Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 2 April 11, 2024
- Pontifications: Boeing “transparency”–not so much. April 9, 2024
- Airbus charges and write-offs since 1999: more than €33bn April 8, 2024
Odds and Ends: Airbus, Boeing trade barbs–again; Airbus raises order goals; first 787-10 commitment
More tit-for-tat: Airbus and Boeing are engaged again in their pointless trading of barbs. But it makes for entertaining reading.
Here’s what Boeing had to say. The relevant excerpt is from the Bloomberg report: Airbus doesn’t “have an airframe that can compete” with the 777X, the upgraded version of Boeing’s biggest twin-engine plane, Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney said at an investor conference today. “They don’t have the appetite to do a ground-up airplane, and they’d have to do a ground-up airplane.”
Considering the 777X itself is a derivative, we find McNerney’s comment kind of snarky. But he is right that Airbus doesn’t have a competing airplane to the 777-9X.
Here’s what Airbus had to say. The relevant except is also from Bloomberg: “The aircraft we rolled out a couple of weeks ago didn’t have rivets from Wal-Mart, like the ones our competitors had at the time off their roll-out,” Tom Enders, the chief executive officer of Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., told investors at the annual shareholders meeting today. “It’s a real aircraft.”
Airbus raises order goal: Here’s the story.
First 787-10 Commitment: As we’ve long reported, Singapore Airlines will be a launch customer for the 787-10.
- We’ll be at Day 2 of the Boeing PAS briefing today. Everything is embargoed until June 14 except for the briefing on the 737 MAX, at 2pm PDT.
Watch this blog for live updates (on the assumption Boeing will give media access to the Internet at the time, which it did yesterday at a different location). - Well, Boeing didn’t have Internet access today for us. So much for the live updates. See a new post for this information.
“The aircraft we rolled out a couple of weeks ago didn’t have rivets from Wal-Mart, like the ones our competitors had at the time off their roll-out,” ..
Boys boys boys … this is NOT a game of ‘ mine is bigger than yours ‘ or ‘ your mom wears combat boots ‘ .
BA may not have had rivets by Wal- mart- but they did have all parts made by lowest bidder, designed by whose on first ..
Yes, Major Tom got that all wrong (i.e. not rivets, but fasteners; not Wallmart, but Home Depot and Ace Hardware).
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/11/the-little-fast/
Interesting article you listed. But obviously written and diagrammed by someone clueless as to fastener heads, burrs, and effects
even pan head ‘bolts’ like the one shown have a radi.us between shank and head- NOT square corners
In metal, – especially in Ti, the entrance burr is trivial- but the EXIT burr can be a problem. Normally, a radius tool is used instead of a chamfer for several reasons – difficult to make a tool to cut a square edge when used by hand for but one reason.
Back to the fastener head game. Putting the so called burr in compression either by the shank or by the radius of the shank to head is not bad except in worst case causing head to not seat.
Compression loading of the edge and of the fastener hole ( shank to hole ) is a proven advantage re fatigue life. Thus ( in metals ) interference fit fasteners have been used for decades. The classic taper fit fasteners used on B-52 called taper lok is one such example
Further- a technique called ‘ cold- working ‘ by passing a mandrel-sleeve combination thru the hole has been used for about 40 plus years at Boeing- well proven to enhance fatigue life IN METALS.
(check an outfit called fatigue technology – whom I know very well since my next desk mate in the 60’s was the inventor of the sleeve coldworking process in the late 60’s – and I developed a simpler to use installation tool in the early 80’s which is still AFIK the standard.
But the game changes when trying to do the same thing in composites- and thats where Boeing seduced fido by offloaoding and not realizing the time required to certify and PRODUCE sufficient quantity of fasteners to a new- different standard.
Thus the article had a few grains of truth- but considerably mixed/misleading explanations.
Not that it makes any difference now.
Hi Don
The level of accuracy of a simplified fastener diagram (i.e. from flightglobaldotcom/Flightblogger), trying to explain how fasteners are used in composite fuselage construction, was actually not the issue here, but thanks anyway for sharing your expertise.
Don,
I don’t quite understand why you went on about cold working as it had nothing to do with any story mentioned here. As OV-99 pointed out, there is a great big “Simplified” labeled on the figure in question, which actually was copied for Jon Ostrower’s Flightblogger article, which was also quoted as a reference for more detail on the fastener situation. If you also want to be picky, you could mention the lack of washers in the diagram as well.
What surprises me is that all holes are not deburred as part of the drilling process. I understood that to be a common industry practice, just for exactly the reason mentioned, to avoid burrs from being sandwiched between structure and fastener. Maybe someone at Boeing decided it was a good way to save time and money by limiting the use of this practice.
I also wonder how much of an issue this will be in service as some of these holes have potentially been already oversized two times. If they have a problem in the future, it could lead to much bigger repairs than originally envisioned.
The 787-10 launch commitment news release is accompanied by a 30 plane top-off of 359s. To my mind, launching a derivative on 30 orders from an airline that is simultaneously increasing their order book with 30 more of your competitor’s model (bringing total orders to 70) is not exactly a public relations coup.
Boeing needs to shut up and execute for a while. Well, they really, really, really need to execute, but shutting up couldn’t hurt.
Even more significantly: I think this is the end of the 777X within SIA. I think they will be in the minority and a lot of airlines will go for the 777X, but SIA I can see. I can not believe that the have 9-abreast A350 on most routes and a more cramped 10 abreast on their “premium” longest range routes. And if you go 9 abreast, the A350 does the job better than the 777X.
I would not be surprised either to see CX skipping the 777X
I have a different opinion to Leeham as I think the 777-9X is Boeing’s competitor to the A350-1000.. They are closer in capacity that the official, nominal seat counts of 350 and 407 would imply. Both those numbers are fantasies but the Boeing one is even more fantastical than the Airbus one.
In Singapore’s configuration, the 777-300ER has 278 seats. The A350-1000 would have a similar number of seats – the exact number depending on galleys and door arrangements. I would expect a 777-9X in a similar configuration to carry 12 to 20 extra passengers.
The only airline I can think of for which the 777-9X is a slam dunk is Emirates, because it carries a relatively high percentage of economy passengers in a dense arrangement, and because it is always looking for bigger planes.
The other airlines will do the fuel burn calculations and I expect more to choose the A350-1000 than the 777-9X.
The 787-10, on the other hand, will sell like hotcakes.
Let’s pick up the ball and go home!!! The game is over and SQ and CX, and AF/KLM, QR, LF, and EK will all choose not to buy the 777X. Why? Because Airbus has the A350-1000 and it’s the best thing going!! You people are so good at killing programs. Few days ago the 787-10 was a joke because there were no orders. Now what, just fringe order from a fringe airline!!
Keep reading these pages and we’ll see more of the fringe customers placing orders. No one said anything about the expected delivery date of 2018 for the 787-10? Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and ACE better crank up the production line because a big order is about to come your way. Oh, and Boeing should be real scared when the first announced 787-10 order was made in conjunction with a A350 add on. Three 787s before 2020, no plan for a replacement for the highly successful A330 family and the party should end at 10 PM? Okay then.
“Let’s pick up the ball and go home!!! The game is over and SQ and CX, and AF/KLM, QR, LF, and EK will all choose not to buy the 777X.”
Nonsense. We were talking about SQ and CX likely not wanting to go 10 across in a triple seven. AF/KLM and EK already do.
IMO the 787-10 looks great for e.g. intra Asia and US TransCon. At 9 abreast it should offer great CASM. After this SQ commitment I expect a quick launch, Paris?
Boeing will no doubt have a party after this SQ commitment. Until 10 PM or so..
The 787-10 is a snappy dog. Whatever you say the A330-300 did for the 777-200ER, that is what the 787-10 will impose on the A350-900.
“that is what the 787-10 will impose on the A350-900.”
How so?
The MTOW of the A359 is only 7 percent greater than that of the 787-10, the OEWs of the respective aircraft should be in the same ballpark while the A359 is using later generation engine technologies. In comntrast, the MTOW of the 777-200ER is 26 percent greater than the MTOW of the A330-300 (i.e. 235 tonne version), the OEW of the 777-200ER is 12 percent greater than that of the A330-300, and finally, the 777-200ER used later generation engine technologies as well. Hence, the 777-200ER vs. A330-300 comparison is IMO not applicaple to the A350-900 vs. 787-10 comparison. The A350-900 therefore, will IMO thus have few problems competing with the 787-10 even on intermediate ranged sector lengths.
It seems quite obvious that SQ will use their 70 strong A350-900 fleet on both long range non-stop flights to Europe, one stop flights to North America and on intra-Asian routes in order to ensure minimum aircraft ground-time and maximizing air-time, optimum use of facilities and human resources.
Boeing will do fine with the 777x if the market still exists for large liners. Considering that there is little to no domestic widebody service and the A320 and 737 cover it all, I could see a future where the long haul market downsizes to the 789 and the A359 and leaves the 777x high and dry. Maybe that won’t happen, but something to think about before investing x-teen billion dollars.
Hahaha, Airbus had a very humorous hit back, I like to watch they comment on each other.
The news is not that SQ is ordering 30 87-10 s ; it is that it is topping up 350 orders with another 30 , that is a telling statement to Boeing re 777 X. Not sure Boeing can talk of “boxing” 350 that easily.You are going to see a more even wide body share unlike the domination of 300-ER. SQ/CX and BA may fly 350 for long range than Boeing. Reluctance to invest and not executing 787 are giving away premium customers to Airbus.
“The aircraft we rolled out a couple of weeks ago didn’t have rivets from Wal-Mart, like the ones our competitors had at the time off their roll-out…”
Cheap shut!
It should read “cheap shot”. This is the kind of comment I am tired of hearing from both sides. Especially at the CEO level.
Its a fair point, though.
Agree, Enders shouldn’t have reacted on McNerney’s half truths and full provocations. There was no reason to do so.
Now all we have to wait for is the official launch of the B-7810X at the PAS. My guess is there will be additional orders soon. Maybe even a launch order for the B-777-9X, too (EK) in Dubai later this year?
Launch without a bird is too much hat and not enough cattle.
And now official per Airbus:
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/press.20130530_airbus_sia_a350xwb.html
What about Scoot being the Boeing customer and SQ being the Airbus customer? No wait that can’t happen because how in the world will SQ ever figure out what to use as a replacement for those leased A330s? Maybe nine abreast 787-10s for both the Scoot and the SQ fleet? And those leases end in 6 years. Will Airbus have a replacement product for them by then?
“And those leases end in 6 years. Will Airbus have a replacement product for them by then?”
Yes, the A350-900! BTW, those leases don’t end at the same time.
“Maybe nine abreast 787-10s for both the Scoot and the SQ fleet?”
Yes, it could happen. Nine abreast on a 787 on short SQ intra-Asian routes would probably not damage the brand. 😉
Cheap Shot, maybe but the Busboys are moving product to market and at this point it looks good, very good!
Well cheap shot or not, besides getting where Boeing got their fasteners wrong(Home Depot not Walmart), was there any untruth or word twisting in what he said? Nope. In fact I’m actually surprised it’s taken Airbus this long to pull out this shot, but I guess they wanted to(smartly) wait for their own successful rollout before taking shots at the competition’s
Personally I don’t see why people get a bit shirty about this comment. As you mentioned, he did not rewrite the history…
Because it is coming from the CEO. The dirty work should normally be left to the sales rep. The pleasure should have been saved for John Leahy. It is his specialty after all.
Wait PAS starts, John will catch his wave. 🙂
B betting on 787 and 777X families seems to be safe in terms of having competitive offers in almost every corner of the widebody segment. Not each one of the derivatives will be hugely successful and the market might bring a few unpleasant for B surprises, but overall B’s approach looks prudent.
“Airbus and Boeing are engaged again in their pointless trading of barbs.”
What is a bit pointless is comparing the two quotes without the proper context and knowing the actual questions that were asked. I can hardly imagine that Major Tom said it as he sat down for the press conference, before the journalists powered up their iPads…
Regarding McNerney’s comment:
“They don’t have the appetite to do a ground-up airplane, and they’d have to do a ground-up airplane.”
The irony is that Boeing themselves have no plane to compete with -1000 without starting from scratch. So what?
This one still makes me laugh… “We’ve got them boxed in on the A350”. By the same logic Airbus has them boxed in between A350-1000 and the A380, So what?
“EADS hikes Airbus order goal”
Set the bar low and then keep raising it! I think we will see some surprises during PAS 2013.
Moreover: “Airbus doesn’t “have an airframe that can compete” with the 777X”, what criteria is he using? Range, payload, MTOW, CASM, length of the fuselage, looks?
Not nonsense- but simply let’s wait and see who buys the a/c and not kill it before she gets a chance to get to market.
Yes, nonsense; your diatribe, that is. 😉
I know they don’t end at the same time, but if they are all six year leases, that may have driven SQ’s comment to have the -10X coming on line in 2018. Timing fits the return of the first group of A330s. Does that make sense?
Possible, but not very likely IMHO. And SQ is still taking delivery of A333s.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bycac/8560901668/in/photostream/
–
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-to-launch-787-10x-with-order-for-30-386486/
Engines are the same generation. The point is that when the A330-300 came along in its 5 interation the a/c was made for larger volume shorter routes and it killed the -200ER. Now the slightly smaller 787-10 comes along and has the potential of doing the same thing to the A350-900 for regional travel. United plans to config them with 319 seats. So when you say 7%, that percentage might be a deal breaker for select routes, and if that is the case the 787-10 has the potential of being more versatile than the A350-900 across a much broader network. Yes they are very close but if either has a much sweeter operating spot than the other, that one wins. Again, the A350-900 has not flown and the airlines have no datapoints. The 787-8 has flown and the airlines have datapoints. Let’s see what happens.
The Trent-XWB engine on the A350 is one generation beyond that of the Trent-1000 on the 787 (i.e. among other things, two stage Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine on the Trent-XWB; one stage IP turbine on the Trent-1000 and on all previous generation Trents and RB211s).
The point is that one, it’s probably going to be a tossup of which aircraft, the A359 or the 787-10, will have the lowest Direct Operating Cost per intermediate ranged trip (DOC per trip) — where DOC equals fuel cost, flight deck and cabin crew cost, total airframe maintenance cost, total engine maintenance cost, landing fee, navigation fee (for international flights), depreciation, interest, and insurance — while the DOC per seat/mile will be slightly lower on the 787-10; and that second, most if not all airlines prefer to fly their long-haul aircraft on short and/or intermediate ranged flights as well in order order to ensure minimum aircraft ground-time and the maximization of air-time.
The Trent-XWB, as most Trents (save the Trent-800), is just the latest version of the RB-211. As we all know, the RR RB-211 is of the same generation as the JT-9D and CF-6 engines, which began in the late 1960s. The Trents are 3 spool engines just like the RB-211.
The GEnx engines are a development of the GE-90 engines, which is from the 1990s. The GE-90, nor GEnx was not developed from the CF-6 engine.
Well, that is not entirely true… The Trent family retains the architecture of the RB211, but not much else. In the same way as the GE90 and GEnx follows the design philosophy laid out by the CF6: two spool engines with multiple rows of variabel stators in the compressor, two stage HPTs and slow spinning LPTs with 5+ stages. Add composite fan blades and fan casing to the GE90 and GEnx. Add static frames for loads carrying between LPC and HPC. In fact, architecture wise, not much has happened from the CF6 to the GEnx (and to the GE9X for that matter), apart from introduction of the mid turbine frame in the GE90 (the overhung HPT in the CF6 was perhaps not the best design, and the longer LPTs needed a second support point).
The Trent basic architecture is three spools, with only one row of variable stators in the compressor (on the IPC as it happens), usuallty one stage HPT and IPT (Trent XWB is a first with a two stage IPT for better efficiency) and 5+ stage LPTs. The also have wide chord hollow titanium fan blades, and has load frames between fan and IPC, between IPC and HPC and between IPT and LPT.
RR’s philosophy gives them lighter engines (for comparable BPR’s) that are also shorter (makes them stiffer, which is better) than those from GE (compare weight on GE90 and Trent800 for example). The added complexity of an extra shaft on the other hand makes the engines more diffciult to design as the interior space is more limited and also a little more difficult (or laborious) to maintain.
The criteria is known as the ‘ foot in mouth’ procedure as explained by Chicago power point rangers and Edsel salespersons
Can we keep this a mature discussion and not an A vs B flamefest?
A simple clarification for those who think that “if you are not with me you are against me”: With this order I can not see the 777X in the SQ portfolio. Simple reasons:
– They have 70 A350 on order and 20 options. That is sufficient for the long distance fleet
– I was wondering if SQ would go for a relatively spacious layout similar to their 407 seat A380 for the very long distance high yield routes like the US, or if the A350 could fill that role.I think this order confirms that SQ thinks that the A350 can fill this role.
You can bet that Boeing pushed hard and is still pushing hard for the 777X in the SQ fleet and you can bet that SQ is listening and doing their own detailed evaluations on the best available knowledge. And this will have gone on for a long time.
In SQ config, it seems that the A350 is the best fit and the claim “Airbus doesn’t “have an airframe that can compete” is proven to be incorrect. In the EK config, it is most likely that the 777X is the better option. Both the A350 and 777X will sell lots of frames. And I agree that this “boxed in” notion is an unrealistic oversimplification of what airlines are looking for.
I think it is a great time being an airline. Both Airbus and Boeing have great products and there is real competition – more than there has been at any point in time in the widebody arena. Just listen to the interview with Tim Clark: he needs both Airbus and Boeing and both Airbus and Boeing need him (more). Nothing like “I like X better than Y”. And the consequence is that there is now some real negotiation power with the airlines, in the same way there has been in the NB segment. And for the industry as a whole, that is a good thing.
Nicely put.
Agreed, nice to see the objective conclusion. However I think he is just a little periods of uncomfortable, the result of moods, about the SQ orders numbers of the A350 at the same time as being the launch customer of the 787-10 and others are making jokes along with the shots.
Discussions in last comments has mostly reached common view that the words from McNerney at the investor conference need not be taking serious.
In my opinion comparisons on planes with similar characteristics should be based on the situations of specific airlines, it means the word ‘accurate’ make more sense to the simply ‘better’.
Pretty good summary.
Well, the 787-10 starts to play its role to contain possible runaway success of the A350-900XWB. http://wp.me/piMZI-2gD
A late start, the 787-10 was first proposed in 2005, the A333 sold 700 since and the A359 counter stands at 500..
SQ is keeping the door slightly open for the 777-9X, only mentioning the possible conversion of A350-900s into A350-1000s. However Boeing is in definately in a weaker negotiation position by now.
Indeed, no reason at all. Except for the half truths and full provocations.
McNerney got exactly what he was looking for, and he more than deserved it!
Let’s also not forget the infamous statement a week or two before the year’s arguably top airshow , and I can’t be bothered to find the exact quote so I shall paraphrase, I promise the 787 will fly in the next couple of weeks. We all remember how that all ended!
All these bashing the occasional barb from Airbus execs should keep in mind all the Boeing jabs and jibes.
Please note also that at the time, Airbus was quite understanding and supportive of Boeing’s problems with the 787 as well as the whole battery issues.
I thought it provided Airbus with a nice PR advantage, smoothly selling NEO’s & XWBs to Boeing operators. Letting the other guys kick & scream over their declining NB marketshare, 787 grounding and 777X promises.
Never interrupt a competitor making the wrong noises as Sandilands said.
IMO Enders, Bregier & Leahy should refrain from negative PR.
Occaisonal barb from Airbus??? Wow, are you ever sucking down the koolaid by the gallon. The news item here isn’t that Airbus made a wisecrack, that’s normal and quite common, it’s that McNerney is getting more punchy with Airbus. He’s right by the way… Airbus doesn’t have anything in the 777X category, and they would have to develop an all new plane to compete. If you’d take off your Airbus Cheerleader sweater and put down your pompoms you might see that.
Airbus was more or less “understanding” with the battery, despite several comments from Bregier about how his batteries don’t burn, yada yada yada. Right… keep guzzling that koolaid there dude.
Every presentation Airbus makes always mentions Boeing. They are fixated on them. But very rarely does a Boeing presentation mention Airbus. Airbus just can’t help themselves.
“Every presentation Airbus makes always mentions Boeing. They are fixated on them. But very rarely does a Boeing presentation mention Airbus. Airbus just can’t help themselves.”
Howard, with all due respect, who’s drinking the Kool Aid now? Tinseth always, always, always mentions Airbus. The PAS and Farnborough briefings mention Airbus. BCC presentations always mention Airbus. Boeing just can’t help themselves.
The 777-9x will put pressure on A380 sales, probably put a complete embargo on them. But Airbus can respond, with a re-enigined A380-900 and move the pieces on the chess board.
Even today, your ridiculous fanboy assertions(yes I said it) are being debunked, seeing as Boeing again just mentioned the A320 in their MAX presentation. And “several” comments from Bregier? As far as I know, the only comment about the 787 battery situation he made that got sand in everyone’s nether regions, was made only once. Hardly “several”. If you’re going to accuse people of being biased, you might want to try being balanced yourself
Hopefully this isn’t contravening the blog’s “no personal attacks” rule or whatever.
re the fastener issue – I was focusing on the so called burr issue and indirectly on the ‘ threaded shank hole issues mentioned
A)
“The first problem stems from the holes drilled to affix titanium and carbon fibre together. When holes are drilled into titanium, a burr is often left on the edge of the entry side of the hole. Because of the extraordinary strength of titanium, when a fastener is installed in the hole, the head will sit on the burr rather than flush against the surface.”
B) And ” In some situations where the fastener is too large, too much force can damage the fastener during installation by threading the shank rather than sitting flush against the surface undermining the entire fastener system. ”
c) And the methods used as mentioned “The re-training of Boeing staff covers preparation of the holes after they are drilled prior to fastener installation. Typically, after a hole is drilled the edges of the hole are slightly sloped to remove any possible debris or irregularities and creating a symmetrical sloping surface at edge of the hole. ”
” There are generally four methods of preparation, all essentially identical with increasing size. In size order from smallest to largest a hole can have a deburr, fillet relief, chamfer or countersink to accommodate a fastener.
A) The EXIT burr and sometimes the interface burr in titanium are the biggest problem, the entrance burr in titanium is minimal. Interface burrs usually due to parts not being firmly clamped together while drilling.
B) As written- makes little sense since the OD of them threads is less than the OD of the fastener shank- and again in metal of any reasonable thickness, it would take much more than a push fit or even a few whacks with a rivet gun to force a fastener as described into a metal component – especially in Titanium. Of course with enough brute force, such an even could happen, but after the first or second time – even the slowest person would realize the problem- and what about quality control ?? Torquing the fastener in such a whole would be near impossible in a metal structure.
C) yes, that is the normal practice for ‘ bolts” such as Hi-locks, Hucks, etc. in metal structure on the entrance and or exit depending on access. exit deburrring is rarely done on machine ( gemcor) riveting of metal.
And as I said, the game changes when a sandwich of composite and titanium ( or aluminum in rare cases due to corrosion issues ) is drilled and fastened during assembly.
A bit more on A) Entrance ( or drillling side holes ) are usually ‘ deburred” via using a combination drill/csk or drill with a radius/chamfer as part of the drill. When done by hand, common practice for decades has been to use a combination drill ” csk” in a external ‘ cage’ which controls the depth of the radius or csk to within a few thousandths and makes a hole/deburr in one operation. Sometimes, a ‘ cage” with just a ” csk”/radius cutter is used as a second operation- again to control depth of csk or radius deburr.
I find it hard to believe that such devices were not used, or set up incorrectly for other than a few holes. Especially since the ‘ cage” is also used to keep the hole normal to the surface in the case of hand drilling.- That is unless there was NO training- NO oversight-
I guess either I should have been more explicit or simply ignored the whole mess, since the issue had long passed. But- that kind of issue should NEVER have happened in the first place. Part of the faster and cheaper and outsourcing bit that doesn’t show up in power point presentations . . .
Hey !! IF the CEO and SALES kids in first class do not calm down- we will call off the party, turn the plane around and send everyone back home 😛
A few more CX, BA and SQ like A350XWB orders,
and Boeing might be back to the drawing board.
E.g to put a bigger wing on the 787.
Ahhh, the BA ‘order’ is not an order at all, just a MOU.