Airbus provided some answers to some (but not all) of our additional questions posed in our post a week ago about the A330 and A350 “Lite” versions.
We noted that Airbus had provided Direct Operating Cost (DOC) comparisons for the A330-200/300 vs the Boeing 787-8/9 but only Cash Operating Cost (COC) comparisons for the A350-900 vs the 787-10.
Airbus provided a detailed explanation, which is below.
But we also asked Airbus what are its assumptions underlying the DOC and COC conclusions. We specifically asked about the following assumptions, since they are important elements of reaching the conclusions Airbus did:
Airbus responded with the seat assumptions for its aircraft but not for the Boeings:
Airbus also provided the assumed lease rates for the A330 and 787-8/9 but not the A350 nor the 787-10:
The A333 and 789 lease assumptions have been used since Airbus first revealed them at Innovation Days in 2011, and we wrote about those at the time. The A332 and 788 lease rates are new information.
“We have not included figures for the A359 vs 787-10 because Boeing’s own figures are currently sketchy,” Airbus said in excluding this data.
“I do not have any more info to give you at this time, but I have been advised that we may have more visibility around October,” an Airbus spokesman wrote in an email.
Because of the “sketchy” information on the 781, the spokesman wrote that absent 781 list prices (which Boeing has yet to publish), Airbus can’t calculate a DOC with capital cost.
“The A350-900 has 4% lower trip cost (COC) than the 787-10 (comparable per seat),” the spokesman wrote. “The A350-900, in its regional variant, has been specifically optimised to offer the same payload range characteristics as the 787-10. The design weights of both aircraft are very similar. In fact, in operation, with its slightly larger number of lower-comfort seats and additional passengers and stretched fuselage the 787-10 is actually heavier than the A350-900.”
Airbus also said that the A350-900’s wing is optimized for this design while the 781 wing is the same used on the smaller and lighter 788, “resulting in compromised aerodynamics that penalise fuel burn in such a large aircraft.”
(Of course, the same principals could be applied to the smaller A350-800 and the larger A350-1000, which use the same wing at the A359.)
“The newer engines of the A350-900 burn less fuel than those of the 787 which are still struggling to deliver a fuel burn level close their specification,” the Airbus spokesman adds. He said initial test flights of the A359 show fuel burn results at spec level, which he says is lower than the 787.
“Operating at a lower rating of 75,000 lbs (vs 84,000 for basic spec) for regional applications, the engines of the A350-900 will also benefit from significant reduction in maintenance cost compared to the 787-10 engines that will be operating very close to their maximum thrust capability that was designed for the 787-9,” the spokesman wrote.
the A350-1000 will get a slightly larger wing as the trailing edges will be extended.
The modification is on the trailing edge only (larger flaps and such) – thus it is not a complete optimized wing, though it should be a bit better than using more flap during cruise (as I believe both Ab and Bo do)
Snarkiness from Boeing communications last week aside (after all, everyone can have a bad day), do you find the comms from one or other of the OEMs (including Embraer et al.) significantly better than the others Scott?
Re lease rate, AFM currently shows dry rates for newest 332 at $830k, 333 at $880k, and 788 at $1100k (http://www.afm.aero/data/industry-data-list-prices-and-lease-rates?limitstart=0). Assuming AFM is correct, looks like Airbus is giving you accurate info there, albeit rounded to 1 less SF.
Scott, you are an expert in aviation and all. What do YOU think? Is the Airbus spokesperson accurate or is this just a guy trying to make their plain look good? In brief, what is YOUR take as an aviation expert?
Absent knowing the assumptions that go into the claims, we remain skeptical.
When Airbus at Innovation Days in 2011 showed a slide comparing the A333 v 789 and concluded the A333 had a $113,000/mo advantage, it used an assumption of $2.50 fuel and a 2,000nm stage length. At the time we wrote we knew of nowhere $2.50 fuel could be obtained. At $3.25 fuel and a trans-ocean 4,000nm stage length, the 789 has the advantage. Thus, on the “Lite” claims, we need to know the fuel cost assumption as critical to the claim. The stage length is important to know also but somewhat less so than fuel. DOC is directly related to the number of seats.
As for which company’s PR department is more credible, generally we find Airbus to be so. Both Airbus and Boeing play with numbers but Boeing’s claims tend to be more egregious than those of Airbus. Boeing’s claims on the 748 vs A380 border on the ridiculous if for no other reason the 748 is so much smaller than the A380 (it’s like comparing the 737-700 vs the A321); and no customer we’ve talked with believes the economic numbers publicly claimed by Boeing on the 737 vs the A320 families; they tell us the 737-800 v A320 delta is 2%, not the 8%-13% Boeing claims; that the 737-900ER is better than the A321 but the A321neo is better than the 737-9; and that the 737-8 remains about 2% better than the A320neo, not the broad delta that Boeing claims.
Woody, it is specifically on bad days that professionalism should come to the fore.
If Airbus admits the info they have on the B-7810 is “sketchy” about the list price, and possibly other info, how can they do an accurate comparison?
With enough legwork and intelligence (ie something a major business will have, Airbus & Boeing included) it is actually possible to get a pretty good idea of the cost of manufacture, the IRR set on the project and so on, enough to get a useful estimate of pricing.
Round and round we go and where we’ll stop nobody knows. Thus begins another battle between A & B and their fanboys/girls fought with meaningless, inaccurate, highly self-serving, fungible, changing-day-by-statistics that no airline takes seriously. What is clear, and seems IMHO to be important context, is that the 300-350 pax mkt 6-8500 mile range is where the two giants will collide most violently because this is where A must do well with the A350 and B must recover some ground for 772 replacement lost to the A359 and fend off as best they can the -1000’s apparent attack on their cherished -300ER monopoly. Exactly the buyers’ world all airline executives salivate for.
” Exactly the buyers’ world all airline executives salivate for.” – rather a great game of shadow boxing played to mkae all the airline executives believe that they are in a buyer’s world. Let’s have a look who is making real money at the moment: air framers and oil producers. The airlines, well not so much. You don’t have real competition with two suppliers. The fact that a buyer gets an exciting 40/50/60 percent discount off list doesn’t matter so much when the list price implies a 150% profit margin over production and allocated cost, and you’re locked into a monopoly supply for spares.
The real money is in banking ( and the ancillary activities : financing, leasing, brokering of any kind ) i.e. mostly “nonproductive” activities.
I didn’t say airlines make money. I said there can be and often is real price competition for planes, and airlines like that. No surprise.
IMHO A is jacking up 330 production and trying to do the same with the A350 (Leahy is screaming for a second production line) to get ready for the first big 787 customer to cancel its entire order and take 330s and A350s instead. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Leahy would kill for such an order, atho I have no doubt that he would give away the 330s, planning to make that money back with the deluge of orders that will follow the first major 787 defection.
I speculate about about those cancellations because I have a hunch, or a gut feeling, that B’s debacle with the batteries was the last straw for some customers. Certainly they as well as many others including me asked, How in the world could B, after all the battery trouble during testing (Laredo and the factory burned to the ground), have let those planes out the door with no solid container encasing the lithium batteries? If B “nailed it” with it’s solution, why not “nail it” before delivering the planes? (Actually, I think it was Sennet who testified that they actually did “nail it” by driving a nail through the battery to test it.) Shortly after the JAL batery problem in BOS, their new president gave an interview saying that it was “unnatural” for JAL to depend on just one supplier for wide bodies.
And right now Leahy is arguing that the 787’s systems are not mature and are therefore unreliable and will take millions to evolve into regular reliability. We shall see.
Looking at the “Regional” markets, apparently defined as up to 5000NM’s we have seen the same a decade ago. The succesful long range 777-200ER vs the A330-300. Roughly same passenger and cargo capasity in similar configurations.
In the end the leaner lighter A333 won on “Regional” flights because Airbus kept on improving it and the 787 was too late to fill in the deliveries in the 2003-2013 period.
The 777-200ER beat the A340-300 on long flights but stopped being ordered / delivered shortly after the A340s and lost on shorter flights to the A333. It is basicly out of production just like he A340 it beat.
Some like to draw parallels between this battle and the future A359 – 787-10 battle. Similar sized, similar cargo/passenger capasity, optimized for Regional and Long flights..
There is a difference though, that is becoming clear lately. Where the A330 weighed 20t less then the 777-200ER, the A350-900 and 787-10 weigh about the same, while the payload ranges capabilities (taking cargo further then 8 hours/4000NM) likely differ significantly (A359 can load 10t more cargo> 4500NM).
Only difference in this is that the A330 is now dated and it will have a end of life driven by the A350 family as well as the 787 family. Many have tried to fight the future, but the future will always win, and life goes on. Do you or anyone else really expect that a marketing pitch will drive a airline to buy a dated product when their competition is out there with a new fleet? Seriously, would you pass over a brand new 2013 car with all the bells and whistles to buy a brand new 1994 car with all the bells and whistles of that era? If you say yes because one is a Benz versus a Toyota. well good for you and the horse you have tied to the post outside your home.
A very sound basic design, the FBW possibilities leveraged by a significant amount of inhouse TLC has provided for rather gracefull ageing in the A330.
A330-300 is overtaking the gap-filler A330-200 in sales.
I’d buy a 20 year old design over today’s designs in cars. Bells and whistles are a bunch of overpriced junk. Maybe it is the same with aircraft. The A330-300 and 767-300ER may be high quality machines that will never be equaled again in some respects. Get them before they’re gone, like the 757, I’m sure they’ll hold their value.
Lets realize the FBW A330/340 is a lot older then the 777: 2 years. I would be interested if you have the same feelings about the 777. Lets avoid the 737MAX, 747-8i background here..
About the future of the A330. It was declared dead when the 787 was launched. Anyone saying otherwise just didn’t understand. Sold 800 since then.
If they put on sharklets, x%, new engines, xx%, do internal stretching towards 9 abreast, CASM x%, price / lease, xx%, dunno..
Fair point that 330 is dated but a) I can think of plenty of examples where newer isn’t better, and b) if I was the CEO of an airline I’d sack anyone (assuming the law allowed me to) who bought something just because it had ‘today’s bells and whistles’. Before anything else what they are buying needs to be fit for purpose, which as a result of very late deliveries, battery groundings etc. I’d argue the 787 hasn’t been.
Anyway, fingers crossed Boeing get the 787 get fully on track and to a point where Airbus need to do a major refresh and in turn Boeing need to refresh etc so we can all benefit.
(Of course, the same principals could be applied to the smaller A350-800 and the larger A350-1000, which use the same wing at the A359.)
No, the 1000 has a bigger area for his wings
Laughable that Airbus and Boeing (and airlines) always announce ludicrous “purchase” prices when touting sales. Now here we have Airbus providing lease rates (which appear accurate) from which we can derive actual prices (i.e., divide the rent by 0.0085). For example, the A330-300 at $900,000 per month indicates an actual price of $106 million.
Here we are Arthur !
Nice entry !
But we also know that the 787-8 weren’t sold for $130m. Jon Ostrower: first 400++ frames sold at an average of $87m ( +engines!?)
Then, there is no working market for 787-8 leases due to lack of availability.
We’ll make it up in the fees
The design weights of both aircraft are very similar.
Can we have an indication about what is meant by “similar“?
What is the 787-10’s MTOW and what’s the regionalized A350-900XWB’s MTOW?
The B-787-10 is to have a MTOW of 553,000 lbs. and a MLW of 445,000 lbs. The A-350-900 (non-regionalized) has a MTOW of 591,000 lbs. and a MLW of 451,000 lbs. If Airbus brings the weight down to that of the A-350-800, the MTOW would be 571,000 lbs. Still about 18,000 lbs. heavier than the B-787-10.
The A-350 would be about 3.5% heavier (using the 571,000 lbs. MTOW) than the B-787-10.
Airbus has not yet said what a ‘regionalized’ A-359 would weigh.
In a “regional” context MTOW is not really relevant.
OEW and MZFW and the resultant “payload fraction” are indicators.
( and also the differences in TSFC and aero performance )
Scott, I may have missed it, but did they tell you their fuel price assumption?
They did not, which is why we remain skeptical at this point.
That appears simplistic to me. It ignores interest cost, profit for the lessor in those 10 years, remaining asset value after 10 years, and presumably a number of other things.
Is there an industry norm for residual values in aircraft leasing?
I doubt it, it will be an assumption made by the lessor based on its experience, the current market situation, the version of the plane, and presumably many other variables.
residual values and such seem to stand in a carefully groomed biotope
with Boeing having the better hand at raising them to a full bloom.
Scott wrote a post on this some time ago.
I think there used to be a reliable rule of thumb of 25 year life span and 15% residual. But lifespans are falling, which makes residuals volatile.
It’s a tricky one, because even if a plane gets parted out after, say, 15 years if not earlier (as is happening now in some cases), it doesn’t mean its residual value is nil. It just means that the residual value of the plane as an asset is lower than that of the parts as a group of assets. So in a way, airframer monopolies in spares provision help to support the residual value of planes that are no longer competitive against newer models. But I agree that makes valuation more difficult. Regardless, I think the model proposed by Arthur is coming up with the wrong result for the purchase price, or if it happened to be right, it would be so for the wrong reasons. 🙂
The lease rate factor of 0.85% per month is a good indication of current pricing. The old norm of 1% has been eroded (sometimes as low as 0.70%) for best credits, residual expectation as interest rates have come down. Even at 0.70% the $900,000 per month translates into no more than $130 million valuation.
The takeaway is that rentals are an excellent (and fluctuating) current window on aircraft or engine value as perceived by actual investors.
Generally, but with exceptions, 10%-15% after 25 years.
MTOW includes payload, so saying its “heavier” is a kind of misplaced. We are looking at empty weights of the 787-10 and A350-900. If those are about the same we have a very different situation compared to the A333 vs 772ER situation of 10-15 yrs ago.
It would mean the A350-900 is lighter but can carry more/further.
keesje, “It would mean the A350-900 is lighter but can carry more/further.”
That’s an interesting comment. Do you have any indication on the A350-900XWB’s weight compared to the 787-10?
The regionalized A350-900XWB is the same hardware as the baseline A350-900XWB, which can fly 8,500 nm routes.
It would be interesting to understand how the A350-900XWB’s structure (and engines) get lighter than the 787-10.
Maybe the real question is why the 787-10 achieves so much less with the same weight.
keesje, I fully understand MTOW and what it means. Neither Boeing, nor Airbus have published the OEW of the B-7810 or the A-359Regional. In fact the ‘regional version’ of the A-359 isn’t even defined yet. As far as I know the ‘regional’ A-359 could very well be simply the standard A-359 with a lighter fuel load. But, as I speculated in my reply #26 it very well could have the same MTOW as the A-358, at 571,000 lbs.
Boeing is saying the B-7810 will have a max range at a full payload of about 7,000 nm. The current max range of the A-359 is about 8,400 nm, or about another 3.5 hours of flying time over the B-7810.
Airbus jumped in the ‘follow the leader’ game Boeing started with the B-7810 after Boeing got some 102 firm orders and commitments at the PAS with their proposed, but not defined A-359 ‘regional’.
– Engines will be derated to 75 000 lb, the same as the engines on the -800
– MTOW will be reduced from 268 to 250 tons (versus 259 tons for the -800)
The derated engines will reduce the MTOW to 259 tons and a fuel load limit will reduce it further to 250 tons.
You can find more information here: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_29_2013_p31-600094.xml&p=1
Airlines pay landing fees according to MTOW. So for airlines that don’t need the range, but want fleet commonality, they could opt for the regional version. It has it’s engines derated by software only and it’s MTOW reduced accordingly. It could at a later point be returned to normal MTOW if needed. It’s obviously not ideal, as it’s structural weight will remain the same. Airlines would however also profit from reduced maintenance cost for the engines.
I do not understand. Do you think a “regional” aircraft does not need to take off when flying from A to B?
“Regional” implies that you will not need to load fuel up to full MTOW:
The payload fraction is relevant,
i.e. how much structure to carry the payload ( and fuel )
aerodynamic and engine performance
i.e. how much fuel to carry structure plus payload for a given (short) distance.
Obviously the design MTOW imfluences the amount of structure present.
In any case MTOW is not that helpful in deducting OEW.
If I’m correct, MEW/OEW for 359 is around 115.7t (Latest know data from Airbus) and MEW/OEW for 788 is aroud 117.7t. (Boeing official data).
So in any case, 781 will be heavier than 359.
The kind of OEW estimations/ extrapolations regarding A359 and 787-10 I saw amaze me. If I assume the TrentXWB is more efficient then the Trent1000, if only because its 5 newer and uses a higher OPR and BPR. Airlines switch big twins in operation. A 4 hour rotation in the morning can be followed by a flight to Asia in the afternoon. That worth something IMO.
Aircraft ranges full load, meaning passengers only, are a useless metric. Specially because long ranges mean Asia and Asia means cargo.
Am I reading this correct? How can an airplane with a wider fuselage, longer in length (A359) and ever larger wings than the B788 be lighter? If that is true, Boeing better get back to the drawing board very very fast.
The 115.7 tonnes is the MEW (which means no interior fittings, seats, galleys, crew, fluids, etc.) of the A-359. The OEW is much, much higher higher and will be dependent on the airline configuration.
The B-788 has an OEW of 117.7 tonnes its MEW is around 107 tonnes.
OEW = MEW + SI + OI
OEW-Operating empty weight
MEW-Manufactures empty weight
So Bob is incorrect, but you, JTrippe are correct.
How much tons does the double stretch add to the 787-10 MEW?
With the MEW of the 787-9 it would be a walk in the park to extrapolate that, right?
Btw this is a different Bob writing 😉
but If it is anywhere near 8.7 tons, then the comment by Airbus would seem believable
The MEW Boeing quotes for the 788 is about 4t more than the MWE [sic] Airbus would quote for the 788. This is due to the fact that Boeing MEW amongst others does include seats for a ‘typical layout’ while Airbus MWE does not.
That is not the definition of MEW. See my reply #51.
To carry about the same number of passengers on “regional” (I’d say “medium-haul”) routes :
– the Airbus equation is : less power with the same already big wing (area) : 443 m2.
– the Boeing equation is : more power with the same already small wing (area) : 325 m2.
One or both could be right. Flight tests will tell.
But the result could be in favor of Boeing for a specific route or in favor of Airbus for another route. There are so many parameters which impacts fuel efficiency.
Finally, there could be no true winner, nothing to do with the old good time when the A340 fuel efficiency was compared with the 777 one’s.
The ASA said it agreed with Boeing that the advert was the result of extensive technical analysis and was unlikely to mislead the type of industry experts who read Flight magazine.
Nice selection to quote, how about this instead: “The intended audience would understand that the comparisons were based on modelling and assumptions, would be familiar with the method of comparison used and would seek more information before making a decision to purchase,” the ASA said.” […] “The ASA also said the information provided by Boeing in its advert would be unlikely to impact the decision-making of airlines, who are given access to vast amount of technical and supporting documentation by planemakers.”
So it’s not unlikely to mislead because its true, but because the people it’s aimed at (i.e. buyers of 4-engine jets are cleverer than believing what they read in an ad.
“So it’s not unlikely to mislead because its true, but because the people it’s aimed at (i.e. buyers of 4-engine jets are cleverer than believing what they read in an ad.”
Your argument exposes that this advert was _not directed at airline professionals_ as they obviously know better ( or the advertisers were incompetent which is improbable).
My guess is this was targeted at airline _shareholders_ and the wider financial public.
And those definitely have potential to be mislead by Boeing’s advert..
ASA error is in the assumption about the target audience.
Maybe, of maybe that’s outside their remit. In any case, it was silly by Airbus to complain in the first case.
Kind of silly of Airbus to lauch such a protest but it is there money.
The way I see it, the ASA said that nobody reading Flight would fall for the lines that Boeing was using. What is suggested is that such a protest might have been upheld had the ad been placed in a non-trade publication.
There is no point in trying to compare Airbus MWE (an A/C without a cabin) and Boeing’s MEW (an A/C with a cabin), the only reasonable comparison is the spec (“showroom”) OEWs the OEMs use in their standard range calculations. For the 787-10 it is between 130-135t and for the 350-900 between 135-140t, ie the 359 is about 5t heavier in empty weight depending on what batch one counts of both. The 359 engines are about 2-4% more efficient (once again depending on which engine one counts, TEN or not) so the A/C are pretty equal as a 6700nm “regional” (the 7000nm number for the 787-10 is not with the 323 pax cabin). More data to find in Airliners.net
@KCTB: then ask BCA what they use… they count a typical cabin layout in while Airbus does not. Therefore MWE and MEW numbers of both manufacturers are not comparable. The Boeing OEW and Airbus OWE are more apples to apples. If you don’t believe it, I can’t help you… maybe Scott can… 😉
This is how the manufacturers calculate it anyway. Yes, both don’t include the same items in their numbers.
But the issue remain the same, the real question is what is the OEW of those frames ? (MEW+SI+OI). MTOW doesn’t mean anything performance-wise.
And it looks like 788 is much closer OEW-wise to the 359 than they are MTOW-wise or even MLW-wise.
Having about 0 to 7tons (0 to 15lbs) of difference for OEW between 788 & 359 surely implies that 781 will be similar if not heavier than the 359.
There is about 5tons between 332 & 333 for a 5meters stretch, compared to 6+6 meters stretch from 788 to 781.
And considering 332 & 788 have about the same lenght & OEW, it would be quite safe to assume that the strecht for the 788 will add about 12 tons bringing the OEW difference between 359 & 781 to something between -12tons to -5tons.
Let us assume that the A350-900XWB is about 4 tonnes heavier than the 787-10. Let us assume that the trade between weight and fuel burn is something like 0.5% extra fuel burn per extra tonne (on 4,000 nm route). Let us assume that the TrentXWB’s Sfc is about 2% better than the Trent 1000 (on 787).
Let us give the benefit of the doubts on the aerodynamics and say that both A350-900 and 787-10 has the same aerodynamic efficiency.
Based on the above generous assumptions, I still do not get the meaning of “similar“. A few tonnes are still missing in the comparison of required TOW of both aircraft when they are carrying the same payload on the same mission distance.
I think the real interesting piece of info in the Airbus response is as follows:
“He said initial test flights of the A359 show fuel burn results at spec level, which he says is lower than the 787.“
If it reads as I am reading it, leaving aside the comparisons to the 787, and after 92 hours of flight testing they determined the fuel burn to be at spec, is a news in itself.
If it is actually the case, it is very encouraging, meaning they can only improve from this level going forward.
Vero Venia, as I told you on your own blog, where you simply delete posts that defuse your far from objective suggestive conclusions, you can not keep ignoring cargo payload on long flights as a metric.
“Let us give the benefit of the doubts on the aerodynamics and say that both A350-900 and 787-10 has the same aerodynamic efficiency.”
? What is your doubt? That one is more aerodynamic efficient? Why?
Kesjee, this is not just aerodynamic question. It is also OEW. 787-10 is better than A359. Many Months that you said ..
Let us accept that the A350-900XWB is lighter. Let us also accept that its aerodynamics is better. In addition, let us accept that the TrentXWB has better Sfc.
Then please tell me how come Mr Steven Udvar Hazy said the following:
“Steven Udvar-Hazy, the self-proclaimed godfather of aircraft leasing, said Boeing Co (BA).’s stretched Dreamliner has better fuel economy over Airbus SAS’s A350-900, making the new 787 attractive to airlines.
“If it’s identically configured, the -10 has a little bit of an edge on the -900,” Udvar-Hazy, 67, chief executive officer of Air Lease Corp (AL)., told reporters today at the Paris Air Show after the company agreed to buy 30 of the planes. “The -900 has a little more range, but this has lower fuel burn.””
Let’s note that Hazy’s comments were made before “Lite” truly became an alternative. But our analysis agrees with his.
“lite” or not “lite”, it is the same hardware. Same airframe, same engine, same gear thus same performance and weight.
The only difference is that the design weights and the thrust rating are adjusted (lower MTOW, lower thrust, not sure about MZFW and MLW).
Therefore, Mr Udvar Hazy’s comment is still valid if he diligently compared the two aircraft on the same payload and the same mission. Lite or not lite.
As a conclusion, if Mr Udvar Hazy, who bought both the A350-900XWB and the 787-10, said that, “The -900 has a little more range, but this has lower fuel burn.” then at least one of the aircraft performance three components (weight, aerodynamics and Sfc) of the A350-900XWB must be worse than that of the 787-10.
Somebody needs to investigate further about Mr Hazy’s statement. His statement is really strong considering the fact he has the numbers for both aircraft. Most likely, people at SIA also have the numbers too, but they have always been very tight lipped.
Here are a few guesses… Since Hazy mentions the configuration of the aircraft, he is presumably making a fuel per seat comparison. To have more seats the -10 will need to be at 9 abreast, so I would take ‘identically configured’ to mean both aircraft at 9 abreast.
Lets say the -10 has 15 more seats when at 9 abreast. Each 3 seats is roughly 1 percent of total seat count. So 15 seats gives you 5 percent straight away in a fuel per seat comparison.
That interview was also reported in flight global at the time, and Hazy’s comment actually ended with ‘although it is not as much as Boeing says it is’ referring to the -10 fuel burn delta versus the A350-900. I can’t find the original article.
My statement earlier about the 359 and 7810 being similar is for the trip fuel burn, the 7810 has a 2 m longer cabin and holds 4 LD3s positions more, thus on a per unit basis (pax or cargo) it has slightly lower fuel burn. The difference is small as Hazy says meaning other parts of the cost equation (prices, commonality costs etc) can still swing it one way or the other. The interesting part for Airbus is that they can compete in this space with a paper derated variant, should then the engines (as indicated in Airliners.net) and areo (no rumors yet other then Airbus response to Scott) come in better then spec and the overweight (3t for first batch, part of the figures above) get trimmed in later batches it will be very close indeed.
Ferpe, have you run any studies of what a 787-10 would need in terms of Extra MTOW/OEW/SFC/etc, if it was upgraded to have the same payload-range performance as the A350-900 at 268t MTOW (a 787-10ER, if you like)?
Should I conclude that the 787-10 is very slightly more efficient than the already good A350-900XWV on routes up to slightly above 6,000 nm?
The A350-900XWB is a good aircraft and it has a much better value than the 787-10 in its baseline payload-range capability.
If pricing is the only element left for the A350-900XWB to demonstrate equivalent DOC per seat-mile then Boeing will have succeeded to pull down the A350-900XWB’s value to a “degraded” level.
It still implies that the 787-10 is unbeatable in term of efficiency on routes up to 6,000 nm.
If you ignore revenue cargo I presume?
Yes I have, there is a whole thread devoted to the subject at Airlines.net . If I remember correctly a 270t MTOW with a 135t OEW and a 80klbf+ version of the T1000-TEN would give you a 8000nm frame. You would need to go to a 6 wheel MLG as a still wider spacing like the A350 has would be difficult (no space under the wing), therefore 6 wheel bogie for 787-10. The longer wingtips from the 787-9 early days is also badly needed, the wing is on the small side for 270t.
Thanks Ferpe. Quite a large work statement, it sounds like. What are the drivers for the bigger wing? Reduced drag, increase lift, additional fuel volume?
Fuel is fine, you need more span to get lower induced drag for start performance and cruise drag. You might also need a bit more area to counter transonic drag as your wingloading is pushing the levels of the 777-300ER (730 vs 780kg/m2), the result is low initial cruise flightlevels.
Steven Udvar Hazy is a great Entrepreneur with great vision and a track record of correctly predicting / leaking future developements. While he is mostly right, sometimes he is wrong & hits the wall. E.g. in 2010 stating the A320 NEO is unnecessary and the Boeing NSA will leap it. Like us he sometimes is surprized by developments and adjusts his vision.
While he is mostly right, sometimes he is wrong & hits the wall. E.g. in 2010 stating the A320 NEO is unnecessary and the Boeing NSA will leap it. Like us he sometimes is surprized by developments and adjusts his vision.
He was right. The A320neo was unnecessary at that time because it was launched way too prematurely. The A320neo launch allowed Boeing not to spend too much money on the narrowbody segment and to keep the focus on the widebody long-range segment.
The very interesting situation today is that the relative positioning between the A320neo and the 737 MAX will remain as it is with the A320 Classic and 737NG. It is simply a status quo.
Does anybody notice that the LEAP-1B takeoff thrust is “up to” 28,000 klb SLST whereas the LEAP-1A goes “up to” 33,000 klb SLST. ( http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/files/brochures/LEAPV3-def.pdf ).
Please compare the thrust level to the current thrust level on the 737NG and A320 Classic.Somebody asks for more thrust whereas the other does not. Why?
Did you notice that the current A321 has a thrust rating of 30..33klbs ?
( exact same max thrust the Leap-1A is to have )
Then, the current 737-900 requires only 27,3klbs while the 9-MAX gets 28.klbs ( +2.5%, accomodating an an increased OEW and to keep the meager runway performace in check? )
Across the sizes comparable Airbus NB types invariably have more than 1000′ better runway performance.
IMHO your argument lacks a bit of intellectual rigor 😉
VV interesting opinion.
Airbus seized market dominance, avoided some big Cseries orders, killed the NSA before it was born and convinced e.g. AA and QF to switch. Lack of available slots before 2020 has “slowed down” ordering. And prevented some further switches of major 737NG operators, sofar.
” NEO launched way to Prematurely”.
Can I say Non-sense? (fyi you can’t delete it here VV).
Steven UH has the power to adjust his view & take action too. One of the factors that made him so successful. In January he still disputed the NEO’s economics, by june the industry had convinced him otherwise and he ordered.
The market shares only tell half the story. Look at the financing dependency, spreading and amount of customers. Few blue chips.
I see new Boeing NSA initiatives within a few years. Aimed at EIS within a decade. Benefitting from new engine technology, materials and optimized for a higher capacity market.
Yes keesje. It was launched way too prematurely. It is killing the A320 Classic’s value more than ever.
VV, what do you think the A350 does for A330 market value, 777X for the 773ER, 787 for 767, Embraer E2 for Ejets? Whats your point? Maybe OEM’s, Lessors, MRO’s, Airlines and the flying public have slightly different interests?
Is the 737Max not killing the737 NG’s value as well? Its the price of progress. Perhaps you don’t think that chasing improved efficiency/fuel consumption isn’t worth bothering about, bu the hard headed professionals placing the orders for the NEO/MAX don’t seem to agree with you! – and presumably they also take into account residual values.
Roger, “Is the 737Max not killing the737 NG’s value as well?”
I believe the value of the 737NG is under pressure too. However, in 2010/2011 Boeing introduced the CFM56-7BE and also the Sky Interior that had increased its attractiveness a little bit before the arrival of the 737 MAX in 2017. You can Google about those two items if you wish. It is well documented.
The A320neo was launched way too prematurely when the concept was not matured enough. For example, I still do not know why they put such an effort on the two engine version of A319neo when the order tally is still so low. In addition, the A321neo will need more than just a re-engining. The high-lift (and perhaps the wings) will need some changes.
Even today A321 has a different high lift systems than the A320 or A319. The heavier engines will have a bigger impact on the A321neo than on the A320neo.
Simple “plug and play”. Every aircraft development is difficult. The A320neo is not different. Putting two new engines with such a difference in architecture? It won’t be cheap.
By the way, somebody mentioned that the “bridging” has been completed. I guess it means that the pressure to sell the 737NG is now gone.
Perhaps Boeing’s 737NG orders are firm enough such that they don’t need to “recycle” too many orders that get deferred or cancelled.
I haven’t kept count, but many of the NEO orders seem to have included a proportion of CEOs, so I think that Airbus have been reasonably successful in securing their changeover period. As far as I’ve heard there have been no deferrals or cancellations yet, so don’t know what you are hinting at.
I agree that the priority being given to the A319 over the A321 is a little odd but perhaps it was a recognition that the A321 might take more work.
I’m interested in your assertions that regarding the differences in engine architecture and the wing mods needed on the NEO. Airbus seem to think that the NEO is a minimum change over the CEO, how come you know better?
Engine integration for A319 and A321 should be low hanging fruit if the A320 is done
with both engine types. i.e. mostly doing the certification flights for each target.
Compare to the winglet integration done recently.
There are rumors around that the A321 will get additional aero work. ( though nothing tangible beyond some dropped hints on fan sites ).
No idea how time consuming the integration of extra exits for the 235 seat A321 version will be.
Finally the 33klbs engines might gain some efficiency tweaks from in use information coming from the A320 integration.
I think there is pressure from the airlines, even from before NEO, to boost pay-load range on the A321. The relatively small wings and fuel tanks of the A321 are not a limitation on a vast majority of flights but many A300/310/767s are getting real old, let alone some 757s. The search for replacements is getting stronger. US is among the airlines pushing for more range. I guess Airbus pushed back the A321NEO to have extra development time while the A321 lacks real competition. PW said their GTF can go up to 40k lbs.
An interview Bob Saia gave on PW’s work on MS-21:
From the questions Saia is answering, you can understand that there are factors also pushing towards a thrust increase for the 321NEO-equivalent MS-21-400, and I don’t see why 321NEO wouldn’t also be under such pressures.
could you explain the mechanics of why thrust requirement changes on the MS-21-400 should rub off onto the A321?
The MS-21-400 in the currently known configuration already has a higher thrust requirement than the 5t (MTOW) heavier A321-200. Looks like a differing high lift layout or the MS-21 targets different (shorter) runway performance.
(probably not. The MS-21-300ER with equiv. MTOW to the A320-200 is projected to take 300m more runway). Going by the ruaviation article specs for the -400 are still in flow.
Pingback: Airbus is still name of the game | Aspire Aviation
Pingback: Analysis: Japan Airlines Places Historic Order for Airbus 31 A350 XWBs: JAL’s First Airbus Order