.

84 Comments on “A350 EIS delayed from 2H2013 to 1H2014

  1. That’s a shame, but expected. By the standards of recent years the charge is quite small, and one wonders if that will not increase substantially… The problem for Airbus is that at present the A350 is a 1-trick pony, i.e. the A359. One hopes that there will be a number of later conversions/clarifications of orders to cover the A351, but the A358 seems to be pretty dead at the moment. I would not be surprised if that part of the programme were not dropped completely in favour of re-engining the A332. A ‘simple’ re-engine of that version maybe enough for the model to hold its own against the 788?

    I hope that Airbus has learnt lessons from the Boeing PR desaster, and will not dripfeed delays over the next 12-18 months.

    • Why do you say the A350-800 is “dead”? It still has more than 100 orders, while the -1000 is firmly stuck at 75, and if you believe press reports, soon to be headed lower due to cancellations from Emirates. Seems to me that the -800 is still in better shape than the -1000.

      • Because the -800 has rapidly declining orders. I wouldn’t be surprised if by year-end it was below 100, and on the point raised below, who needs a ULH aircraft. How many 772LRs have been sold? The -1000 on the other hand I believe will see a lot of conversions from the -900 once it has specs firmed up and we get closer to EIS.

    • I expect the A358 to evolve into a straight shrink of the A359 having the same MTOW of 268 tonnes. Hence the A358 will become an ULH aircraft with a range exceeding 9000 nm. The true A332 replacement will either be an A332 NEO (only new engine; no new wing), or a whole new aircraft based on the basic A350 fuselage. However, the wings would be significantly smaller and the aircraft would have a MTOW 85-90 percent of that of the A332HGW. If Airbus launches an A332 NEO first, I would expect the conceptual smaller A350 derived aircraft to be realized post 2025.

      As for the A350-1000; how many 77Ws had Boeing sold five and a half years before EIS (May 2004) ?

      • The “true” A332 replacement will not be the A332NEO. It will be the B788. Airbus has decided to go with a larger plane for widebodies.

        If Airbus drops the A358 from the lineup then maybe they will revisit the A330NEO-which IMHO would be a great plane but cost billions.

      • Sorry, the 788 is Boeing’s competitive response to the A332. Airbus went after the 77E replacement market with the A359. As the A332 still sells strongly, in contrast to the 77E, there was in 2006 and still is no immediate need for Airbus to come up with a replacement aircraft. It’s a fallacy to believe that Airbus supposedly decided to concentrate on “larger” 300-seat WBs at the expense of smaller 763/788/A332 sized WBs, when they launched the A350 programme.

  2. There’s an interesting point on the insight of analysts in the Bloomberg article by the way:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/airbus-delays-release-of-a350-plane-to-2014-booking-270-million-charge.html

    [quote]Net income advanced to 312 million euros ($422 million), or 38 cents a share, from 13 million euros, or 2 cents, a year earlier, Paris and Munich-based EADS said in a statement today. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg had estimated a loss of about 30 million euros. [/quote]

    Woops…

    And by the way, RIP A340.

    • Bloomberg was projecting Airbus to take a charge of around E500m, hence why the E312m profit is a surprise. The positive one off of E192m is also helpful 🙂

  3. Ashame, but expected for a long time. Switching from Al to Carbon fuselages has been an enormous operation.Hopefully the EIS will no further be delayed.

    Btw not sure on the impact on the A350-1000. It’s much later and may depend on other variables. Up until now 777-300ER and A350-1000 slots seem not to overlap. The current 777-300ER backlog is done before the -1000 enters service.

    When the A350-1000 specs (engines) mature, I expect commitments from large airlines with low density long haul cabins such as United, BA, LH, SQ, QF etc..

  4. keesje, the A-3510 is a long way from getting those kinds of commitments. I think the B-777X/NG/whatever it will be called will be the final nail in the coffin of the A-350-1000. I see this version dropping off the desk, much like the B-787-3 did. The A-3510 only has some 75 orders, and some are threatening to cancel or convert those orders to the A-359.

    The almost never talked about A-350-900F version may also die, as no one seems interested in that version, in fact the only other (new build) “F” model from Airbus, the A-332F is enemic, too.

    The A-358 may survive as it does have some 250 + orders. It would make sense for Airbus to cancel the A-3510 and A-359F and just consintrate on developing the A-359 first then the A-358, much like Boeing has done with the B-787-8 and B-787-9.

    It is about time Airbus finally closed the coffin on the (on life support) A-340, the B-777 finally killing it off. I believe this makes the 3rd airplane type Airbus has retired, the A-300, A-310, and A-340.

    • KCTB, It seems the A350-1000 is the variant Boeing is most concerned about. They are constantly commenting on it, based the 777 upgrade plan on it and are pushing a 787-10 at the same time.

      The one A350 on risk IMO seems to be the A350-800. Airbus has been very helpfull in converting an increasing number of slots to -900s. Rumours of a A330 NEO keep surfacing.

      Compared to the 777-300ER the A350-1000 will have less seats, less cargo capasity, lower payload-range, have less powerfull engines and will be way more quiet and fuel efficient.

      For new 777 variants Boeing is studying weight savings, a 777-300 shrink, a new A350 style wing and less powerfull engines..

      • I agree with that Keesje. I believe that many A350 orders currently on the books maybe converted to the A351 once specs are known. I would be very surprised if the contracts had not been written in such a way as to allow that. Time will tell…

      • The A-3510 is the model QR is complaining about. IIRC, they have most, if not all of the current A-3510 orders.

    • “The almost never talked about A-350-900F version may also die”… “It would make sense for Airbus to cancel the A-359F”
      Let’s not spread any nonsense, shall we? For it to be cancelled, this variants needs to be launched, be in development and be offered to customers. Neither is the case. When Airbus launched the A350 it suggested further developments like A350F and A350R, that was all. By your strange logic, the 787-10 must have had a catastrophic market response since it does not have orders….

    • The A350-800 has 119 orders left. While they have had no new orders since the decision to go to a simple shrink of the -900 they have had many conversions out. The -1000 has only 75 orders, and been stuck there for a couple years now as well. If news reports are to be believed, Emirates will cancel at the Dubai show next week and order A380s instead. I should think that the -1000 is in far greater jeopardy than the -800. That said, it’s not in Airbus’ nature to cancel programs once launched. A prime example is the A318. If there was ever a program that deserved to be canceled in the development process it’s that one. Yet, it’s still there.

      I find it odd that they are terminating the A340, given the commonality with the A330 I would figure they would have just kept it around like they did with the A310. Maybe they needed the 192M to make the numbers look better?

      • Or maybe it would make more sense to terminate the programme, since they had no order for it in the last 2 years, and use the production space to expand the A330 line given that they are going to 10/month. It doesn’t matter if they want to keep the line going, if it is not selling then that is the market reality.
        No doubt of course the positive one off would pay for the A350 charge…

  5. I know you like going on about how anemic the A332F sales are. But are they? The 777F has sold an average of less than 20 per year since the first order in 2005 (I believe that includes cancellations). The A330-200F has had 11 orders per year according to the same metric, excluding cancellations). It’s not great, but on the other hand it has tougher competition, and most of its sales period has been covered by a severe economic crisis. So its not great, but I wouldn’t call it anemic.

  6. The A-332F has about 50 deliveries and orders since it was launched. Boeing new build freighters have it bracketed with the B-763F, B-777F and B-747-8F. All three models have outsold the A-332F since the Airbus freighter was launched. At one time, it had about 70 orders, but some have been canceled, as have orders for the Boeing freighters.

    Even by your admission, the B-777F has outsold the A-332F nearly 2:1, excluding cancellations for both airplanes, even the B-767-300ERF has sold (not counting the KC-46A) just about the same number of new builds as the A-332 has since it was launched in 2006.

    regab, I don’t see a big enough GTF in size or thrust needed for the A-330 being developed for many years. The A-330 needs some 67,000 lbs to 75,000 lbs of thrust. The current GTF with the most thrust is the PW-1133G with 33,000 lbs of thrust for the A-321NEO, and the PW-1400G with 34,000 lbs of thrust for the MS-21, both have a fan section diameter of some 81″, and will not EIS until 2015 and 2016 respectively. That is about half the thrust an A-330 needs, and the fan section diameter of the GE CF-6-80E1 is about 95″ or 96″. The A-330 Trent-700 series engines also have a 96″ fan, the PW-4168 series engines have a 100″ fan.

    • The A330-200F has 61 orders, after cancellations (BTW – when I typed excluding, I meant including cancellations). Yes it has been outsold by the 777F, about 2:1. But I wouldn’t call that anemic.

      In any case, let me help you get the facts straight. Since January 2007 (17 Jan 07 being the launch date of the A330-200F, not 2006 as you claimed), a total of 35 767F have been sold. 2 to Azerbaijan, 6 to DHL, and 27 to UPS. I would suggest that that is considerably less than ‘just about the same number as’ 61. YMMV. Including passenger aircraft, the 767 has sold a grand total of 83 planes since that date, and a good number of these were almost certainly compensation for the failure to deliver 787s (9 ships to ANA, 10 to JAL, and 10 to LAN are good candidates for that – or more than 1/3rd of all sales since then). Now that seems anemic to me.

    • KC135TopBoom [edited as violation of Reader Comment rules] when it comes to comparing Airbus and Boeing numbers:

      KC135TopBoom :
      The A-332F has about 50 deliveries and orders since it was launched.

      Reality: 61

      KC135TopBoom :
      Boeing new build freighters have it bracketed with the B-763F, B-777F and B-747-8F. All three models have outsold the A-332F since the Airbus freighter was launched.

      Reality:
      767-300F: 35
      747-8F: 52
      777-300F: 95 (one is right)

      KC135TopBoom :
      B-777F has outsold the A-332F nearly 2:1

      Reality:
      95:61. About 1.56:1

      • Falcon, just curious on where your numbers come from.
        Boeing counts (70) 747-8F orders with a 67 aircraft backlog and 62 767-300F ordered + a 20 aircraft backlog (82 total), so using Boeing’s numbers, yes all B freighter models have outsold the A330F but not by much. The biggest reason for the A330F trailing would certainly seem to have far more to do with anemic new build freighter orders than anything else. Airbus did have the misfortune of launching the A330F right before the freighter market went bust, so all things considered the 61 A330F freighters that have been ordered looks to be pretty solid and I’m sure the model will be around for quite a while to come.

      • There is no B-777-300F, I assume that is a typo. The B-777-200LRF actually has 119 total orders, as of Sept 2011.
        You are correct the A-330-200F has 61 orders, 8 delivered to date, as of Oct. 2011.
        The B-747-8F order book stands at 70 airplanes, adjusted with the cancelations through Oct. 2011.

        So the B-777F (119) to A-330F (61) ratio is, as I said, nearly 2:1

        As far the B-767-300ERF goes, I did make a mistake, I looked at the numbers of it since it was launched back in in 1993 (84). Me bad…… I have not counted the 4 B-767-2Cs ordered to become the KC-46A. Nor have I counted the 29 A-330MRTTs to become tanker transports. None of those frames are freighters, anyway, all are converted from the pax model.

    • regab, I don’t see a big enough GTF in size or thrust needed for the A-330 being developed for many years. The A-330 needs some 67,000 lbs to 75,000 lbs of thrust.

      KC, don’t worry. An A330NEO, if launched, will get an engine derived from the Trent XWB; currently the most advanced civil turbofan. 🙂

      http://airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/trent-1.jpg

      BTW, GenX-2B67 is old news and won’ fly on the A330.

    • @KC135TopBoom

      The “A330NEO” wouldn’t be a “NEO” as the A32XNEO IMHO, it would be with the current GenX or Trent 1000. Regardless, it would be an expensive endeavor (but an excellent plane).

      • Why should an A330NEO if launched in, let’s say, 2014 use engines that started to be developed a decade earlier? That won’t fly. If launched, Airbus will ask RR for an engine that is a scaled down derivative of the the TXWB engine with a fan size diameter of roughly 108 inches.

        RR’s three shaft engine architecture can quite easily be scaled down or up. Case in point; the Trent-800 was scaled up from the Trent-700; the Trent-500 used the fan of the Trent-700 and a scaled down core of the Trent 800; The Trent-900 core was scaled up from the Trent 500 etc.

  7. Not entirely unexpected news, Enders was hinting at this development in September. At least Airbus is up front with this news 2 years before the proposed EIS, and not claim until the last possible minute that everything is on track.
    Hopefully this will give them enough time to achieve the required maturity.

    Pity about the A340 line, I loved the aircraft. A346 was one of the more striking planes but I guess the writing was on the wall.

  8. Negative: delay hints that the technology was not understood sufficiently when program was launched. It tells us that the project plan was done by marketing rather than engineering. Apparently engineering is taking the control back piece by piece. This is a slight enhancement compared to the tactic of actually hitting the wall and THEN telling people that there was one, which was seen miles before.
    But B787 taught us: there is always another delay.

    Positive for Airbus: when A350 lifts off in 2013 and gets delivered more or less on (revised) target, everybody will hail the perfect project planning and only few will remember the numerous announced slips. People forget fast.

    • Airbus: Suppliers lag. ( Looks like US and ES suppliers predominantly ?)

      How much are the common suppliers hamstrung by the headless chicken run that is the 787 manufacturing process ?

      I would be rather surprised if there is no splashover into Airbus territory.

      • Sorry, I don’t understand. Are you trying to say it’s Boeing’s fault that the A350 is late?

        Who are “ES suppliers”?

  9. I started my engineering career working on the development of the first A340 and just 22 years later it is finished. It is sad to see. In these days of programs lasting 30 to 40 years or more it indicates a failure by Airbus. It kind of proves that Boeing was right that 2 engines was the future in that market.

    • The irony is that Airbus was the first to offer a large twin with the A300, as had been suggested at the time by Frank Kolk of American Airlines; the so-called “Kolk Machine”.

      • Not irony but mostly politics and engine availability.

        Airbus had a large short to midrange twin ( A300/A310 ).

        They needed a long range craft for expansion after
        having filled the shortrange NB slot with the A320.

        The future certainly was in large twins but available
        engines and especially long enough ETOPS operations
        were not available in the at that time major market.

        Taking a well established crossection, a new super wing
        and FBW plus the rather brilliant idea to leverage FBW
        for attaching 2 or 4 engines allowed Airbus to have early
        market presence and sales with the 4holers while having the 2holers available for late growth. Premeditated flexibility.

      • Agree with Uwe here. The A333/A343 wing was IMO a brilliant design decision. For about one third the cost of the original 777 programme, Airbus launched a twin that is still the market leader in it’s class (counting deliveries and outstanding orders), and for only a few extra bucks produced their first long range aircraft. Boeing’s response, at a huge cost to the company, was directed toward the A340 while ignoring the A330. Seemingly they believed that the 767 could more than compete with the A330. In that sense, the A340 could be viewed as a great diversionary tactic in Airbus’ long term strategic game plan, however unintended.

        The $3.5 billion for developing the A330 and A340 includes the cost of certifying three separate engines on the A330. “The growth programmes will cost between $500 and $700 million on top of that,” says Pierson. Launch of the A330/A340-300X, and A330/340-400X “…depends on the market, but any time from 1992 onwards”. The first, he adds, “…will probably be the higher-gross-weight A330-300X for Asia”.

        “The A330 and A340,” says Pierson, “do not represent a technology goal. The goal is to increase market share, and, using the technology of the A320, to make money with that share. Its a business goal. When you launch an aircraft [Pierson was responsible for launching both the A330 and A340], you have to decide your priorities. These aircraft have already helped us to increase our market share from 20% to 30% in the last four years. We’ve sold more than 200 aircraft of both types, and the A340 is not due to fly for five months.”

        Sales have been slow recently, admits Pierson, “…but that’s the same for everybody. We’re sure about the market for these aircraft. In ten years, people will open our market analysis and see that it is exactly what we said…that, of 800 aircraft, one third will be the A340, two thirds the A330.”

        http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1991/1991%20-%201247.html

  10. I would call the A340 a failure, too many build for that and 8 “A340” fuselages / wings still roll o the FAL every months. 22 isn’t very long.compared to the A320, 737 etc. Still the 757/767 didn’t last much longer and will the 777 survive 22 years without a new wing/engine? The aircraft that beat the A340, the 777-200/200ER/LR also virtually stopped. (13 in the backlog, ~2-3 months of production after selling 550 over the last 20 years).

    • The A340 got a new engine in 2002. The A340 and the 777 were launched with in a few years of each other in the early 90s. The A340 just became victim of changing economics and changing times.

      One has to wonder how many billions were spent on the A340-500/600, for such a short production run. Such a waste. Not unlike the 767-400, another waste.

      • The walls murmur 3.5b ( $ or € ? not significantly different in that timeframe )
        Just like the A318 the A340-5/600 introduced a lot of new tech into Airbus production ( welded frames, cfrp pressure bulkead and a bunch of other first )

        Additionally I would argue for Airbus having to do the efficient 4holers just to push Boeing into expanding ETOPS territory.
        IMHO one frame+wing with either 2 or 4 engines was brilliant.

    • keesje, wouldn’t that really be 8 “A-300” fuselages each month? The A-330/-340 (and the now dead A-310) still use the A-300 fuselage and cross section.

      The A-342/3/5/6 only sold 379 airplanes over its 22 year life. That is an average of just over 17 airplanes per year. The B-77A/E/L that you always like to compare the A-340 too has outsold it by some 47%, and has done it in 21 years (B-777 official launch was October 1990 by UA). I believe the A-330/-340 were launched by Airbus in January 1986 (which makes the A-340 program 25 years old), up to that point I believe they were called the TA-9 (A-330) and TA-11 (A-340), and were formerly the B-9 and B-11 versions of the A-300.

      • By your reckoning the 777 is nothing more than a 767 with slightly guppyized center fuselage adding some scaled up parts from the 757. ( which problably isn’t all that far off the mark )

        No wonder they could deliver on time. But why then did Boeing need twice the planned amount of money to get
        there?

        The 787 rides on the evacuation certificate of the 767.
        So viewed through your rosy glasses it is nothing more than another 767 with a bit less of blowup applied and some trusty old metal replaced with “plaste” ( just like the prewar DKW F8 derived GDR Trabant 😉

        Should I talk about “absolutely innovative and superior US tech” that is nothing more than a cheap (often foreign) copy or derivation ?

      • Of course; A300 fuselages (everybody can that they only share the cross section, but what gives/who cares).

        The A340 wasn’t a huge success, but the still 379 produced and high commonality with the A330 don’t make it a problem. Nearly all remain in operation as we speak with many flag carriers. It’s one of my favourites aircraft to fly; quiet, spacey, engine redundancy and perfect safety record.

        http://www.austrianwings.info/grafik/meldungen/kvw/a340-300_emirates_kvw.jpg

  11. Leehamnet: A350 EIS delayed from 2H2013 to 1H2014

    The A350 XWB was originally projected to enter into service in “mid 2013”. However, I do seem to recall that first flight was originally projected to take place in “late 2011” and that Airbus was saying at the time (of programme launch) that the 18 month flight test programme could be slightly shortened thus facilitating earlier deliveries. 😉

    The Trent XWB is the sixth member of the three-shaft Trent engine series and is being developed specifically for the Airbus A350 XWB twinjet. Rolls-Royce says is will be available for deliveries from mid-2013.

    http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/ilfc-gives-rolls-royce-%C2%A3418m-contract/302921.article

  12. KC135TopBoom :
    The A-3510 is the model QR is complaining about. IIRC, they have most, if not all of the current A-3510 orders.

    Ha, the World would be a completely different one were it the way you tell about it.
    A340-1000 orders ( WP as of 11 Nov.2011 )
    Etihad Airways 25
    Emirates 20
    Qatar Airways 20
    Asiana Airlines 10

  13. KC135TopBoom :The A-3510 is the model QR is complaining about. IIRC, they have most, if not all of the current A-3510 orders.

    So what? If Al-Bakr doesn’t complain, something’s wrong. Not the other way round. They neither have most, nor all, nor even the largest of the current -1000 orders. Can you please do some research in the future before making incorrect statements? It takes less than 2 minutes and an internect connection to verify this.

  14. I am not worried about the A350-1000 for the time-being. The 900 model is selling very well and Airbus has its hands full developing and shipping that model. It doesn’t need the 1000 model right now.

    The 1000 model on the face of it seems a very good plane. There are perhaps shades of the 737-900ER – a plane that also looked good on paper, but which has been upstaged by its smaller sister. On the other hand customers may migrate to the 1000, as they have moved from the A330-200 to the 300 model over time. If the 1000 model lacks grunt now it will gradually build up its capability as the plane is updated and refined.

    In the meantime the 777 300ER will continue to sell strongly. But I do believe the A350 will eventually knock that plane off its perch, just as the 787 will do to the A330. New technology will win out.

  15. @keesje:

    The A340 is “spacey”? I recently flew on EY’s A346, while it was certainly quiet and a smooth “ride”, it was one of the most cramped-feeling planes for a 15+ hour flight I’ve ever been on. In fact, a few random people who were on the plane with me were complaining of the same thing. I even have photos of my carry-on not being able to fit on EY’s A346 yet those same carry-ons easily fitting on EK’s and EY’s B777’s…

    • Ok, so you’re fine with an EK 77L on, let’s say, LAX-DXB with a 17 inch seat width. Granted, the pitch is 34″ while on EY’s A346 it’s 32″ (seat width apparently 17,8″), but pitch is the choice of the operator. IMO 10 seats across on a 777, on flights longer than 12 hrs, is not a pleasant option to say the least. As for carry on baggage for Y-class passengers; it’s normal practice to check in most of your luggage while still beeing allowed to carry on a 55cm x 45cm x 25cm cabin bag. Of course, if too many travellers bring too much duty free junk aboard, then there might be some space constraints in the over-head compartments.

      • Until passengers are ready to pay a commensurately higher price for their ticket, you will suffer with whatever the Airline needs to do to make money. If that means 32 in. pitch ok. or a 17.2 in. seat pan, ok. 10 Abreast… ok. Either vote with your wallet or accept it and deal with it. Simple economics.

      • I wasn’t talking about pitch, but rather seat width. EY has 8-across in Y. Also, the fuselage shape makes a difference hence why the A380 feels “roomier” even though seat pitch is the same against a competing plane. My carry-ons are “standard” carry-ons which have fit on every single recent plane I’ve been on (aside from the A346 and I guess that would extend to A332’s which I’ve been on a few times since 2007)-*
        1)B77’s
        2)A320’s
        3)B747’s
        4)B757’s
        5)B737’s
        6)MD-80s.
        7)B767s

        *-Of note, my carry-ons haven’t fit on AA’s Eagle “Jungle Jets” (ERJ’s) as well.

        Given how large EK’s 777 fleet is (and some of the ULH routes it flies) and given other carriers such as AF, EY, etc. having 10-across on their B77’s, it doesn’t seem as if 10-across is “hurting” those carriers.

      • No, you were talking specifically about the supposedly “cramped feeling” in an 8 across A340 with a 17,8 inch seat width in Y. I was merely pointing out that Y on EKs 77Ws/77Ls are even more cramped. The extra roominess of the 777 cabin is quite irrelevant when you spend most of the time on a flight in your seat.

        Now, airlines have different restrictions regarding carry on laggage and passengers should check before flying whether their possible over-sized carry-ons are permitted onboard. A 22″ x 14″ x 9″ cabin bag will fit into the overhead bins on A330s/A340s.

        http://www.luggagepros.com/travel/carry-on.shtml

        Given how large EK’s 777 fleet is (and some of the ULH routes it flies) and given other carriers such as AF, EY, etc. having 10-across on their B77′s, it doesn’t seem as if 10-across is “hurting” those carriers.

        Again, this was about your supposedly “cramped feeling” of an 8 across A346 on near ULH flights, while at the same time electing not to point out that flying on EK’s 777s on equally long sector lengths are even less comfortable. It was not A vs. B, or was that you intention?

        IMO, 10 hrs or less is OK on a 10-across 777.

    • The worst long-haul flight I was on in recent years was a CX A343 in C from FCO to HKG and return. After 8 hours I just wanted to jump off the plane, never mind that we were at 36,000 ft or thereabouts. The ventilation sucked (I sat towards the end of C, and it felt like there was no oxygen, the cabin was claustrophobic (not helped by the herringbone seating – who ever thought that was a good idea?). The joke played on the unsuspecting then is of course that onward to MNL you are in a 744. Haha. A UA flight in the old ‘dentist seat’ LHR to IAD in one of their old 772s, as I had last week is infinitely preferrable. Spacey? Maybe, compared to a CRJ. Rant over. The A343 is horrible for anything over 6 hours, by comparison to the 777. As for noise, that’s what God gave us noise-cancelling headphones.

  16. OV-099 :
    Sorry, the 788 is Boeing’s competitive response to the A332. Airbus went after the 77E replacement market with the A359. As the A332 still sells strongly, in contrast to the 77E, there was in 2006 and still is no immediate need for Airbus to come up with a replacement aircraft. It’s a fallacy to believe that Airbus supposedly decided to concentrate on “larger” 300-seat WBs at the expense of smaller 763/788/A332 sized WBs, when they launched the A350 programme.

    No no “fallacy” as you put it. Airbus has stated (IIRC, Leahy) that carriers want larger planes moving foreward. I agree that A330’s have sold well (whilst the B77E hasn’t) but if you think Airbus is going to work on the XWB, A32XNEO and then on an A330NEO simultaneously you are seriously mistaken. Even A380 production isn’t up to speed yet.

    • Of course, Airbus isn’t going to work on the XWB, the neo and an A330NEO simultaneously. When they are through with the neo in 2016, they could start working on an A332 replacement with an EIS around 2021. By 2016 the design phase of the A350-1000 should be completed, so Airbus at that time should have enough engineering resources to start a new programme. Meanwhile, Airbus can produce A332s and the A333s at, or nearly at the same level as today for the rest of the decade because of the substantial backlog an the fact that the order intake doesn’t seem to stop any time soon; due, of course, in part to the 787 production imbroglio.

      Finally, although airlines apparently want to replace current aircraft with bigger ones doesn’t mean that there isn’t a huge market for A332/788-sized aircraft. Do you really believe that Airbus wouldn’t want to compete in that market size? Not mentioning, of course, that they are currently competing in that market size quite succesfully.

    • “Even A380 production isn’t up to speed yet.” Production being the operative word. Different bunch of engineers. Question would be what the marginal engineering requirement would be if they dropped the A358 in favour of doing an A332NEO. I have no idea. But from a sales and competition perspective it begins to look an interesting proposition, especially since they must have done a lot of the work already when they launched the A350 Mk.I?

      • Couple of weeks ago Leahy was heard to say that there was avid interest in an A330 NEO ( from asian carriers? can’t remember ). I don’t think Leahy would say that just to avoid unexpected silence.

        A350Mk1: The engines for the Mk1 never materialised.
        Now with the -1000 engine being a different beast could the basic Trent-XWB be derated and adapted to fit the 330 ?
        With this engine being hung in quite a different way this would
        require a complete redesign of the pylon though.

      • IMO, if Airbus chooses to go with a new engine option A330 it should provide for minimum change. This means that they should keep the cockpit as it is, no new wings etc. The cabin of an A330neo, however, could use the original A350 interior designed by BMW Designworks back in 2006. Also, the fuselage of an A330neo could be modified with both “flattened” frames — that were to be used on the original A350 — and slightly larger windows. Flattened frames from about knee to head height would provide an additional 4 inches of space at armrest level.

        http://blog.flightstory.net/wp-content/uploads/a350-cabin-design6.jpg

        Uwe, a derated TXWB is too big for the A330. Not that it cant’t conceivably be fitted to the wing (A330 sits higher than the 787), but it’s too heavy and will induce too much extra drag in comparison to the Trent-1000. An A332neo using a scaled down TXWB having a 108 inch fan would have lower form drag on both the fuselage and engine when compared to the 788.

  17. OV-099 :
    No, you were talking specifically about the supposedly “cramped feeling” in an 8 across A340 with a 17,8 inch seat width in Y. I was merely pointing out that Y on EKs 77Ws/77Ls are even more cramped. The extra roominess of the 777 cabin is quite irrelevant when you spend most of the time on a flight in your seat.
    Now, airlines have different restrictions regarding carry on laggage and passengers should check before flying whether their possible over-sized carry-ons are permitted onboard. A 22″ x 14″ x 9″ cabin bag will fit into the overhead bins on A330s/A340s.
    http://www.luggagepros.com/travel/carry-on.shtml

    Given how large EK’s 777 fleet is (and some of the ULH routes it flies) and given other carriers such as AF, EY, etc. having 10-across on their B77′s, it doesn’t seem as if 10-across is “hurting” those carriers.

    Again, this was about your supposedly “cramped feeling” of an 8 across A346 on near ULH flights, while at the same time electing not to point out that flying on EK’s 777s on equally long sector lengths are even less comfortable. It was not A vs. B, or was that you intention?
    IMO, 10 hrs or less is OK on a 10-across 777.

    1)I also mentioned about the fuselage shape as well. Not being “wide”, I don’t have a problem with seat width. It seems many don’t either.
    2) Regarding your comment about Airbus going back and doing something about the A332/A333 market….the A358-A359 “span” the A332-A333 line. The A358 is not even 2 meters longer than the A332. I don’t see why Airbus would want to address the sub A332 seat range with an ALL NEW TWIN. If Airbus were to drop the A358XWB then maybe Airbus could address the B763-A333 seat range. Mind you, this is while working on a potential A30X single-isle plane as well.

    • 1) Ok, so you haven’t got a problem with seat width. Hmm, the story seems to keep on changing….. 😉

      I wasn’t talking about pitch, but rather seat width. EY has 8-across in Y. Also, the fuselage shape makes a difference hence why the A380 feels “roomier” even though seat pitch is the same against a competing plane

      2) I’m not talking about an A332 “seat sub range” (A330-100X/500X???). Again, I’m talking about an A332-sized twin using the basic fuselage of the A350, and not optimised for 8000 nm, but rather 7000 nm (i.e. similar to todays A332).

      The MTOW of such an aircraft would be significanly less than the 238 tonnes MTOW of the A332. A stretched version having the same MTOW could replace the A333. Due to engines having at least 15 percent lower sfc than the ones on the current A330, the fuel volume in the wing could be significanly lower than the A330 wing, which btw, has sufficient wing fuel volume for the A343 (too much really for the A332). Lower fuel volume requirements in the wing — assuming the wing is A330-sized — means that the front spar can be tapered much more between the engine mounts and the centre wing box (i.e. outer wing front spar having a much lower angle of attachment to the centre wing box front spar than what’s the case for the A330/A340 wing).

      The centre wing box of the current A330 wing is about 5.35 m long ( fuselage x-axis); or the equivalent of 10 x 21″ (0.535 m) fuselage frames. In comparison, the centre wing box of the A350 is about 5.08 m long (fuselage x-axis); or the equivalent of 8 x 25″ (0.635 m) fuselage frames. Clearly, therefore, the centre wing box for an A350 derived A332-sized aircraft should have a smaller centre- wing- box. Perhaps the equivalent of 5 x 25″ fuselage frames would do. Consequently, the weight of the wing, even if it’s A330-sized, would be significantly lighter than the A330 wing.

      Interestingly though, it just might look like that an A332neo outfitted with two scaled down TXWB derived engines, could have a range of 8200 nm +(pax only), as well as having a fuel consumption rate similar to that of the 788.

      • And btw, I see no reason for Airbus to cancel the A358 even if it were to become an ULH aircraft only. The cabin is only a couple of meters shorter than the 77L. The A358 will have almost as much range (possible 268 MTOW version) as that of the 77L (minus the option of having three extra lower deck fuel tanks), but it will be using far less fuel flying ULH flights; or those sector lengths close to ULH in duration.

      • 1)Care to explain where my “story keeps changing”….???I have incessantly stated there are a multitude of factors which makes a plane feel “roomier”..

        2)What you are wanting is a multi-billion dollar investment on the A332NEO. Boeing could have gone with a B767XNG (as proposed by Airinsight.com) which would have been an excellent plane as well. There is a reason why Boeing (and Airbus as well) has decided that it doesn’t want to go in that direction. Costs, resources, ect. Also, Boeing have stated the base B787(B788) is the smallest-sized twin carriers are wanting now. Airbus have stated the same thing along those lines.

  18. Uwe :By your reckoning the 777 is nothing more than a 767 with slightly guppyized center fuselage adding some scaled up parts from the 757. ( which problably isn’t all that far off the mark )
    No wonder they could deliver on time. But why then did Boeing need twice the planned amount of money to getthere?
    The 787 rides on the evacuation certificate of the 767.So viewed through your rosy glasses it is nothing more than another 767 with a bit less of blowup applied and some trusty old metal replaced with “plaste” ( just like the prewar DKW F8 derived GDR Trabant
    Should I talk about “absolutely innovative and superior US tech” that is nothing more than a cheap (often foreign) copy or derivation ?

    About the only thing the B-767 and B-777 share is the Boeing name. There is nothing slight about the differences and the B-777 is a lot more than a “guppyized center fuselage adding some scaled up parts from the B-757”. You are way off the mark. The fuselage is much, much wider on the B-777 (in fact it is even wider than the A-350 XTRA WIDE BODY), the wings are very different, as are the landing gear, and you cannot fit the engines under the wing of a B-767 (or an A-330 or A-350). The same with the differences of the B-767 and B-787. Boeing now builds WBs in 4 different fuselage widths, and several different lenghts, from the B-767-2C to the B-747-8I. Boeing has been building 4 WB fuselage widths since 1994. Airbus currently builds only two different fuselage widths, A-300/-310/-330/-340 and the A-380. Next year they will complete the first of the 3rd WB width in the A-350.

    Boeing builds the B-767 in 3 different lenghts, the B-777 in 2 (this may change), the B-747 in 2 (well, currently in 1), and the B-787 in 2 (maybe a 3rd). The most versital Airbus model, the A-330/-340 is (was) built in 4 different fuslage lenghts, the A-300 in 2, A-310 and A-380 in just 1 (the A-380 maybe in 2).

    For Airbus, I believe this shows a cookie cutter approach to designing new WBs, until the A-380 and A-350 finally came along.

    • Push a button and see what happens.
      Nice story, TB, but afaics not really from this world.
      They say satire and irony are lost on the internet : true.

      This world:
      777 and 767 seem to share section 41 ( but not the stuffing )
      They share setup of the hydraulics.
      By aero the 777 is a scaled up 757 i.e. similar profiles, stuff like that.
      by and large the 777 is the bigboned sister of the nonidentical twins
      Miss 757 and Miss 767 😉
      FBW added, you can’t go without FBW in these days.

      See you tomorrow.

  19. OV-099 :
    IMO, if Airbus chooses to go with a new engine option A330 it should provide for minimum change.
    ….
    Flattened frames from about knee to head height would provide an additional 4 inches of space at armrest level.

    Anything beyond a minimum change upgrade will probably not be effective investment.
    A new cabin certainly can work magic on any old geezer. But does Airbus still deliver the 1092 cuture? ( the reduced weight sells. Not the mood lighting )

    http://blog.flightstory.net/wp-content/uploads/a350-cabin-design6.jpg
    Uwe, a derated TXWB is too big for the A330. Not that it cant’t conceivably be fitted to the wing (A330 sits higher than the 787), but it’s too heavy and will induce too much extra drag in comparison to the Trent-1000. An A332neo using a scaled down TXWB having a 108 inch fan would have lower form drag on both the fuselage and engine when compared to the 788.

    What engine is thought to be the best base to modify for a reengine?

    Have to ask: How far does the current A330 sfc offering actually lag the current innovation front ( Trent1000, Trent XWB ) ? 10% ??

    • By retaining the wing and cockpit Airbus could seemingly afford to maximise cabin enhancements. As for the engines, according to RR:

      The Trent engines for Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 XWB will be the most fuel-efficient engines ever produced by Rolls-Royce. Their cruise fuel consumption will be up to 15 per cent lower than the previous generation of turbofans.

      That’s 15 percent lower sfc for the TXWB vs. the Trent-800 and 12 percent lower sfc for the Trent-1000 vs. the Trent-800. Trent-800 is similar in sfc to the Trent-700 (page 4):

      http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/trent_env_tcm92-5900.pdf

      • Looks like we are back to square one:

        The A330-200lite and A350MK1 would certainly have had their very competitive place in the market if the Dreamliner mass hypnotisation hadn’t existed.
        Airbus position at the time was factually correct.
        It only rode the wrong meme 🙁 which Airbus realised rather late. Understandably. They thought that they were dealing with professionals and not ohh and ahhhing kids after all!

      • True, but an A330-lite/MK1 offered with a new engine option having a decade more advanced engine technology than that of the 788, would in all likelihood become an even more formidable competitor to the 788.

  20. The A-350 Mk. I, a reengined A-332, was soundly rejected by most airlines 5 years ago. By the time that Airbus can get around to reengining the A-330 it will be a 30 year old airplane, with few updates over that period (it has had some). An A-330RE would be more compititon for the A-358 than it will for the B-788.

    • Well, 6 years later airlines such as Qantas in all likelihood would agree that in 2005/2006 they were caught up in the tremendous drug-like rush of the 787.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-miss-787-performance-spec-albaugh-354340/

      He adds: “I feel pretty comfortable that over time we’ll be able to get to [14,800km (8,000nm) range].” However, adds Albaugh, “When that date’s going to be, I can’t tell you.”

      A 238 tonnes MTOW A330neo, outfitted with an 108-inch fan-diameter scaled down TXWB-derived engine having a decade more advanced engine technology than that of the 788 — and possibly sharklet-type winglet devices — should have a range in excess of 8300 nm. And remember, we are still not talking about an A350 MK2 that was to have CFRP wings.

      Never mind the basic design at EIS would be 30 years old. The A332 <b<circular cross-section fuselage is still an efficient structure at lenghts equivalent to the the the cabin lengths of the A332 and A333. Also, what people repeatedly seems to forget is the fact that any 77W-derivative will obviously induce more fuselage drag than the A350, while the A330 will always induce less fuselage drag than the 787 due to the smaller cross-section, and that the current A330 is performing as well as it does today, partly because it’s optimised for “medium” range.

      • You are making the utter nonsense assumption that there would be no engine technology update/upgrades done on any of the B787 engines (nor the plane itself).

  21. KC135TopBoom :
    By the time that Airbus can get around to reengining the A-330 it will be a 30 year old airplane, with few updates over that period (it has had some).

    By the time Boeing can get around to re-engining the B-737 it will be a 40-year-old airplane (original EIS with LH in 1968).

  22. KC135TopBoom :
    By the time that Airbus can get around to reengining the A-330 it will be a 30 year old airplane, with few updates over that period (it has had some).

    By the time Boeing can get around to re-engining the B-737 it will be a 50-year-old airplane (original EIS with LH in 1968).

    Sorry, should have done my math more carefully …

  23. Jacobin777 :
    You are making the utter nonsense assumption that there would be no engine technology update/upgrades done on any of the B787 engines (nor the plane itself).

    As of today the 787 hasn’t even reached tech status expected for 2008 and it won’t reach that level before ~LN90. When weight and engine sfc have been fixed to spec the Dreamliner will be a well rounded 2008 EIS plane : Unfortunately _6_ years late.
    If Airbus can adapt the XWB engine they have a platform that keeps ahead of the Trent1000 by 5..6% sfc and no restrictions on engine dimensions i.e. quite a different setup from the already hobbled 737 engine upgrade as answer to the A320.

  24. You are making the utter nonsense assumption that there would be no engine technology update/upgrades done on any of the B787 engines (nor the plane itself).

    With all due respect, isn’t it you who are making a nonsensical inference from what I wrote?

    I was primarily talking about a possible A332 neo and what state-of-the-art engine technologies in the year 2014, or later, would do to the range of the aircraft. The interesting part however, is that such a new engine option will increase the range of the A332 from 7000 nm +, to beyond the “magical” 8000 nm.

    Now, since you want to talk about the 788: Yes, the current engines will be given PIPs over the next decade. However, as with all older generation engines receving PIPs, we’re talking low to mid single digit enhancements. If the 788, on the other hand, was to be re-engined with new engines sporting a, let’s say, 12 percent better sfc than the current Trent-1000 (post 2025), the 788 at the original spec would turn into an ULH aircraft. In other words; a 9000 nm ranged aircraft is overbuilt; it has in all likelihood too high an internal fuel volume in its wings, which means that a competitor aircraft optimized for 8000 nm, carrying the same generation engines would have, among other things, a significantly lighter structure even if the total wing area would be the same. Hence for a re-engined 788 to successfully compete with an all new competitor aircraft post 2025 may require more than just re-engining. It may require an all new lighter wing not built to support growth models. (i.e. 789 and 787-10X).

    Since, for the nth time, the A330 was optimized for intermediate range, the smallest model has “room to grow” range-wise to 8000 + nm without being turned into an ULH “beast”. Also, keep in mind that the A330 carries around a wing that actually has too much internal fuel volume in its wings (meaning that it has got more heavy wing structure than optimal). However, that extra “unnecessary” structure on the A330 wing is seemingly cancelled out by the growth requirements of the 787 (i.e. 789 with a 251000 kg MTOW).

  25. Tim Clark at UTurn are going after the -1000 yet again in Dubai. See http://www.aviationow.com and:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3af5368756-7edd-4111-9ee1-812b39680b2a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

    The know unknown is whether B’s re-work of the 772LR will include making the plane truly competitive with the 359 and -1000. Clark is puffing what B is doing pretty hard, but it may be only “negociating in public” as Leahy recently put it. There are a lot of reasons he would want to stick with the A350s, even if they are late, the main one being that he does not want to bes dependent of B along. But he sounds pretty mad, and he loves Lars Anderson, so maybe there is an opening here for B to get a big EK order for a family of 777 PIP/new planes covering about 320 pax(A359) tp 385 pax (A346).

    • press conference slots are appearing, vanishing, reappearing … @ Dubai Airshow

      Over time playing the shy maiden may turn out to be a bore after all.

    • Tim and Al should go after Airbus. The gap between the A-359 EIS and the A-3510 EIS, as currently scheduled is some 3 years. EK and QR are saying “WTF”? I expect changes to the A-359 schedule that will actually close the 3 year gap between the two models, but the change will be a slip in the A-359 schedule, not moving the A-3510 forward. Tim is also right to complain the “new” A-3510 announced at the PAS is not the same airplane he ordered and Airbus is taking liberties with the A-3510 customers, a kind of “take it or leave it approach”. That is the same attitude EADS/Airbus has with its A-400M customers, “we know what airplane you ordered, we don’t want to build it at the price we gave you, so this is the airplane you get and at the price we tell you to pay”.

      Boeing seems to be working with EK, QR, and others on just what they want and need for the B-777X/NG/Whatever.

      • So, going by Rudy Hillinga’s narrative you think Airbus is trespassing on the Boeing proprietary business model ;-?

        A359 EIS:
        That will be quite interesting to watch in the next year and a half.
        See “take delays as early as possible” work ( or not ).

        Going by my bible in that respect “The Mythical Man Month” it should work much better than those “surf on” strategies that made a late project even later.

  26. You know I never said that, sir. Tim and Al are going by the old adage “the customer is always right”. Most modern manufactuers seems to have forgotten that. Maybe, just maybe, Boeing is going back to the day it responded to customer wants and needs, as opposed to building what they know the customer really needs? Airbus tried doing that with the customized A-380. Then as the A-380 production program slowed (it still isn’t near what they should be on a per month/per year production rate), they blamed it on “all the customization”. Now they seemed to abandoned that with the A-350 program, specificly the A-3510.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.