From the Dubai Air Show, Day 1:
Qatar would buy A350-1000 stretch
777 Launched: Boeing New Airplane;
Montreal Gazette, reporting from Dubai
Aviation Week: 787 influence on 777X
Boeing leads Airbus after first day
Ilyushin Finance targets Middle East
The Seattle Times has a behind-the-scenes article on the divide between IAM 751 and its International headquarters and within IAM 751.
Maybe we should change the thread to “Both Boeing and Airbus score big”..or “Airbus and Boeing score big”.
Regardless, congrats to both carriers. I’m sure there are some here who will find something negative to say for either manufacturer.
I would’ve liked to see more CSeries sales however. 🙁
Well, your friends Laurel and Hardy never seems to disappoint:
Remember when Fleetbuzz was the biggest promoter of 748 as so superior to A380 and a long future ahead of it?
So, the 777-9x suddenly sweeps the floor? Can we se it 1) have its design frozen 2) fly, before we sound that cettain? Pleeeeaze.
Some real Saj gems here on the 747-8I vs. the A380: 🙂
I’m glad the A380 is gaining enough sales to possibly start becoming cash-flow positive. That being said, one carrier having the majority of the entire order book still doesn’t change the situation regarding the viability of the plane.
What is the price EK is paying for the A-380? I don’t know how deep the discount is, but I do know EK is not paying list price for it. The total of the actual paid price of each A-380 delivered will help determine when the program gets to a positive cash flow.
“What is the price EK is paying for the A-380?”
Around $220-230 million for the first models (price without engines).
Maybe Scott was playing on what was ordered. 😉 A big plane. Or as Moto Moto (Madagascar 2) would say: ‘I like you, you’re huge’.
The DAS is setting up to be a big success for the OEMs.
Interesting that Etihad orders 787-10 as well as more A359s. Hedging bets? Airbus has lots of orders for XWB which can be shifted to the larger -1000 but the 777x launch informs me that Boeing do have Airbus boxed in. The much speculated -1100 will, I fear, come to market too late, if it comes at all.
Where are the wins for the 350-1000 going to come from?
Biggest 777 customers UA, CX, BA, EK, JAL, AF/KL and SQ ordered large A350 fleets including -1000s fleets during the last year. The first round in the 777X vs A350-1000 battle was completed months ago IMO.
So perhaps the question should be, where are the other 777x orders going to come from?
The question is who will buy the 777-300ER production output from 2017 throught to 2021/23 ? One reason for Boeing diddling on the 777x probably was linked to not killing demand for the -300ER ( or freighters, but those aren’t high demand currently either.)
Airlines that will order (additional) A350 or and 777X, AF/KLM, Korean, ANA, Garuda, AA, DL, BA, UA, CA, AC, China Southern, China Eastern, Virgin, Qantas, Lantam, basicly the 777/340 users.
I foresee 1 or 2 additional A380 orders this year. Amuzing to see the press, who repeated each during the last 3 months and concluded the A380 was in the deep trouble and the VLA era was basicly over, deal with the incorrect prediction. (A380 prospects; CX, ANA, JAL, DL, UA, AA, AC, IB, TAM, Garuda,SAA, AI.. )
“I foresee 1 or 2 additional A380 orders this year.”
Well, at least Doric said to firm their MoU for 20 A380s.
IMO, an interesting game theory study could be what would happen after say, 2025, if Airbus would launch an all new, large twin-engined aircraft-family by the end of the decade — and it would obviously not be launched before the 777X production is well underway.
The smallest member of the family could about the size of a 744. It could look like the P510 concept in the video below, but it would have a different wing and only two engines. 11 across with at least the same seat/armrest/aisle width as that of the 777X at 10 across.
“Where are the wins for the 350-1000 going to come from?”
Everyone who wants a 350-class jetliner? Of the 259 777X orders, only 43 of them are for the -8 (35x EK, 8x EY). With a range of 9300nm, the -8 is positioned in the ULH market. EK will use them for long routes like DXB-LAX while EY will use them as 1:1 777-200LR replacement. ULH routes are limited however, so this leaves the A350-1000 pretty much alone in the 350-seat market.
The appeal of the B-777-8 is its lift capability. Yes, it can be used on ULH missions. But it can also be used to carry more cargo. Boeing says it can carry 17 tonnes more cargo that the competition (A-350-1000). EK doesn’t need it for range on the DXB-LAX mission, the B-777-9 has that kind of range with a full pax load. The great circle distance is about 7,400 nm, well within the -9s range of 8,300 nm. The -8 may have more appeal to US, EU, and Asian carriers as it carries about the same pax load as the B-777-300ER and A-350-1000, but much, much more cargo.
The cargo numbers of the -8 and -9, when combined with their pax load could be a greater threat to the A-380 than even the current B-777-300ER is.
It seems Airbus has some homework to do.
I’m fully well aware of the payload capabilities of the 777-8, but the same theory applies to the 777-200LR 777-300ER too, yet it didn’t quite work for the former. Usually one buys the larger jet (because pax generate more revenue than cargo does), or one doesn’t need the range/payload capabilities of an ULH airframe.
“The great circle distance is about 7,400 nm, well within the -9s range of 8,300 nm.”
Design range and real range are 2 different things, you usually have to cut off around 1000nm to get a more realistic range.
“Where are the wins for the 350-1000 going to come from?”
The 777-9 has it’s own nice as does the A350-1000, here is why.
The table shows the block fuel burns over the typical 12-13 hours trips these airplanes does most of the time (6000nm still air distance). As the fuel burned per pax (most often quoted as l/100km/pax) is up to your seating and that is highly contested everyone can do their own division with pax numbers. I leave the pax cheating to the OEMs and give the l / 100km and moved m2 of cabin space as a reference, it favors the 17” guys a bit :
……………….Block fuel t………l/100km/m2
Now you can see that you burn 10t more trip fuel by flying with a full a 777-9. If you load the A350-1000 payload into the 777-9 (typical 350 pax) the extra fuel you would burn for not having a A350-1000 in your line-up would be 6t which is 8% more and we know this is not sustainable (it is about the extra burn of the 340-600 vs the 777-300ER).
It seems Boeing did a great job in working away the hinges in the outboard wing.
The outboard sections still have hinges and fold. Boeing has experience with folding wings from the FA-18s they build for the USN and other international customers. This includes the hinge, and hydraulic locking and folding equipment. The B-777-8 and -9 will fit into the same gates the B-777-300ER does now.
It should be 9t diff for the -9 and the -1000 when both carry their nominal pax loads (sorry) but one can also see that one pays with 4t more trip fuel for the equal pax capacity 777-8 vs -1000 (if they are indeed pax equal, for the endless OEM squabbles to solve 🙂 ). Boeing is talking about a cargo benefit, only if you are weight limited in your cargo haul, if the weight (and it depends on your flown distance) is fine like for this trip the -1000 has at least 4 more LD3 positions available. Horses for courses.
Ferpe, do you know if the 777-8/9 figures are for 103,000lb? Rumour says it will go to 108,000.
The numbers are for the 105000 lbf given by several sources yesterday, in fact the important datapoint is the 10% TSFC improvement over the GE90-115 engine.
When the ME 3 roll over their aircraft every 6-12 years it not only means fuel and maintenance savings, but by buying 3 times as many new aircraft than other airlines the same size they ensure that they have become the dominant force in the market place and can ensure that new designs comply with their requirements. EU and US carriers can complain all they like about aircraft being designed for Emirates but it is as much a result of their own strategy of keeping aircraft 20+ years as the ME 3s size. How many widebodies does EU, US, Japan & Australia operate? Plenty, they just don’t buy new aircraft so often so they don’t count for so much.
777X launch caps dramatic wide-body segment expansion for now.
B787 + A350+ B777x = new routes, lower prices(?)..
While a fraction of new aircraft is in service changes are already visible in my
neck of the woods:
JAL non-stop Boston-Tokyo 787 flights.
Norwegian launches £149 transatlantic service
What’s the A380 delivery schedule look like for 2014?
There are 28 deliveries scheduled for 2014:
> 11 for Emirates (MSN141 MSN142 MSN147 MSN150 MSN153 MSN154 MSN157 MSN158 MSN159 MSN164 MSN165)
> 5 for British Airways (MSN144 MSN148 MSN151 MSN161 MSN163)
> 3 for Qatar Airways (MSN137 MSN143 MSN145)
> 2 for Asiana Airlines (MSN152 MSN155)
> 2 for Lufthansa (MSN146 MSN149)
> 2 for Korean Air (MSN130 MSN156)
> 1 for Air France (MSN117)
> 1 for Skymark Airlines (MSN162)
> 1 for Etihad Airways (MSN166)
I would guess (I’m really speculating here) that you can be assured that a380 production will never fall below 25-per-year, or so: the minimum number needed to keep the current workforce employed. Since every single a380 delivered is a custom job, I would hazard to say the “Tribal Knowledge” required to build the damned thing is immense – especially in Hamburg where the interiors are installed. So…if production rates were to fall too low and people were layed off, then a lot of Tribal Knowledge could be lost – knowledge that takes years to groom.
Despite the problems with the entertainment-system wiring caused by the mismatch of Computer-Design programs between Toulouse and Hamburg, I had never the less wondered why the a380 learning curve was so shallow. I mean, after spending a couple of years and spending a few million dollars the software-compatibility problems should be fixed, right? I think so. Then, it occurred to me…it’s got to be the “Tribal Knowledge” aspect that’s eating into the learning curve! Or…so I speculate.
Anyways, the a380 has to be the most Tribal-Knowledge intensive large jetliner ever built….and that was a bad call by Airbus Execs back in the early 2000’s. It’s no wonder they were shown the door in 2006.
IMU the CATIA bruhaha broke the design target to feed complete cable harnesses incl their connectors through the cable runs. Thus an unreasonable large amount of manual work has to be done inside the frame after harnesses are installed.
This is difficult to fix as you will have to redesign the fuselage for this ( beyond an obviously much simpler fix done on the harnesses ).
The Customer wants 777x with an entry into service of 2020, as widely reported today. Also widely reported was that the current largest 777X customer was made an offer last month that included pricing. To fix that price, Boeing needed to know it’s costs, which means Boeing ALREADY knew where 777x will be built, and who is going to do it.
2020 is just a bit over six years away. 777x is no minor task; it’s not a matter of just snapping on some new wings and going. The engineering, scattered to the four corners of the earth, will take some time. Lead time to spin up a supply chain, work out logistics and transportation. Many, Many deals to ink. And will the FAA accept an abreviated testing regime like they did on 787?
777x built on a green-field site, with a totally new workforce with an EIS of 2020? I find that highly improbable. I would predict split production, in the same manner, and same ratio as 787. Most here, a few somewhere else.
We would be at least two years into the process of 777x launch by now, if we still had James Albaugh leading commercial. I don’t think anybody realizes what a tremendous loss to Boeing his departure really was. And for the workers at Boeing, especially the IAM, he was the closest thing to a friend we have had in the executive ranks since T.Wilson.
Is Long beach really a greenfield site? They’ve been building widebody commercial jetliners out of aluminum on that very site since the 60’s, and today that labor force is still assembling C-17’s with a quite similar skill set. It’s going to be them or Washington.
WWII was, from start to finish in American involvement, won in under this amount of time. An experienced manufacturer with hundreds of millions at stake can set up a domestic airliner assembly line in less than 5 years. We’re talking about a model that is, realistically (outside of the wings) likely to be what, 35% new vs. the model they’ve produced for 15 years? Boeing also benefits today from a much more digitized process/design than any previous derivative production operation. And there is nothing comparable here to the massive undertaking in outsourcing, and composite construction, which the 787 project was/is.
The “unique labor skillset” argument, given the organizational familiarity with the product, and aforementioned factors, doesn’t seem very well grounded.
Establishing a completely new FAL line that bears 100% of the output of a new model is challenging enough as it is even without the amount of new technology introduced on the 787.
Just look at how much slower Charleston still are, and how much slower the Chinese Airbus plant still is – the latter assembling a very well-established product with very well-established technology.
“”Is Long beach really a greenfield site? “”
No. Long Beach is worse than any “Greenfield Site”: it is a field full of military-industrial Locusts. If the 777x is built in Long Beach, I will assure you a spectacular FAIL.
Long ago, Long Beach caught the military-industrial disease and the managers and engineers who have it are capable of infecting any aircraft program that is moved there. For this reason, I question Boeing’s decision farm out 777x Design Work to Military and Space Engineers around the country. These people are also infected with the Military-Industrial Disease. THEY…WILL…FAIL. They always fail – failure is hard-coded into their DNA.
Been there. Seen it. Done it.
Boeing 737 crashed on 2nd landing attempt in Kazan Russia killing all 50 on board pray’s for all lost.
Not to rain on the A380 order parade, but shouldn’t more attention be focused on the fact that a majority of the A380’s orders are coming from one source, whether its leased or bought out right?
If I saw ….. a new operator order a handful or a non ME airline order a top up then I’d feel better about the situation but besides the order today which …. yawwwwn …. was expected, doesnt put the A380 in new hands. Who even knows what the 2nd hand market for ex EK frames will go for.
Important point. But at the moment Emirates % of A380 orders (45%) is lower than its % of 777X orders (58%).
Well said Woody.
The B-777X is going to get hundreds of more orders here on out. I don’t think there are hundreds of order possibilities left for the A-380, or any other VLA, except for freighters.
Let’s look at that again in 2045, which is roughly when the A380 project would be coming to its end as anticipated by its manufacturer.
Curious how 150 777X are a boost and validation of that freshly launched plane, while 140 A380s for the same customer are still just a sign of how reliant Airbus is on a single customer, how nobody wants the plane, etc.
Except that the A380 was launched nearly 13 years ago. The concentration of the A380 order book with a single customer is a valid concern at this point in the program; it’s far more relevant than to a program officially launched a day ago.
Also valid are the concerns about the second hand market for the A380. Who knows, maybe they will be had for so cheap that it will introduce new operators into the mix. Maybe Delta will buy a bunch of retired EK birds, like for the ATL-SAV route…or something.
I’m not sure that the 777-9X would get hundreds of more orders if Airbus would launch an all new composite, large twin-engined aircraft-family by the end of the decade (i.e. as described upthread).
Now, the first 777X will arrive in Dubai around the same time as the 140th EK A380 is delivered. Hence, the 777 replacement cycle at EK is now catered for through the 2020s. That’s not the case for the A380. The first one of the 50 A380s that EK just ordered will start to be delivered in 2016 and the last one in 2021 (AFAIK). The last frame of the batch of 90 units on order before yesterday will be delivered in late 2017. The first A380 that was delivered to EK in August 2008 should be replaced in August 2020 due to EK’s “12-year rule”. Hence, a few of the airframes now ordered will be replacing early built A380s. All of these 140 A380s will be replaced 12 years after they arrived. Therefore, the 140th and last one now on order would be replaced by 2033. Another 120 units — at the minimum — will in all likelihood have been ordered well before that time. Add growth, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that in 2030 EK will have an A380 fleet well over 200 units.
Finally, EK is not the only airline that will replace their current A380s in operation, or on order, with new A380s.
Buck, the high concentration at 13 years into program is neither more nor less relevant than 1 day in, unless reliable insight into future sales potential beyond the one airline is factored in.
To me, the more important issue is ‘what if Emirates vanished?’. My guess is that if this happens the other ME hubs would be similarly affected. Which would again, at this stage, affect the 777X much more than the A380 in % terms of outstanding orders. On top of this, how would the rest of the airline industry adapt? Would there be a reduction in overall demand for seats? Would long haul decline to a great extent? Which aircraft (the 777X or the A380), if any, is most likely to be taken up (as 2nd hand Emirates or ME3 cast offs) by other world airlines to meet any capacity shortfall from an Emirates departure? My hunch is that both would do very nicely as 2nd hands in a world without Emirates/ME3, but it is just my hunch.
Moment, being the operative word.
Woody, I think we just need to agree to disagree.
None of us have “reliable insight into future sales potential beyond the one airline”. However, we can make some likely predictions based on historical fact. The A380 has 13 years of sales data behind it that clearly shows a trend as a niche aircraft, with the exception of EK. The 777 family inarguably has a larger, and much more diverse install base and order book. EK is responsible for nearly 50% of any A380s EVER ordered (when stripping out Kingfisher, Virgin Atlantic, Hong Kong Airlines and Air Austral; none of which are ever likely to take delivery), whereas they make up only appx 20% of the overall 777 family historical order book. Take away EK, and the 777 is still a success. Take away EK, and the A380 is…well…
While the 777 program does now face direct competition from the A351, I think it is a bit of a stretch to paint its overall reliance on a single customer as anywhere near similar in scope to the A380 program. More existing 777 customers will order the 777X…period. The fact that the ME3, and specifically EK, came charging out of the gate at DAS and “at this time” make up such a large percentage of 777X orders should surprise no one. It’s their “home” airshow, and exactly the splash they were looking to make. It is not at all a stretch to state with reasonable certainty that the % of EK to 777 order book is going to significantly diminish over time; whereas, historically, it hasn’t with the A380.
As to your hypothetical concern of what the airline world would be like if EK “vanished”? I’m not too worried about it. With appx 80% of the world’s population an 8 hour or less flight away, I think that their dominance is on solid footing. At some point, there may be over capacity issues on the ME, but as the most established, supported, and best run airline in that neck of the woods, EK is the one I’d be least concerned with.
Take away EK and someelse wouldn’t have lost marketshare from EK and probably bought A380.
Keesje, are your arguing that it’s all about Emirates poaching traffic, and if they didn’t someone else “probably” would have just bought up those 140 EK frames to handle the load? That is a stretch if I’ve ever heard one. Everyone in the industry has had the same chance to buy the A380 for the past 13 years. Not a single one of them is buying it in anywhere near the quantities that EK is. I think it is highly dubious to insinuate that this is somehow because of share lost to EK. It’s far more likely that the AC is way too big to fill on a day in, day out basis, or that it just plain doesn’t fit other operators needs (flexibility, mission requirements, cargo capacity, etc.). Take away the 140 EK frames, and the 20 or so from the defunct/unlikely airlines listed up-thread, and you are left with about 140 frames sold between all of the remaining customer base…in 13 years. With the exception of EK, the remainder of the market has spoken very clearly on the A380. Like the 748, it is a niche aircraft with most of it’s eggs in a single basket. That is a problem for programs that cost this much to execute. The A380 is a great aircraft from a pax (and EK’s) perspective, but that in no way changes the fact that this far into the program it needs a far more diverse, and robust, order book before I’d consider it a wise commercial decision.
To give Woody his due, yes, the 777X program does in fact have a higher percentage of backlog to a single customer “at present”. However, I’d be willing to bet anything I own that the 777X order base will be far more diluted than a 50% reliance on a single customer in 13 years time.
As for the A380 and CX, ANA, JAL, DL, UA, AA, AC, IB…when is any of this going to happen? You’ve been prognosticating this for quite some time now. At risk of sounding like certain others on these boards, repeating something often enough doesn’t make it true.
Buck, it is abundantly clear & I 100% agree with you that the 777 has been much more successful than the A380. But the past (ie 777 ‘classic’) is the past. The point was about the 777X.
As for Emirates viability, when you wrote “The concentration of the A380 order book with a single customer is a valid concern at this point in the program” what were you referring to if not the chance of its orders being cancelled and/or it ceasing to operate at close to its current scale? I agree 100% again that, as things stand, Emirates will remain very strong. But you raised the concern and so I merely offered my take. To clarify this, IMO the biggest risk to them and all Mid East ‘transit’ carriers is the political instability of the Middle East. If these hubs were to become unusable my hunch is that both A380 and 777-9X, (more so the A380s), orders and delivereds would easily find new homes.
Woody, I think we are arguing semantics here. I’m not at all worried about Emirates ceasing to operate, or greatly reducing their scale. I don’t believe that is going to happen. My “concern” is more the fact that without the Emirates orders, the A380 is a commercial flop. It needs a wider customer base, and heavier uptake by existing customers before I’d call it anywhere near successful. While I’m not saying it is at all likely, what happens if Emirates never orders another A380? What if a competitive product arose that Emirates liked better? What if Emirates decided they wanted smaller planes and more frequency between markets? I’m not at all saying that these things are going to happen, but the Airbus business plan with A380 seems to be “sell more to Emirates”. They are the only ones buying the damn thing in any measurable fashion. It seems to me at this point to be the only thing keeping the program from being an unmitigated commercial disaster.
To be clear, I’m not at all saying that the A380 is a “bad” product. It’s economics are wonderful, if it is full, and passengers love it. In fact, I’m going out of my way to book my next trip on one, Emirates no less. But, neither of those things make it a commercial success. My argument is solely that it needs wider uptake in the market and a broader customer base, and that doesn’t seem likely to happen. Without that, there is inherent program risk by way of being far too dependent on a single customer. Airbus is fortunate to have the program hitched to one of the best airlines on the planet, but without diversity, there is inherent risk.
Going forward, I see big twin VLA as the long haul aircraft of the future. Boeing does, and Airbus does too (hence the A351 to compete with the 777X). In my opinion, the 4 holer VLA is a bird of the past.
<I<If these hubs were to become unusable my hunch is that both A380 and 777-9X, (more so the A380s), orders and delivereds would easily find new homes.
A380 orders boost backlog but future risk remains
AIN Online beat us to our plan to assess the future risks for the A380, particularly as it heads into the secondary market, with this analysis. We agree with the broad conclusion that there will be little secondary market opportunity for the airplane beginning in 2020 when the first of Emirates Airlines’ behemoths start coming off lease.
Didn’t you notice that :
– a large majority of 777X orders comes from 3 middle east airliners including the one which has ordered a lot of A380 and which is by far the largest 777X customer. Nobody worries about that or about 77W second hand market in 2020 or 2030.
– furthermore all of the 777X customers have ordered the A350 and the A380. Airbus is well placed to take advantage of any delay in the 777X program (there are a lot of risks : the engine, the wing, the supply chain, etc…). This time, unlike during the early days of the dreamliner and the A350 Mk1, Airbus shouldn’t make the mistake to change anything on the A350 program. The biggest mistake Airbus ever made was to be intimidated by Boeing PR and aeropace gurus like Uvar-Hadzy or Aboulafia. Boeing has just proven that an old metal tube with a new composite wing and a new engine could be a good idea. Airbus has got the same idea with the A350 Mk1 and everybody were laughing at them.
People don’t worry about the 77W second-hand market is because there are more customers (by far) for 777s than there are for A380s. Simple.
And the A350Mk1 was a joke; otherwise they would have built it. Plus it was handily beat by the 787. The XWB sales success vindicates that. The 777 was always more capable than any comparable Airbus at the time; therefore Boeing had a better platform to work with than Airbus.
People even worry about the 2nd hand market for 737NG and A320CEO, of which there are even more out there than 777s.
It was exactly what the 777X is these days: A revamp of a very efficient and very successful model using more composites, new engines, new wings… The main difference is that Airbus kept the A350 Mk. I closer to A330 size, while Boeing upsized the 777X.
You might want to double-check that and compare sales of the 772(ER) and the A333. People tend to forget that the 777 line doesn’t merely consist of the 777-300ER.
Are you saying the A350 XWB is a mistake?
The thing that killed the A350 Mark I was its 8-across seating in coach.
“8 abreast” ? Funny way to describe a carefully orchestrated mugging.
Doric leasing deal could see it enter service with several new customers just via the one deal.
Boeing is touting the wider cabin of the 777X, but they don’t say how much wider it is. Anyone have a line on that?
About 11″ wider than the A-350.
So they plan on gaining 1″, given the difference between the current-generation 777 and the A350XWB is 10″ already?
In a like-for-like, apples for apples basis, the A350 at 9-across will have a 0.6 inch wider seat width (i.e. space between the armrests) than the 777X at 10-across and the 787 at 9-across, and a one-inch wider seat width than the current 777-300ER at 10-across:
A350: 18-inch seat width (x 9); 2-inch armrests (x 12) and 17-inch wide aisles (x 2).
787: 17.4-inch seat width (x 9); 2-inch armrests (x 12) and 17-inch wise aisles (x 2).
777: 17.4-inch seat width (x 10); 2-inch armrests (x 13) and 17-inch wide aisles (x 2) .
777-300ER: 17-inch seat width (x 10); 2-inch armrests (x 13) and 17-inch wide aisles (x 2).
BTW, if Airbus would raise raise the floor under the seats outboard of the aisles by about 20 cm on the main deck of the A380 — but not under the block of seats between the aisles — in addition to recontouring the fuselage frames (777X-style), in order to allow for a 1.5-inch thinner sidewall on each side around the windows (i.e. in the area of maximum internal width), the A380 could have 11 seats across in economy with the same comforts as the A350 at 9 abreast:
A380: 18-inch seat width (x 11); 2-inch armrests (x 14) and 17-inch wide aisles (x 2).
Seems like a lot of engineering problems to overcome.
Let me get this straight.
The outboard seats on both side will sit about 8″ higher than the middle section of seats? How do you think the paying passengers will accept that?
How will the floor beams be shaped to maintain strength and structural integrity?
An 8″ step on each side of the A-380’s main deck would limit business and first class seats/suites.
It would not be not much different than a low floor bus, with the difference being that you would only have one step to the seats outboard of the aisles on the A380’s main deck. Why would passengers mind sitting slightly higher on the outboard aisles. Of course, you could raise the floor under the block of seats between the aisles as well, but that would encroach on the ability to move fully upright under the centre bins.
Nothing would happen to the floor beams. However, you wouldn’t attach floor panels directly on the beams outboard of the aisles. Instead, you would put add additional lightweight beams longitudinally between the main floor beams and the seats outboard of the aisles. It would add weight, but it’s doable.
Due to its ovoid cross-section, the A380 fuselage frames are heavily loaded. Extruded frames are installed in the lateral panels between both decks and the whole upper shell. Hence, these extruded frames have much greater depth than any other passenger aircraft flying today. Recontouring the fuselage frames in the area of the main deck windows belt in order to gain a width increase of 1.5-inches on both sides, should therefore IMJ be much less of an issue than it will be for the 777X where Boeing is planning to gain a width increase of 2-inches on both sides.
You would obviously only do this for an 11 across economy class setup. If, for some reason, an operator wanted to change that, it should be any issues removing the longitudinally beams outboard of the aisles that are mounted on top of the current floor beams , and put those floor panels back on the same level as that of the floor panels on the aisles and under the block of seats between the aisles.
Correction: If, for some reason, an operator wanted to change that, there shouldn’t be any issues removing the longitudinally beams.
Sorry, I meant to ask, how much wider is the 777X compared to the current 777?
The fuselage has the same cross section in both models. However the B-777X’s interior is about 8″ wider because of improved interior fittings and insulation.
No KC, it’s 4 inches wider (i.e. 2 inches on both side). You wouldn’t have much of a fuselage frame left if it was reduced in depth by 4 inches. 😉
Also, it’s the depth of the frames we’re talking about. Interior fittings and insulation is only marginally important (i.e. only increasing width by a fraction of an inch).
The fact of the matter is that Boeing has to recontour the fuselage frames in the area of maximum internal width of the fuselage, in order to increase the maximum internal width by 4 inches.
From the news reports, something struck me as odd:
50 x A380 = $ 23 bln
150 x 777-9 = $ 76 bln
I’m not sure what value is used (list price?), but is a A380 seriously cheaper than a 777-9??
I guess this is the price for the date when the aircraft will be delivered. A380 list price in 3 years while price for 777-9X is for 2020 with 4 % inflation…
777-9X: $377.2 million according to http://www.newairplane.com/777x/
A380: $403.9 million according to http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=14849
A380 costs today just 7% more!
If the list price is reflective of the price paid after discounts then it is not surprising that the A380 is on track for 70+ orders this year.
Leahy talks about 1 or 2 orders more this year, Doric will be one but who else does he think he has a chance of getting? We know he likes surprises at the end of the year, and doesn’t like underperforming. Obviously existing operators are most likely to add more but I wonder about CX, said to be considering VLAs, and would have ordered the 748i by now if they were interested as they know the aircraft and I am sure Boeing are pushing it to them. Or JAL? They might need bigger aircraft as the Japanese govt. doesn’t want to give them as many slots as ANA. I suppose United might be a possibility, as they are loosing share to A380 operators on Pacific routes and they B744s need replacing.
from your link:
~$377m per -9x ~$345m per -8X 150 * 377 := $56.5b
$76b just doesn’t add up.
( would it fit Boeings summed DAS orders ? )
_production will start in 2017_ ( first metal cut for the prototype ?)
Airbus 2013 pricelist from january of this year says $403m * 50 := $20.15b
My calculation was
150 x 377 x 1.045^7 = $77.0b
50 x 403 x 1.045^3 = $23.0b
It would make no sense to compare prices in this way.
Your following calculation seems correct.
Value widebody orders: $76b
Did the $23.0b include some options?
Afaik the Quick and Dirty of listprice accounting never referenced cost escalation. ( until today ;-?)
on errors: IMHO those little errors out of carelessness or whatever are much too directed and well timed for random mistakes. ( I am collecting info on that, taking in links to errors and their eventual corrections ) The most egregious from recent reporting was the Air Berlin 787 deal imho.
looking at it a bit further and using published prices:
377 * 150 =: $56550m ( 777-9x)
403 * 50 =: $20150m
So bloomberg was generous to put it mildly and added Airbus sales to Boeings sales for the Boeing numbers. Noteworthy that these errors never turn out the other way.
Thanks Uwe and mhalblaub. A case of sloppy journalisme..
I personally don’t feel that Bloomberg is particularly biased in the direction of Boeing, it would be quite something when international news agencies for some obscure reason would be biased to positive Boeing reporting.
Bob, mhalblaub and Uwe,
Thanks for the links and the calculations! They helped clear up a lot of confusion on my part..
Most interesting to see is that 777-X and 380 now seem to be aircraft that find their particular place in completely new segments – 0 of the newly ordered ones will go into replacement (apart maybe from the LH orders).
An interesting observation.
I am always amazed at John Leahy’s ability to spin almost any situation. Most of the time Leahy is right, but sometimes….he spins a bit too much.
Check out this spin on the 777x orders from Emirates….http://www.cnbc.com/id/101205730
The man is a Maestro: I am in awe of his word-smything powers.
“Leahy said Boeing would not deliver its 777X planes for “the next decade and beyond.” “I prefer to build airplanes and deliver them this decade. So they (Boeing) can have 20 years out in the future – I’ll take the next 10 years,” Airbus’ Leahy said.”
Is he incorrect? Boeing loves to pull the future forward but blunt reality is the A350 flew this year and the 777X will in 2019. That is 6 years in the industry that has learned to value “Show Me First”.
It seems EIS 777X just has beenis delayed about a year. 6 Months ago EIS was 2019. http://airinsight.com/2013/05/02/boeing-777x-eis-keyed-to-engine-development/
Now First flight is 2019. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-plans-first-777x-flight-in-2019-393206/
The 777X is IMO a dramatic enough modification (wings, tail, engines) for a 12-15 months certification period.
You are right keesje, what Leahy said is not incorrect. However the same could also be said of any new aircraft program that is just getting started and that’s why I think it is a bit of a spin – very good spin as a matter of fact.
Now…if Leahy said that the 777x had a limited market or was probably going to be another financial bust, then I could see the point. But just not what he said.
@keesje Is he incorrect?
Yes, to the extent he implies the 777X is 20 years in the future. And you do a little spinning of your own, keesje. Yes, the A350-9 flew it’s first test flight this year. When will it actually enter service? When will the A350-10 enter service? How many years behind schedule is the A350?
Rick that goes for all, would you put your own money on 777X EIS in 2020, after the 787, 748?
Yes the 787 and 748 were late, but so was the A380, A400M, and even the A350XWB, though Airbus budgeted seven years for the program to reach EIS!
Now would you mind answering my questions?
“When will it [A359] actually enter service? When will the A350-10 enter service? How many years behind schedule is the A350?”
As a matter of fact, the 140th EK A380 will arrive in Dubai not long after the first 777X is scheduled to be delivered to EK. Hence, the 150 x 777Xs is intended to account for EK’s 77W replacement cycle through the next decade. EK’s next A380 order will be for the A380 replacement cycle, and this time around, only a handful of the additional 50 A380s ordered are part of EK’s replacement cycle for the A380. So yes, Leahy is right in saying that all of the 777X orders are for the next decade, while most of the A380 orders are for this decade. Also, it’s Clear that Leahy is implying that Boeing will have a hard time maintaining current 777 output with a shrinking backlog while most of the 777 orders are for the 777X and not the 77W.
Let the guessing on the launch discount for a 200 plane order begin 🙂
I guess discounts depends e.g. if Boeing was in a hurry, if there were competitors and on the track record off past projects.
Another source for prices:
Qatar pays $19b for 50 aircraft: $380m each
Qatar did the deal together with Emirates!
Emirates ordered 150 aircraft and purchase rights for another 50 aircraft.
200 aircraft for $76b or $380m each…
It should be noted that $19b and $76b are the values at list prices (some news outlets explicitly point that out).
Qatar and Emirates are not going to pay list prices for these orders.
Let the guessing on the launch discount for a 200 plane order begin
Probably in the same neighborhood as the discount on an order for 50 copies of an otherwise poorly selling model.
Maybe, maybe not. Any bets on whether the -8 will sell more than 100 copies over it’s lifetime?
Let’s wait until it’s more defined (i.e. 2015) before we pass judgement on this one.
Any bets on whether the A350-8 will be built at all?