Lufthansa splits wide-body order between Airbus and Boeing

Lufthansa Airlines announced its long-expected wide-body order, for 59 Airbus A350-900s and Boeing 777-9Xs.

Airbus won a firm order for 25 with options for 25 more. Boeing’s press release didn’t disclose options.

This is a big win for both companies in a hard-fought contest. LH had long said it expected to buy only from one company, and the split order means neither OEM came away empty handed. But Boeing did not get an order for the 787-10, which was part of the package being offered to LH. Nor did it receive an order for the 747-8I, which it had hoped to obtain as well.

198 Comments on “Lufthansa splits wide-body order between Airbus and Boeing

    • I guess so considering what it means to the program. A major legacy that has NOT purchased any 777s for its own fleet. An airline that rode the A340 so long despite the financial impact brought on to them for holding the A340-600s for far less than their useful life. How long was the 747-400s kept around compared to the A340-600s?

      How many times did we see written on here the 777-9X would never sell because LH would never allow a 10 abreast product. Well they did and ended up buying more 777-9Xs than the A350. Which ever configuration, and if LH exercises all Boeing widebody options for the 747-8 and 777-9X, who will have the largest percentage of the fleet? The A380s will be less than the 747-8s and the A350s will be less than the 777-9X. Oh wait you still have the A330s, but could they end up being replaced by the 787-10 when real performance of that frame is compared. Can’t happen, well I’d suggest you and the Airbus choir wait because you said the 777-9X would never make the fleet. Well it did and in a very big way and it shows how little you and the choir really know about fleet planning.

      Let’s enjoy the programs and appreciate the fact that both have leveraged innovation to create an exciting time for air travel. Please don’t waste what we’re seeing with the small minded comments seen here in this thread of comments. Respect us as interested Leeham readers, or go somewhere else and sing your group songs.

      • a couple of items:

        afaics the 748 options will not be exercised ( and probably have been transfered already with this purchase retaining the compensation for B’s canceled connectivity solution. i.e. Those 779X will come at very competitive pricing )

        LH expects a further 10 748 until 2025 for a fleet of 19. 748 after 2025 imho have zero probability. thus: no options for that type will come into play.
        When LH retires their larger A340 they too will be well beyond 100k hours use.
        same for the A343 and 744.

        A340 are worth more parted out due to their parts fitting the fleet of A330 also.
        In the cohorte of similarly set up airlines LH is pretty well of. I question the alleged “negative financial impact” of their fleet decissions. AF although having the “propper” fleet is struggling mightily.

  1. Looks like the 777-9 is a go. Airbus needs to counter with a number nine, A380 nine hundred.

    • Actually, the 777-9 was a counter to the Airbus A350-1000 because it was known that the glory days of the 777-300 are numbered. Unfortunately, the 777-9 will be a warmed-over 20-year-old design and will not only cost about the same as a new aircraft to develop, it will never sell very well, either. I expect the 777-9 program to be like the 747-8 program written on a grand scale: more money invested, few aircraft sold – a financial loser on a bigger scale. Also, the 777-9 will no doubt start killing off 777-300 sales. I think the glory days of the 777 program are about over.

      Seriously, why does Airbus need to counter the 777-9 when Boeing is doing such a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot?

      • I thinks it’s too early to say that the 779x program will have cost overruns like the 748 did. The 779 will likely see robust sales from new and present operators. LH and PR are already onboard with others like EK NH JL CX and BA likely to place orders as well. Also, the 777-300ER are still selling despite the T7x program on the table.

        I can say confidently that the 779x will not be written off. By the end of the Dubai Airshow in Nov, the 777 program will have surpassed 1500 frames. The 777 is Boeing’s baby and Boeing will and continue to nurture the program that has been paying bills and rewarding dividends to shareholders, especially this past year. Financial loser? No chance. I’ll leave the fact of you saying the 777x will not come to market. Cheers;-)

  2. Interesting that Carsten Spohr mentioned the 787-10 didn’t have the range they required so the 359 won, and the 350-1000 didn’t have the lift capabilities to replace a 744, hence the 779 won. Immediately he added that they look at 5-6 factors beyond that 😉

  3. It seems like the Economy class 10Y across becoming a trend for budget class, and Premium economy as the new business class.

  4. Good couple of days for Airbus tough, with 100 NEO orders and “several hundred” more being negotiated. I would imagine there will be MAX orders as well, but it’ll be intereresting to see if the numbers are the same. The outcome of this battle must give both sides food for thought, the 787-10 having lost out to the A350 and I wonder if we’ll eventually see an A360 to fill the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380, or if the sub-A350 will be the next area to be tackled.

    • I think it was a better day for Boeing over Airbus. We’re talking about the LH sale and the winner was the 777-9X. There were 100NEO sales included in this current announcement, or did I miss what is written above

  5. Having Lufthansa as a launch customer doesn’t guarantee that an aircraft programme will eventually become a run-away sales success (e.g. A310, A340-200/-300, 747-8I). 😉

    (A310

    • AFAIK, LH was not an actual launch customer for the A346.

      When Lufthansa put its first A340-600 into service in December 2003, it was the seventh airline to introduce the new family and it benefited from the experiences of earlier operators and enjoy a relatively trouble-free introduction. “The aircraft performed much better than we had hoped, as we were a year or two after Virgin, which suffered a lot of early problems,” says Lufthansa’s A330/A340 chief pilot operation and technic, Capt Ingo Tegtmeyer.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/the-long-hello-197483/

    • True but when we have certain carriers such as EK stating they want to order over 100 frames at one time as well as other carriers potentially ordering the frame, having a blue-chip comany such as LH does add some credibility.

      I expect maybe 150-200 to be sold by the end of the year.

    • EK signed, as launch customers, a firm order for 18 A340-600HGWs at PAS in 2003, but cancelled the order 3 years later.

      An all new A360X-family entering into service a couple of years after the 777-9X, using among other things, a further developed RB3035 engine (i.e. intercooled core, contra rotating fan), could do to the 777-9X as what the 77W did to the A346.

      • Reportedly, engine development is what is driving the 777-9X schedule. An EIS only a couple years after the 777-9X would mean the engine for the notional A360X would have begin development essentially now.

      • AFAIK; the CMCs for the HPT of the GE9X are currently at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5. That’s what’s driving the development schedule. Meanwhile RR and PW are not standing still. It’s just that GE is depending on CMCs to work properly on an accelerated schedule compared to what’s the case for RR and PW.

        An overall pressure ratio greater than 65:1 (i.e. 60:1 for the GE9X and 62:1 for the conceptual RB3025), and an intercooled compressor should be doable for a RR engine EIS in 2022/2023.

        http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2010/PAPERS/408.PDF

        IMO, the thrust range of such an engine should go from 105,000 lbs to about 120,000 lbs. A contra rotating fan would allow for a high bypass ratio, while the fan diameters should not exceed 140 inches.

        A360X should IMO share the same all new composite wing as an A370X, where the latter would be a twin engine version of the current A388.

        An A370X having a MTOW of around 420 metric tonnes, wing-loading about the same as the A350-800 and a wing span of around 77-79m (i.e. two 6-7m folding wingtips), should not be in need of more thrust than some 120,000 lb of thrust. If Airbus were to re-skin the A380 fuselage to full CFRP composite — IMO doable if the A360X would be designed to have the same dimensions/diameter in the lower lobe while keeping the existing empennage, VTL, and metallic cockpit section — the A370X would, in all likelihood, at EIS become the most efficient – twin be some margin.

      • An A370X having a MTOW of around 420 metric tonnes, wing-loading about the same as the A350-800 and a wing span of around 77-79m (i.e. two 6-7m folding wingtips), should not be in need of more thrust than some 120,000 lb of thrust. If Airbus were to re-skin the A380 fuselage to full CFRP composite ….

        sounds like 5-7 bn US$ bill

      • Hmm, I was thinking more about $10 – $ 15 billion….

        I’m talking about one all new aircraft (i.e one and a half deck A360X) and one that’s derived from current A380 (i.e. A370X), with both aircraft sharing the same all new composite wing and engine, or if you will; two for the price of one. 😉

      • There is a difference between 18 A346’s and 100+ B779’s.

        “All new family” doesn’t exist at this point in time. Also, what is Airbus going to do, build and all-new plane designed between the A350-1000xwb and A380? Not going to happen.

        Not to mention, its not as if GE is going to be sitting around twiddilng their thumbs.

      • There is a difference between 18 A346′s and 100+ B779′s.

        Apparently, Clark wants to double EK’s A380 fleet to 180 units. For that to occur, EK needs to move to Jebel Ali sooner rather than later. I’m not sure if the 777-9X is big enough for EK a decade hence, and that’s the problem for Boeing. The 777-9X won’t EIS for another seven years, at the earliest, and if Airbus counters with a larger all composite A360X, all bets are of IMO on how big many 777-9Xs EK would eventually take delivery of.

        Dubai International, its main airport, is planning to add capacity to handle more than 100mn passengers by 2018, up from a current capacity of about 60mn and a previous goal of 90mn, by continuing with plans to build a fourth concourse and by improving the facility’s operations, Paul Griffiths, chief executive of Dubai Airports, told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview.

        The government-owned company will also look to accelerate the capacity expansion of the new Al Maktoum International Airport, which is currently forecast to manage 160mn passengers by 2030, and potentially move Emirates to the new facility before 2020, Griffiths said. Emirates had originally been pencilled in to move from Dubai International to the new airport in 2027.

        “The idea is that we want to be able to move the Emirates hub sooner than originally forecast,” said Griffiths. “Everyone wants to be around the Emirates hub so our focus now is to develop the masterplan that enables us to create enough capacity at Dubai World Central to migrate the hub of Emirates.”

        http://www.gulf-times.com/Mobile/Business/191/details/361083/Strengthening-economy-underpins-Dubai-airports-capacity-expansion-plans

        “All new family” doesn’t exist at this point in time. Also, what is Airbus going to do, build and all-new plane designed between the A350-1000xwb and A380? Not going to happen.

        Yes, an all new aircraft. Enter the A360X. It’s a no brainer, really.

        Is it not going to happen because you say so? Hmm….

        The question is what is Boeing going to do if Airbus launches an all composite A360X twin-engine family, while substantially upgrading the A380. After 2017, Airbus would in all likelihood want to keep their engineers busy. There’s no need to replace the neo for another decade, hence an A360X program should be perfectly timed, resource-wise.

        “Not to mention, its not as if GE is going to be sitting around twiddilng their thumbs.

        GE has tossed its cap over the wall to Boeing’s world and have no choice but to follow it.

    • And you say that to say what? That LH is a bad initial customer for a program? Are you also saying their fleet planning is suspect? So I guess put another way not having the 787-10 sales included is a plus for that program?

      • LH is a demanding customer. LH does what’s best for LH and not necessarily what’s in the best interest of an OEM. With the A310, for example, it was LH’s initial short haul requirements that drove the design path towards a very small wing. Airbus complied with what LH (and SR) wanted, but what the market wanted in the 1980s was a significantly longer ranged product. Even in an extended range version, the A310 could never really compete on an equal footing with the ER-versions of the 767.

  6. For me, 777-9 order by Lufthansa is a big deal , to replace the old 747-400 ; I do not see this as “no order for 748 ” ; 779 kills what ever remains of 748 , it is better that B canniblized it rather than A.
    Good for A that they got the 350 order -787-10 may be great for intra Asia medium routes, but no match for 350 , again good decision from Lufthansa.

    • The “Flottenentwicklung” Presentation pdf says 15 748 deliveries 2013 to 2025.
      Does that indicate that there will be no further purchases beyond the original batch of 20-1 ? ( (4 before 2013), _5 in 2013 another 10 in 2014 and onwards )

      • I thought LH said the W/B aircraft manufacturers were concentrating too much on range that is not needed by carriers in Europe. The 787-10 would cover much of the flying LH does, I think the real reason was that A350-9 will be available years sooner as the 787-10 is still a paper airplane.
        Boeing needs to move quickly on getting the 787-10 in production, it should sell very well.

  7. Lufthansa just earned themselves a big say in the configuration of the 779, same as they did with the 748. We know they probably don´t want as much range as the ME3, it will be interesting to see how the 779 does in the Middle East now.

    • Maybe the can cut the MTOW by 5% and cut the empty weight. If someone needs the range, there is always the 777-8. If they make the -9 too heavy and capable, the -8 is obsolete from the get go.

      • I agree, I think Boeing need to reduce the empty weight, meaning payload/range as well, to get closer to the 350-1000. This order will fit neatly if that is the plan.

    • I’ve always wondered if we might see Boeing being pulled in two directions regarding the 777-9X configuration. One from carriers like LH, CX and the other from the M.E airlines, because it’s so far looking like what will be the “perfect plane” for LH et al, might not be enough for EK and the others.

    • 1)IIRC, LH isn’t part of the B777 working group so I’m not so sure how much of a “say” they have in it-though LH probably had some input as well.
      2)Boeing probably has gotten the configuration down quite a bit already.

  8. Regarding the 747-8i: Given this order does not even reinstate the one cancelled frame, that LH is in a good position to order more (as they’re already operators of the type), and that it confirms the availability of the 777X, I find it difficult to see any additional 747-8i sales, to be honest. If Boeing sell another 10 pax 747, they can probably consider themselves lucky.

  9. Speaking as a one-time salesman, this is not a ‘big win’ for either Airbus or Boeing; quite the opposite.

    Surely both Airbus and Boeing hoped to get the entire order. Getting only half the order is not a win. It is a loss. Trust me – both companies will be staring glumly at a glass half empty, rather than rejoicing in a glass half full.

    • Yeah from a salesman’s prospective I could see that, but from a company trying to sell a paper aircraft currently it might not be seen that way. If I was Boeing and I got 34 frames at $300 Mil per copy as a kickoff for the fourth program I initialed in the past two years I might say not bad for a day’s work. In the last two years Boeing has kicked off the 737 MAX, 787-10, the 777-9X, and the 777-8X. They have gotten sales for all of the programs currently and that is not half bad because three of the programs are still paper concepts. When you look at it that way, well you just keep looking because more customers are coming out with comments about their interest in the paper 777-9X. Are we up to 4 who have made public comments?

      • Sorry no formal sales yet for the 777-8X. Keep reading, because recent history has indicated Boeing is finally listening to customers with their offerings. Wait, the choir says the frames are too heavy, they are 10 abreast, and LH commitment is a program killer. Well, it is a good thing the choir makes no decisions because the world would be all Airbus.

  10. The fact that Lufthansa, the German National carrier, purchased the 777-9X,
    is a big boost for Boeing AND the 777 program in general and a big blow to
    the Airbus A380 program!

    • Actually it is business as usual.
      .. And a sharp statement towards ( or better against ) the 748i.

      Then my guess is LH transfered the “good pricing” conditions
      from their 748i options to this 777-9x purchase.
      ( LH says 15 748 deliveries from 2013 to 2025. 5 have been delivered this year ( 4 in 2012). That is 10 more remaining for 2014 and onwards.
      The LH 748 fleet will not grow beyond 19, one less than the original purchase.
      I’d interprete this as LH being less than enamored with the type.
      Finally LH have earlier stated pronounced interest in an A380-900.

    • European carriers rarely, if ever, indulge in ‘National Carrier’ nonsense when ordering. Some others do.

    • The fact that Lufthansa, the German National carrier

      Lufthansa is no longer the German national carrier. The state sold its last shares in the company 16 years ago…

      As for the rest of your statement, I refer you to Uwe’s comment.

  11. Keesje, don’t be pessimistic about Boeing as always. It’s 34+30, not 20+14. Or else the ‘order’ wouldn’t be for 59 aircraft. An order, in such press releases, is always firm. Options aren’t included in ‘orders’.

  12. Why is it a blow to the A380 programme – this is a fleet replacement order, and the A380s are virtually brand new and don’t need replacing.

  13. LH fleet capacity in 2025:
    200+ segment ~7,800 available seats
    300..400 segment ~22,200 available seats
    500+ segment ~8,900 available seats.

    Looks rather balanced.

  14. Airbus will probably offer the A350-900R as an A330 replacement. Common training, common maintenance, common seat width also makes product presentation easier. I think this might mean Airbus have a very good chance of getting the getting the A330 replacement order when it comes, esp if the A350s perform well.

    • Yeah that could be the plan because the A330 is a modern replacement for the existing fleet of A330s!!! Let’s go with the A350-900R which is another ploy Mr. Leahy presented because his marketing group says the 787-10 is not competitive to the Airbus answer. He will rub is magic wand over the A330 and it will meet the performance of the 787-10. I didn’t understand why he came up with the A350-900R when he had the A330 already in the fold? Which is it going to be the A330NEO or the A350-900R? Well let’s see what the market says about that line of thinking because the 777-9X was a joke until LH bit. Right?

  15. Perhaps going off topic a little, but I wonder at what point the Beluga fleet will become inadequate to sustain increasing production levels, and what will be done to supplement or replace it.

  16. Despite LH route flexibility it’s interesting to note how the 787in it’s agreed & Dreamed Up variants has been well & truly kicked into the long grass.

    Fortunately the lessons learnt from purchasing the 748I with all it’s failings together with being the only major operator of the type have rightly not influenced an embryonic 777 family purchase, which speaks volumes for the types performance..

    The only question is why it took so long & that’s something the LH board should seek answers too. Perhaps this might see the end to future questionable LH fleet acquisitions.

    • Not so sure about that. The Lufthansa board in general and Nico Buchholz in particular, have long been advocates of spreading orders between manufacturers because, as Nico has stated, “it’s the only way to keep them honest”.

  17. Lufthansa has been the lead customer several times for Boeing:
    The very first 737, a 737-100 [1967]
    747-200F [1971]
    747-400 with GE engines [1988]*

    *1st 747-400 was line number 696 Northwest [PW]
    2nd was for DLH, # 700 [GE]
    3rd was for Cathay Pacific, #705 [RR]

    DLH made an early and important contribution to the 747-400 program. Around 1986-1987, Boeing’s original concept for the two-crew 747-400 flight deck resembled a 757 and 767 but with four throttles: stacked EADI and EHSI and analog airspeed, altitude and vertical speed in front of each pilot, plus stacked EICAS in the middle.

    DLH was one of the first to persuade Boeing to adopt the all-electronic 6-screen displays used in one form or another on all Boeing aircraft to this day: side-by-EADI and EHSI on each side plus EICAS and systems screens stacked in the middle

    • Those were interesting times, we were being dragged in three different directions by LH, NW and SQ. LH was all for state of the art, NW for keeping things the same, and SQ only wanted changes that enhanced the customer experience. In the end, everyone had to compromise.

  18. 2013 today.

    Airbus starts coming 2016: Note that despite full orderbook there were some slots available. So this order wasn’t all that spontaneous.
    Boeing deliveries from 2020: that is far out. As one reader said, it is the GE90X engine that drives the EIS.

    Boeing is now fully owned by GE. If GE messes it up, Boeing messes up. 70% of Boeing future sales hang directly on the performance of GE engine hot section technology.

    The interesting question for me: will LH configure the B777-9X with a 10-abreast economy? If so, LH is giving up its long standing principle of a consistent cabin product over its entire fleet.

    • I suspect 17 inch is the minimum seat width they want and if Boeing find an extra 4 inches by remodelling the side of the 777 they will get it on the 779s. Same as the new 748s so it should not be an issue.

  19. I think LH yesterday said they would put in 10 abreast in the 777-9X. Do they have economy plus already? If so 11 abreast on the A380 maindeck also becomes an option..

    If:
    – the 777-9 will be 10 abreast for everybody seating 350-400 passengers
    – the 787-9 offers close to 300 seats,
    – the 787-10 isn’t suitable for long, heavy flights (Asia), as LH claimed yesterday

    that would mean the A350-900 and A350-1000 could dominate the sweatspot 300-350 seat long haul market, previously dominated by the 777-200ER, 777-300ER and A340s.

    Unless the 777-8X becomes a real hit. But it looks high OEW. LH mentions the A350-1000 as option to fit between the A350-900 and 777-9X, not the 777-8X.

    I still expect Boeing to come up with a bigger wing for the 787, in a next stage, because of this. McNerney claims Boeing has have Airbus contained above 300 seats, but that’s only one way to look at it.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Clipboard04_zps4c3df50d.jpg

    • Guess I thought the -900 and the -1000 were long range frames and not regional? Now they are going to take over the entire space being over designed for the route? Now the 777-200 was killed for that same reason and the A330 won the space. Now we’re seeing that Airbus will win the space because they have done a “me too” A350-900R and they’re going to go with a warmed over A330 program. But the 787-10 is a dog because Airbus said so right? 100 orders for the 787-10 versus 448 or 22% for the A350-900 and Boeing has not been at for a year. And the 777-9X has 34 versus 145 for the A350-1000 which is also in the 20% range. A program that has not been officially launched but it has 23% of the sales of a program that has been around for how long? Now I get why Mr. Leahy and you are trying to down play the homeland’s move to the opposite side of the pond. This is just get interesting and the dirt has just begun to fly!!! Boy if EK really takes 100 plus in November, and CX, and SQ take anything the A350-1000 will be looking at a need for a major improvement. Wait it won’t matter because the -1000 does not compete with the 7-9X. But won’t that make it interesting, and the choir will have to go back and develop another song. What oh what will it be? Wait for Japan!!!

  20. LH loves large and capable airplanes. Yet, I am surprised that they intend to operate a mix of three types (A380s, A348s, B779s). I don’t know if this is can be done efficiently.

    Boeing certainly sees this split order as a great victory, especially as they achieve the introduction of the 779 without any 748 cancellation.

    In the future, more options should be exercised for the A359 than for the 779, just because it addresses the needs of a larger market. It will be interesting to see if LH finds a need for some -1000s …

    • LH loves large and capable airplanes. Yet, I am surprised that they intend to operate a mix of three types (A380s, A348s, B779s). I don’t know if this is can be done efficiently.

      Lufthansa themselves list five long-haul types for LH Group’s 2025 long-haul fleet:
      A380, 748i, 777 (X and -300ER), A350, and A330

      Although it should be pointed out that there is going to be a big difference between the 777X and -300ER.

      Still – they reduce fleet complexity quite a bit if you consider their current line-up:
      A380, 747 (-400 and -8i), 777 (-300ER), A340 (-300 and -600), 767, A330

      They get rid of old-generation 747s, both generations of A340s, and the 767 by means of just two additional types.

    • I am surprised that they intend to operate a mix of three types (A380s, A348s, B779s).

      😉

      It will be interesting to see if LH finds a need for some -1000s …
      Lufthansa has some good negotiating power towards Airbus this time, with 777X, 777-300ER and 777F in the group portfolio. They will no doubt sent Boeing a 777-8X RFQ.

      • Interesting comment, but the 777-9X is much bigger than the A350-1000 so how will address the per route seat loss with flying -1000s over the -9X? Will they just lose the revenue and leave the passengers and the cargo?

      • A B777-9X can carry about 15 % more passengers but just two more LD3s (my estimation) compared to an A350 with 44 LD3s just like a 777-300ER.

        Lufthansa will replace A340s and B747-400. So an A350 will be fare better than no B777-9X in case Boeing being late.

    • 1. question: yes, they ll have 17+ 380s, 19 747-8s, 34+ 779s. So, the optimal solution for every mission!
      2. don t forget, that LH was also launch customer for the 748, with 20 orders and 20 options !!! Nobody is talking about those options anymore, but true, some speculated that even some 748s might be cancelled. Didn t happen: good, but at what price? That would really be interesting to know. Also, most speculated with a higher number of 350s.

  21. The order presents some interesting points on what was not ordered. The B787-10 and 747-8i was rejected by a major player. Airbus starts getting revenue from 2017 onwards when their product has some test results and any performance penalties becomes unlikely. Boeing still has to invest and will only receive LH payments in 2021 onwards. I would guess that Airbus would raise their champagne glasses higher than Boeing for the moment even if B got the bigger volume share of this order.

  22. One thing I just can’t understand: Lufthansa’s longest pax segment by far is Frankfurt – Buenos Aires with 6197 nm. So why the heck would a 7000 nm 787-10 be insufficient (given it might be slightly tight on FRA-EZE, but certainly not on the rest of the routes)?

    FRA-EZE: 6197 nm
    FRA-SIN: 5553 nm
    FRA-KUL: 5401 nm
    MUC-GRU: 5311 nm
    FRA-GRU: 5277 nm
    FRA-SGN: 5220 nm
    MUC-LAX: 5204 nm
    FRA-MEX: 5165 nm
    FRA-GIG: 5153 nm
    MUC-SFO: 5108 nm
    FRA-NRT: 5071 nm
    MUC-NRT: 5070 nm
    FRA-LAX: 5045 nm
    FRA-NGO: 5031 nm
    FRA-KIX: 5014 nm

    If not for huge discounts and for availability, I would certainly have gone for the 787-10 and the A350-1000.
    What do they need a 8100 nm of range for?

    • see, that is the problem with Boeing numbers:
      when they write a plane has a capacity of 400 and a reach of 8000 nm, they mean, either you fly 400 pass with little cargo 4000 nm or 250 pass in 1st class with little cargo 8000 nm, but never 400 pass with full cargo 8000 nm.
      Airbus configurations are a bit closer to real life but also it is rather or or or than and and and. As LH is one of the few legacies in Europe who still makes money, even though they did some bad takeover investments AND fly planes that nobody else wants to fly, I must assume that somebody does some good calculations on the REAL performance of planes.

      • How could they ever sell a paper airplane if this theory is true? They have sold quite a few frames using magic dust in the wide body world, and I guess they have had to pay out significant performance penalties. How did they sell any 787-10s if this is true? But LH makes poor fleet planning strategies, so how did they come up with this despite buying the 777-9X

      • Just who’s chart is that? It doesn’t say. For all I know it is from EADS, Leahy, or keesje. None of them are reliable when it comes to comparing Airbus to Boeing products.

      • @kc135topboom

        This chart was created by an user called “ferpe” on airliners.net; it’s also common knowledge you have to cut off ~ 1000nm from the design range because those ranges are without a real (heavier) cabin and equipment etc. For example, the real range of the A359 is more like 7000nm instead of the claimed 8100nm. Check this picture provided by SAS:

        http://www.bjornstrom.se/upload/350range.jpg

        So a 787-10 with 7000nm design range gives you around 6000nm, and a A359 with 8100nm design range will give you around 7000nm realistic range. But this is without additional cargo. In case of Lufthansa, who carries a lot of cargo in the belly of its airplanes, to range will drop even further.

        Also the 40% figure comes from Lufthansa directly:

        “The carrier decided not to order the 787 for a variety of reasons. “The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations,” says Carsten Spohr, CEO of the passenger airline division.”

        http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_19_2013_p0-618412.xml

    • Great research, keesje, in finding an Airbus/EADS power point presentation. NOT.

      You have a long and proud history of rejecting Boeing PP presentation as Boeing propaganda, but an EADS PP presentation has no marketing spin at all.

      Pax model airliners very rarely max out on cargo weight, it is mostly about cargo compartment volume, after pax luggage. Boeing usually wins that battle.

      • TB you can’t bypass reality. Some publications just have more weight than others 😉

        I’ve loaded pallets and ULD’s that would be go onto LH Cargo planes as a student. Freight was to a large percentage heavy compact stuff. ( LH Cargo is not a package carrier )

      • ambiguous wording on my side.
        LH Cargo works by way of dedicated cargo planes and belly loading on LH Pax frames. In my experience 3/5th to 3/4th of freight handled was destined for the belly ( and loaded onto on pax maschines).
        funny side note: KLM scheduled flight from HAN to AMS invariably was a 38t truck trailer combi. Same for Schenker Airfreight and HAN to FRA ( Kelsterbach )

      • KCT above 6000NM a 787-10 isn’t carrying anything but bags in the belly. Makes you wonder if volume is really the restriction on 5000-6000 NM flights 😉
        Anyway if the 787-10 isn’t payload restricted on long flights and the EADS graph is non-sense, Lufthansa got it all very wrong..

    • Once the A330 new wing option is launched, then we’ll see the LH competition between A330nwo and 7810. A330 will be smaller and optimized and will probably win that one.

      • Nah the NWO is an A330 variant modified specifically for the Illuminati/Bilderberg Group/Gray Aliens/Freemasons/Space Obama. The shadowy conspiracy groups Airbus consulted with wanted derated engines and another row of seats traded for galley space.

      • If you can put a CFRP wing on a 777 and call it gold, an A330 with a CFRP wing makes sense. Eight abreast and two containers is the optimum small twin aisle, according to all research.

      • IMO there is a large gap inbetween the A321 (possibly A322) and A350-900. Routes up to 4500NM up to 300 passengers 2 class. The A330 fuselage seems suitable and avialable. It how it started its live. The A330/A340 wing and wingbox is optimized for heavy loads, lots of fuel and up to 4 engines.

        IMO an opportunity exist to convert the A330 line to its 3rd generation, after A300/310, 330/340. Such an aircraft would have a drastically lower empty weight, range and operating cost. Transco, the shorter Transatlantic flights, Intra Asia and leisure would be key markets.

        Thousands of aircraft were/ will be retired in this segment. The 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300, Tu154, A300s and A310s. Both the 787 and A350 are way heavier, larger and expensive to operate. They are optimized for for long haul, as Boeing found out with the 787-3.

        http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7425/9844985414_7b569ae27c_o.jpg

    • Except that chart isn’t anywhere even close to realistic. Ferpe actually produced a rather good chart with both the 787-10 and a 359 with a 280 pax config + 10t cargo with realistic airline reserves on a.net last week. The 78J will do ~4500-5000nmi and the 359 will do ~5500-6000nmi.

      One of the interesting points made was that the newer generation of planes suffer a bit more with weight/distance than the older generation of planes. This is largely to do with their base weights being less and them being more efficient. AKA, each ton you take out of fuel reduces the range of the 787/359 greater than for a 333/346/77W for example.

    • Digging deep I remember water injection was used to change thermodynamic conditions during take-off. On aircraft like the Lockheed Neptune.

      The use of water injection in turbine engines has been limited, again, mostly to military aircraft. Many pictures are available of Boeing B-52 takeoffs which clearly show the black smoke emitted by turbine engines running with water injection. For early B-52s, water injection was seen as a vital part of take-off procedures. For later versions of the B-52 as well as later turbine-powered bombers, the problem of taking off heavily loaded from short runways was solved by the availability of more powerful engines that had not been available previously.
      The BAC One-Eleven airliner also used water injection for its Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan engines. Filling the tanks with jet fuel instead of water led to the Paninternational Flight 112 crash.[4]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)#Use_in_aircraft

      Apparently its back in a new form on the GE9X?

      Water injection created lots of smoke on B52s.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6Hpxyrhyo

    • Water injection in the 21st century? Not b___ likely mate. The last time Boeing used water injection was around 1972, the 747-200B/F/C with JT9D-7FW engines. The engines were rated at 50,000 lbs wet or 48,000 lbs SLST dry. Takeoff weight was 803,000 lbs wet or 800,000 lbs dry. The logistics were impossible: the water had to be extremely pure – not always available when and where it was needed.

      All that nonsense went away with the 50,000 lb SLST JT9D-7J. Then came the 820,000 lb and 833,000 lb 747 airframes with JT9D-7Q’s, GE CF6-50E2’s or RR RB211-524’s. That was in the late 1970’s. Water injection [thankfully] hasn’t been heard from since.

      But, at one time 727’s used RATO bottles out of Mexico City. Imagine a cluster of those strapped to a 777X’s belly.

      • Atomized mist injection is used routinely on ground-based gas turbine generating units, both aeroderivative and purpose-built.

  23. Hmm – maybe that last response was not my most well reasoned. Still, I doubt Tim C. is demanding Boeing and GE throw caution to the wind to earn his business.

  24. “The extra weight and complexity added by a water injection system was considered worthwhile for military purposes, while it is usually not considered worthwhile for civilian use.” (wiki)

    So probably the 777 will have a water injection system in its wing, wingpylon and engines. 1 Water tank or two? Maybe not only water ir freezes easily. It seems a critical system, On a one engine take-off after V1 from hot Dubai with 400 people on board, it better works.

    EK’s Clark says: “It makes a very material difference to our operating capabilities in the hot months in Dubai. Without that, the 777-9X doesn’t do that much better in those conditions than the -300ER does today.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVVj2ddb-eQ#t=14

    • Water injection was used on early B-707s and DC-8s equipped with JT-3C (J-57) engines. The advent of fan jets, like the JT-3D (TF-33) eliminated the need for water injection

      • Some early JT9D powered 747s also had water injection. PA actually used it for their first revenue flight……..

    • To be honest, I think nobody will be enthousiastic about water injection. No doubt GE/Boeing will quickly try to sell it as the best idea since sliced bread, just like the folding wings. However I foresee a bump up to ~115klbs soon to enhance hot runway performance, without additional water tanks.

      • You mean Clark and EK will not purchase the 777-9X because of the water injection? Can you share more about this theory because it taps into an interesting concern. Water injection can freeze and can cause other performance limitations, but I’m not sure how this issue will eliminate consideration?

    • Not to be rude keesje but I would rather take Clark’s, GE and Boeing’s analytical work and what needs to be done over your claims 🙂

      • Jacobin I’m often wrong too. But I didn’t believe the Sonic Cruiser, 747-8 and 787-3, 737 MAX were a real good idea and the 787 will EIS in 2008. 😀

        If you only believe what the OEM PR departments officially tell you, live is full of suprises. 😉

    • Steam clouds or RATO notwithstanding, Emirates and GE will probably negotiate a thrust bump to the engines. It’s been done before for lots of airframe/engine combinations.

      A thrust bump is a certified allowable pre-programmed overboost to the takeoff power setting, to be used only when needed. Probably limits on how many minutes and how often it could be used. Plus engine warranty changes related to downstream reduction in the lifetime of some engine components and/or higher maintenance costs.

      Not sure exactly how its done, but it would probably include some takeoff performance certification testing, plus changes to the FMS and FADEC software, plus additional takeoff and climb flight manual data.

  25. Water Injection !
    Very good idea for the HOT take off !
    Nobody thinks about a very good “English joke” from Tim Clark !
    Something remanent from the BAC 111 story, may be !

    • Awesome picture! Nice windscreen and wingtip detailing from that angle. No chevrons on the engines? Is that a patent issue?

      • Noise reduction by way of chevrons is said to come at ~1% cost in sfc.
        The TXWB seems to get similar or better noise management without chevrons.

    • Is the flight test going to change the A350’s situation in the market?

      Please remember that the -800 is having troubles and the -1000’s future is not as bright as expected.

      I am pretty sure the -1000 can survive, but it won’t generate much profit to the manufacturer as initially expected.

      • I’m not sure how you can conclude that the -1000 will not have a bright future, it is still 4 years away from EIS which is plenty of time to get new orders and it has gained many new orders this year alone. The -1000 will do just fine I think. It’s the -800 I worry about and I think Airbus would be stupid to bit give that variant the attention it deserves to make it more competitive.

      • How do you come to the conclusion that the -1000’s future is “not as bright as expected” (especially considering that you never expected it to have a bright future to begin with)?
        Just because LH didn’t order it (and has yet reserved rights to change some of its order to the -1000…)?

    • keesje,

      Do you know when they are going to decide whether they will proceed with the A350-800 or if they are going to mothball the -800?

      And what do you think about the competitive landscape in the coming years, considering the fact that the 787-10 was formally launched only this year and 777-9 and 777-8 are now very close to formal launch?

      • Seems the spreading of FUD is moving to the A350-800, now that the A350-1000 has actually shown itself to be quite attractive, and Airbus are – quite without irony – considering a second FAL just for that model.
        Remember the A350-1000 is the main driver behind Boeing developing the 777-9X in particular, and despite the significant technological changes they are going to introduce in that plane, some upsizing is still needed to match the operating economics of the -1000 (i.e. they effectively needed to place the 777-9X a size category above the -1000).

        Regarding the A350-800, Airbus themselves have never suggested that they are pondering the future of this model, i.e. there is no decision pending on whether to “mothball” it.

        As for the competitive landscape – we’re all aware of the 787-10 having recently been launched (after over 6 years of announcements and discussions with airlines, mind you), as well as of the impending 777X launch. I’m pretty sure Airbus are aware of this as well.
        Not sure what you’re implying here, though?
        As a reminder – projected EIS for the 787-10 is 2017/18, and the 777X won’t EIS until two years after that. All of Airbus’ current development projects will be well finished before then.

    • LH chosed the 359 rather than 787-10 which someone keeps claiming as one has unbeatable economical efficiency compared to the 359. So there must be another target to attack, for easing emotionals. You have to understand.

  26. The A350-1000XWB’s fate is clear from the very beginning. It has never had a bright future since the very beginning.
    There is not much to discuss about it anymore considering Lufthansa’s recent decision to order the 777-9.
    If ever another major airline decides to order a huge number of 777-9 then we all know how it would end for the A350-1000XWB.

    • What are you talking about? The -1000 will have 160 orders by the end of the year and is 4 years from EIS.

      The 777-9 is significantly larger so not a direct competitor. I think we will continue to see large decent orders for the A350-1000.

    • It seems that you are missing the point that the 777-9 is there to replace the B747s.

      • Otis,

        The more I think about it, the more I think you are right about the 777-9 replacing the 747. Thanks for the post.

    • For the fan diameter and the wingspan, the A350 probably maxes out at 295 t or 650 Klb for decent efficiency. I think the Airbus are pushing beyond prudent limits. I would still be a big fan of a 77m A350-1100 at 295 t with 7000 nm range.

      • Or 6000 nm range or whatever it is. If Boeing can do the 787-10, Airbus can do the same thing with the A350 platform, maximum capacity at optimum weight and let the range come out wherever it does.

      • An A350-1000 re-engined with new engines that are upwards of 10 percent more efficient, a decade after EIS, should do the trick in reducing MTOW to well under 295 tonnes. A 73m, long 9500nm ranged A350-1100 and a79m long, 8500nm ranged A350-1200 could IMO incorporate into the wing an A346-type one frame chord-wise wing insert and wingspan increase to some 70m, and with two 2.5m folding wingtips.

      • KC135, yes, probably two stretches is crazy talk. On the other hand, whatever length is rational to stretch the aluminum 777, is fine for the CRRP A350. I guess the limitation is the landing gear. The A350 is probably locked into length, just like the 737 MAX, that’s the way it goes.

      • KC, an A350-1100X would be the ULR version of the A350-1000; or about as ridiculous as an idea as the 777-8X. 😉

  27. TC last week I did a quick & dirty A350-1000. The wing seems right sized. With the bigger control, bigger landing gear & adjusted engines, the A350-1000 doesn’t look maxed at to me at all.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A350-1000studykeesje_zpseca1d6df.jpg

    IMO a very balanced composites long haul aircraft with just the right cabin width, payload range and fuel efficiency. I never doubted it would become a winner. United, Singapore Airlines, Qatar, British Airways, Cathay neither. And we can expect additional orders conversions for the -1000 soon. No direct competition helps too.

  28. The sistematic bashing of the Airbus products from VV, Ex Airbus employed …
    And mainly out of any solid argumentation …
    Is simply inacceptable , here and anywhere he try to perform it !

    A lot of respect for the others Boeing defenders !

    But this one … simply no way (IMO) !

    • Rensim,

      Have you noticed the difference of capacity between the A350-900 and A350-1000?

      The A350-900 has a notional seating of 314 seat and the A350-1000 has 350 with the same standard. The difference is only about 12%.

      Just think about it deeply calmly. There is only 12% of capacity difference and yet the changes between the -900 and -1000 are so significant:
      1. the engine thrust is so much higher on the -1000
      2. the -1000’s wing has a 40 cm trailing edge extension
      3. the -1000 has a six wheel bogey mail landing gear.

      All those changes only to achieve 12% of capacity difference?

      Come on, it is not about bashing. It is only about arithmetic.

  29. The 350-900 is clearly the optimized version of the Airbus line. Airbus could have taken 2 approaches to stretch to the -1000 1) would ideally be a few more seats at the sacrifice of range (the 787-10 approach) or 2) the number of seats it has (360 or so) at the premium range it has maintained (>8000nm). It will sell well because it is a reasonably well thought out plane… and there is no way Boeing can produce ALL of the 350-400 capacity WB aircraft in the time frames the airlines demand. However, it will likely not be a 777-300ER monopoly as exists now for Boeing. Airbus production capacity will not ramp up until 2018 at which point it will be 110/yr at 10/month. Current backlog is 700 aircraft. Getting sizable numbers of -1000 will not happen until 2018 or later. The worrisome thing for Airbus is that the orders for the 330 line are not really coming in…more dribs and drabs. The backlog is < 3 years for it at 10-11/month. So in 2018 the main Airbus offering will be the 350 line at (hopefully) 10/m with prospects to increase. The 380 line is a ?…will it be 24, 30, 36, or 48/yr? Unless more orders materialize, then Airbus is going to be NEO's and 350s.

    Boeing is optimized at the 787-9 and decided to stretch the 787-10 to accrue capacity at the expense of range. This will nibble at the 350-9 and will be a nice replacement for the 330 line and really depress the 350-8 prospects. The 777-9 will be competitive with the 350-1000. A 350-1100 would likely be a stretch too far as it cannot seat 10 abreast. In 2018, Boeing will be doing MAX, 767 at 25-36/y, 787 at 120/y (168?), 777 at 100/yr (possibly shrinking as backlog decreases but orders are still coming in reasonably well), and the shrinking 747-8 at maybe 18/y (freighters)

    I think what VV is saying is that the Airbus offerings will be constrained by the Boeing competition and the ROI will be less than originally anticipated by Airbus. However, they should still sell plenty of 350-900 and 1000s.

    I think an optimized 350-8 would make more sense than an 1100. Or a new 200-300 seat line of aircraft to compete with the 787 line.

    • 25 to 36 B767 per year? There are just about 50 orders left. Who should order more freighters? About 15 KC-46 are planed for 2018 and about 20 tanker per year for the 20 years. Production rate for 767 will therefore be just slightly more than 20 aircraft per year.

    • Mike September 22, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

      I think what VV is saying is that the Airbus offerings will be constrained by the Boeing competition and the ROI will be less than originally anticipated by Airbus. However, they should still sell plenty of 350-900 and 1000s.

      Correct, that is my intent. Your English is better than mine.

  30. Just now, RR and P&W settled their differences …
    I think, we shall see emerging, before the end of 2013, a lot of proposals previously on hold !
    Airbus need new and better engines, for the A330, A380, lighter engines for the A358, and all the low MTOW versions anticipated by John Leahy either for the A380, A350 séries, and may be the A330 !

    So the split between RR and P&W, may allow, at the end, the surge of a wide panel of engines options !

    May be we see something new at Dubaï !

  31. V V,

    Your comments on the recent LH order focus on the 777-9. Don’t you think that the A359 order is equally important ?

    With this order, Airbus also has somes hopes of selling a few -1000s. Is Airbus about to supply the whole 350 / < 450) part ? This could be a satisfactory situation for both airframers.

    From a wider perspective, this was seemingly the first face-off between the A359 and the 787-10 since the launch of the latter, and the fact that the A359 prevailed deserves some comments. I noticed that LH cited range as a major reason, even though the 787-10 seemed to have capacity to fly almost all of their routes. Is it because of the difference between theoretical and practical ranges, or because of special LH cargo requirements, or is it just that the A359 is extremely competitive ?

    • Philidor, September 23, 2013 @ 1:14 am said,

      V V,
      Your comments on the recent LH order focus on the 777-9. Don’t you think that the A359 order is equally important ?

      Yes it is.
      Very honestly, I was waiting for an order for A350-1000XWB (all of the order). I was suspecting that the Euro-lobbying would win.

      The 777-9 order was a surprise for me.

  32. Of course, I meant to write “Is Airbus about to supply the whole 350 / < 450) part ?"

    • I cannot get it through correctly. I meant “Is Airbus about to supply the whole 350 < 450 part ?"

  33. Tanter to awaken the masses!

    At September 23, 2013

    Boeing sold 167 NET twin aisle!

    * 131 787 Dreamliner
    * 36,777

    Airbus 115 NET twin aisle!

    * A350-104 XWB
    * 12 A330

    What to remember

    * The A350-XWB family launched since 2006 does not always better.
    * The 787-10 launched there 90 days!
    * The 777-X (not yet launched)

    We can come back in 10 years the situation will not change.

    Unless Airbus launched a new airplane to come and support the A350-XWB!
    Without it we should bring no credit to those who think that Airbus is better, the facts and figures …

    Just the facts!

    http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/
    http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

    Keesje if you believe in A350-1000, it is your faith.
    Meanwhile Boeing sold about 400-500 777-300ER since the launch of the A350-XWB in 2006.

    And you did not have faith in him.

    So your faith is not a universal truth!
    I think I told you already are …

    Thank you all!

    • You forgot a few sales: while not yet in the order book China agreed to buy 18 more A330s, Delta will take 10 more and we still have to add the Lufthansa an IAG order. All should be firmed before the end of the year, which gives:

      > A350: 104 + 25 (LH) + 18 (IAG) = 147
      > A330: 11 + 18 (China) + 10 (Delta) = 39

      Total: 186

      And Leahy hinted about more A330 sales later this year.

      Of course, Boeing will have a successful 777X launch later this year, but that doesn’t mean Airbus sales are low.

  34. 40 years ago, Airbus had 0% of the wide body market !
    30 years ago, may be 10 %
    20 years ago, may be 20 %
    10 years ago, may be 30%
    An now, they are in the 40% ..
    They are still in the fight for the civil market, Douglas and Lookheed … no
    What else ??

    Leeham, a new hub for the Airbus frustrated bandwagon … VV & Checklist !!!
    Good luck Scott ….

    • Yes 40% and with the NEO.
      And it’s going to stop there!
      I understand that you are frustrated …

      A handkerchief?

      • Interesting how yet again, people who in 2004 claimed (or, given their current track record definitely would have claimed) that the A350 Mk I (a re/-winged, re-engined A330) could in no way be better than the newly developed 787 now think that a re-winged, re-engined 777-9X is going to obliterate the A350-1000. Just like the 747-8i was going to obliterate the A380.

        Generally, I think a lot of people get too hung-up on the notion that one manufacturer is going to beat the other for good. That’s not going to happen. There are always going to be market niches where one manufacturer has a bigger share than the other, because neither manufacturer can serve every single niche with the same level of efficiency. The A330 made the 767 obsolete, the 777 made the A340 obsolete, the A380 made the 747 obsolete… 737 and A320 have shared the market in a roughly 40:60 ration, which with NEO/MAX is going to exactly reverse. The A330, A350, 787 and 777X are going to co-exist in a lot of fleets. And similarly it is going to continue. Those that think that the A350 is going to put Boeing’s widebody offering above the 787-9 out of business are just as delusional as those who think that the 777X is going to simply make the A350 (particularly the -1000 variant) go away.
        In the comments section here, the second group of delusional people seem more present, at least a bit more vocal, than the first.

        At September 23, 2013

        Boeing sold 167 NET twin aisle!

        * 131 787 Dreamliner
        * 36,777

        Airbus 115 NET twin aisle!

        * A350-104 XWB
        * 12 A330

        Your numbers for Airbus got somewhat stuck between August 31st and September 23rd – Airbus as of 31st August only listed 12 A330 and 100 A350 (net), i.e. a total of 112, not 115 – but that ignores DL’s firm order for 10 A330s, never mind LH’s order for 25 A350-900, which is also firm, according to press releases.

  35. False & biased as usual !
    Up today, the NEO is in the 60% or more vs the MAX, MC speaking !
    End !

      • Correct as of 31-Aug-2013.
        checklist’s numbers for Boeing are up to date as of 17-Sept-2013 – but he compares those numbers with Airbus’ 31-Aug-2013 numbers, ignoring DL’s order for 10 A330s (and possibly others, as yet unannounced). Because of different reporting periods, you can only fairly compare Boeing’s and Airbus’ order books as of the last day of a given month. checklist of course didn’t do that – if he had, the numbers as of 31-Aug-2013 would not have shown a 40:60 split in Boeing’s favour, but a pretty even 47:53 split (112 vs 124 net).
        Given that this shows market share fluctuating quite wildly within the space of two weeks, I think it’s pretty bold to base his claim of Airbus never capturing more than 40% of widebody market share simply on the market share he arrives at by comparing Airbus 31-Aug-2013 with Boeing 17-09-2013.

    • I think you hugely overstate the importance (and impact on Uwe) of numbers you arrive at by comparing a snapshot of Airbus’s order book at the end of August with Boeing’s order book through the middle of September, which just so happens to ignore all September orders for Airbus while it gives Boeing 43 additional orders only added last week.

      Let’s then not forget that 2013 is only the second year since 2008 that Boeing booked positive net orders for the 787 – the other year being 2011, when they booked 13 net 787s.
      Other than that, let’s have another look at Boeing’s and Airbus’ numbers for 2013 in mid-January and debate the what where and why then. Until then, everything is just going to be a snapshot that may or may not be representative of the trend for the whole year.

  36. Don’t feed the donkey … you are just loosing your time, anyway, he will never change ….

  37. Hi keesje,

    unfortunately the document you hold is not official Airbus or Boeing.

    It is worth nothing.

    Unfortunately Airbus mixture officially the A330/340/350.
    Why this is not clear?

    Inferiority Complex?

    • Checklist, its from Reuters and says its based on company data.

      But maybe you are right and its worth nothing.

      Do you have a more realistic picture that you can share?

      Thank you in advance!

  38. We’ll see how the two engines which are aimed at 100K thrust measure up once they are built. A 118″ Trent vs. the 132″ GE, definitely two different approaches.

    • As a matter of fact, I do believe that the GE9X should be able to better the Trent XWB-97 by about 5 percent in TSFC department. The worrying part for Boeing IMO, is that the 777-9X is in need of a 5 percent more efficient engine just to equal the A350-1000 in fuel burn per seat. With all things being equal, a larger aircraft should always have a lower fuel burn per seat than a smaller one. For some reason, Boeing seems to believe that Airbus will stop developing new WBs or WB-derivatives after Airbus are finished with the A350-1000 and/or A350-800. Go figure.

      • 2020 GE9X : 5% against a 2014 TXWB or a 2017 TXWB or 2020 TXWB 😉
        The TXWB seems to have a significantly more harmonic gestation than
        forex the T1000 and GenX-(1,2). That should rub of on its future developement.

      • 2017 TXWB. 🙂

        However, the TXWB-97 will have a significantly lower bypass ratio and overall pressure ratio. GE is seemingly going all out with CMCs in the turbine section of the GE9X, perhaps even a requiring water- injection system.

        RR could develop an all new 100,000 lb to 125,000 lb thrust engine for an A360X programme incorporating an intercooled compressor and a contra rotating fan (i.e second fan using a gear reduction system on the IP spool). EIS could be 2023. Engine TSFC 10 percent better than the 2017 version of the TXWB-97.

        http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2010/PAPERS/408.PDF

  39. @ TC
    One going to the 308 T, 97 000 lbs, and for what we follow, no more weight issues now !
    The other “In” the 350 T, and probably in the 105 000 lbs, and may be more, to get it, with Tim Clark, and may be a thrust bump … !
    We shall only know the reality and the weight of the GE engine, and the definitive thrust, in the next few years !
    An item to watch for …
    And clearly, there are 3-4 years between the two EIS !

  40. @ OV-099 !
    I do not think RR will have everything ready for a 2022 new engine, if Airbus choose to go A360 … they have a lot of developments “Acare” and others like CMC, Fan variable pitch etc … , some may lead to 2030 !

    http://www.etc10.eu/mat/Whurr.pdf

    But a 2% PIP for the TXWB97 is very possible for 2021 … they may include too a light CFRP Fan, and some CMC vanes to go heater !
    And as usual, a 2% loss is also very possible for the GE at EIS …

    So … for the B777-9 fate, she will be 80% engine (GE) dépendant, like almost all the new and re-motorised planes …

    Note : With the new OPR, 50-60, and very large nacelles, the engines are now very heavy, like the TXWB, I’m not so sure the CMC will save enough weight to compensate !

    • Of course, RR could offer a RB3025-derived engine if EIS of an A360X was to coincide with that of the 777-9X. However, by stretching the development period out by a few years and moving EIS closer to 2025, RR should IMO be able to field an engine that would be significantly better than the GE9X. Among other things, it could include an intercooled compressor.

      However geared technology in longer term Rolls engines will not be limited to the mid-thrust range. Both General Electric and Rolls have acknowledged that the appeal of the GTF concept increases in proportion to thrust. Even before the newly forged relationship with Pratt was announced in October, Rolls openly said ultra-high bypass ratio geared fans may be required to meet the challenging targets of future emissions goals such as those outlined in the European Union’s Flightplan 2050 vision for future air transport.

      Overall Rolls shows no signs of diverging from the guidelines of its existing research strategy which, early last decade, grouped technology acquisition within three broad, rolling time bands – up to around five years, around ten years, and up to 20 years and beyond. This it calls its Vision 5, Vision 10 and Vision 20 programs, with Vision 5 originally covering engines such as the Trent 900 for the A380, and later the Trent 1000 for the 787.

      Rolls basis its future near term big engine development squarely on the Vision 10-derived Trent XWB architecture and is starting to reveal more details about what the technology options are. Speaking at this year’s International Society For Air Breathing Engines meeting in Sweden, Rolls Future Programs senior project engineer John Whurr, says “the core architecture of the Trent XWB, in particular the two-stage intermediate turbine, facilitates development of the core thermodynamic cycle.”

      It does this, he adds, by enabling increased compressor pressure ratios, and overall pressure ratio, without compromising the efficiency of the high and intermediate pressure turbines. Improvements in the core could also come from introducing a ‘cooled’ cooling air system to enable higher compressor temperatures without compromising component lives. Higher turbine inlet temperatures, and hence better thermodynamic efficiency, could be gained by introducing ceramic matrix composites in the turbine.

      https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=cr&ei=Z3dAUvKEDY-Lswa9kIH4BQ#q=rolls+royce+ultra+fan+aviation+week&start=40

      It seems to me that GE may be moving towards a dead end, architecturally speaking.

      In the future, large very high bypass ratio engines would in all likelihood look a lot like a large ducted, and geared propfan.

      I don’t think it’s a good business case for RR to re-fan the TXWB engine. RR may sell more than 4000 TXWB engine. IMO, GE’s refusal to come aboard on the A350-1000 may go down in aerospace history as one of the greatest blunders of all time. Not only have they missed out on a large market, they are also in danger of being left out cold and dry on future Airbus widebody programmes. From Airbus’s point of view, GE is in bed with Boeing. Hence, GE has tossed its cap over the wall — interwining their destiny with that of Boeing — and as such have no choice but to follow it.

    • Interesting link. Maybe Leeham can start a discussion on RR narrowbody strategy supported by this link. Lots of interesting stuff. Together with RR recent break with PW I think we can expect some action from them. A 3 spool small engine can also help a slower fan speed, just like the gtf,

      • RR has been struggling 20 years trying to down size the three Spool, without any success, I doubt they can make it now, unless CMC and other exotic components allow it !
        I think P&W, has definitively the best option today, with the GTF, they do not want to share anymore …
        And I follow with interest the fan with variable pitch, maybe an opportunity for RR, it would greatly simplificate the nacelle, getting rid off the reverses !

  41. The CFP Fan, is coming for the TXWB , RR is, since 2-3 years, heavily implicated with GKN to develop and just make it !
    For me the only question, is when !
    And with a close to 7300 Kg TXWB, its quite obvious they need to win some 200 kg with the fan !

    • Again IMO, a composite fan should be on the next all new RR engine, not the TXWB. 🙂

  42. No Keesje, i cannot.

    That is why i base myself on Airbus.com & Boeing.com to be more secure.

    Pity that Airbus does not provide archives of annual orders and delivery except the confusing mix of A330/340/350 …

    Thank You

  43. maybe “http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/orders_deliveries_table/Airbus_August_2013_orders_delivery.xls”

    If html screws up, the address its an excel linked on Airbus orders & deliveries page.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.