Boeing’s vice president of marketing, Randy Tinseth, appeared at the annual Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference this week in the Seattle area. He talked about Boeing’s annual Current Market Outlook update as well as taking a light-hearted approach to some mythbusting, a la the television show.
That seems to be a reasonable forecast of the overall airline market for the next 20 years (35,000 new build airplanes from all OEMs). I wonder if John Leahy agrees with Randy’s forecast.
I liked Randy’s little joke in segment #2 about Airbus will have 56 years to complete their 20 year forecast of orders for the A-380.
Yes, it may well take take 56 years to reach that goal for the A380. Unfortunately; he failed to mention that for the 747-8 it will never happen or perhaps will take 300 years. He also failed to mention that the A380 has no ETOPS restrictions and can fly direct routes that the 777-x will never be able to fly.
Please read this link. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/01/16/07-39/extended-operations-etops-of-multi-engine-airplanes
It says, “This final rule applies to air carrier (part 121), commuter, and on-demand (part 135) turbine powered multi-engine airplanes used in extended-range operations. However, all-cargo operations in airplanes with more than two engines of both part 121 and part 135 are exempted from the majority of this rule.
The routes that the 777X cannot fly with 330 ETOPS will probably not be flown by the A380 either due to the lack of passenger traffic.
In the mean time, Airbus is actively pursuing 420 min ETOPS for the A350 to fly these routes over Antarctica.
Excellent point. That is one of the reason I’m still a fan of the A340, a truly versatile airplane designed for that.
And is no longer in production.
I believe Airbus expected to have about half the VLA market..
In reality, Airbus will have about 90% of the VLAP market. The 748i is already toast.
leehamnet “The 748i is already toast.”
Are you sure? Haven’t you heard about the rumors?
Quad passenger aircraft are dinosaurs close to extinction. Please never forget that this blog already given the proof that the 777-9 and A350-1000XWB (if built) provide two digit percentage of efficiency advantage against the 777-300ER, A380 and 747-8 Intercontinental.
However, the 747-8F may continue its role as heavy cargo aircraft. Perhaps it will provide a permanent lifeline to its passenger version the 747-8 Intercontinental. Very unfortunately for the A380, it does not have any freighter version.
“A350-1000XWB (if built)”
Are there serious reason to believe it will not ? BA, JAL, UA, EK, QR seem pretty confident. We may see SQ converting -900s at the show too.
“provide two digit percentage of efficiency advantage against the 777-300ER, A380 and 747-8 Intercontinental.”
I wonder what engines both 777 and A380 will have after 2020. IMO we will have to wait until the 777X is better defined anyway, before jumping to conclusions.
“Very unfortunately for the A380, it does not have any freighter version.”
Very fortunately probably. They could have been stored now, next to 747-8f’s in a desert. Looking back, a lucky move to halt its development..
It is sad that quad passengers are considered dinosaurs only and solely because of fuel burn. Will everything be measured by cost? Will return of money surpass flight safety? Would you rather get on a novelty fuel efficient airplane that spontaneously catches on fire and knowing that the root of the problem was not addressed but rather was patched and contained? Would anyone rather get on that efficient airplane knowing that the airplane consistently gets grounded because of a variety of other problems with software, panels falling off, fuel leakage, and so on? Would anyone get on that plane for a transoceanic flight knowing that it is only certified to fly 180 minutes away from a nearby landing strip? Doesn’t that say something? I would rather fly a quad engine plane and pay more for fuel than on a fuel efficient plane whose electrical system are based on batteries banned as cargo on airplanes because of fire hazard.
Joe, “Will return of money surpass flight safety?”
Safety has nothing to do with the number of engines on the aircraft.
That is a mistatement of savety acessments.
Under ETOPS operational considerations Twins are “save enough” .
Stating that Twins are equal to or exceed 3 and 4holers is wrong.
Your statement is totally wrong. Safety has nothing to do with the number of engines on the aircraft.
There is an interesting summary here:
And I suggest you to look again into the charts in the following article:
Tooting your own horn here, aren’t you?
IMHO you will have to do more “Jedi handwaving” to convince anybody.
Uwe, “Tooting your own horn here, aren’t you?”
1. Safety has nothing to do with the number of engines on the aircraft
2. ETOPS rules apply to two, three, four or any multi-engined aircraft.
And the charts in the article show that quads’ role has been diminishing everyday since the 1980s.
The future of quads like the A380 and 747-8 Intercontinental is bleak. However, the 747-8F might continue its role in the heavy freighter market. The 747-8F production could provide a permanent lifeline to the 747-8 Intercontinental.
Just like the 767 tanker provides a lifeline to the 767 freighter (and passenger version).
Without the tanker program the 767 would have been closed since years. Without the 747-8F somebody would have pulled the plug on the 747-8 program.
It is as simple as that.
I thought ETOPS stands for Extended Twin Operations initially until Boeing lobbied to change for EXTENDED OPERATIONS such that they could push the B777 into long range and devalue the A340. Great move since everyone became fuel conscious. If im not mistaken, the quads still fly by different set of rules when it comes to long range over remote areas, polar caps; south pacific transoceanic routes.
No, all multiengine aircraft are under the same ETOPS. The only difference is the definition of ETOPS area of operation. Beyond sixty minutes for twins and 180 min for the others.
The rules changed since many years now. It is amazing that people are not aware of it.
I would like to mention a very funny fact about the latest rules.
Airbus lobbied hardly to get the exemption to the ETOPS rules for quads freighter. Four engined freighters did get the exemption.
However when the final ETOPS rules were issued, the A380 freighter had already been mothballed and the only remaining quad freighter is the 747-8F.
Don’t get me wrong, without Airbus’ comments, suggestions and critics, ETOPS would have never been as safe as it is today. So, Airbus’ role in the definition of the current ETOPS rules has been very important. The industry and flying public must thank Airbus for their perseverance to make ETOPS a very stringent set of rules.
Nobody should publish any rules that are less stringent than the current ETOPS for extended operations, be it for twins, tris or quads.
ViVi you are munging ICAO and FAA ruling systems.
In the next step you try to make semanstics trump physics.
Reurgitating Boeing PR is not conducive to describing
the differently stepped fault probabilities of Twins and
Obviously the increase in savety over the last 30 years
is reaped from a general change in processes.
Uwe, “Reurgitating Boeing PR is not conducive to describing
the differently stepped fault probabilities of Twins and
Which part of my comments above is Boeing PR?
It happens that Boeing does a good job b compiling the accident statistics. I believe you can do the compiling by yourself or Airbus could have done the same thing and publishes the results. If somebody wants to to the same work, he/she can go to NTSB and other accident investigation bodies all around the world.
The reality is that safety has nothing to do with the number of engines on the aircraft.
Twins have better safety record than three or four engine aircraft. That’s a fact. It is so sad to see how people are so superstitious.
Horses for courses the twin or quad safety debate continues, which is safer is dependent on whose tale you listen to, with the statistics being subject to individual embroidery.
Working within the industry from an informed engineering & personal perspective when flying intercontinental routes I & my associates elect where possible to fly a carrier flying quads for the simple reason of safety. Pleasingly for the informed one manufacturer has a VLA product that is serving an increasing number of extended routes directly.
I call it superstition
Well Phil if we’re going to ignore empirical evidence then no reasonable persuasion is possible in this forum. People will believe what they want to believe, numbers and other evidence to the contrary be damned. Do you advise your colleagues to carry rabbits’ feet as well?
could you please go into a bit of detail over what empirical data is significant
in your view and what interpretation can be assigned to that data?
Did I hear it correctly, Boeing built last year as many aircraft as the number of aircraft that were retired. Since Boeing has a lot more aircraft in service than does Airbus, it is clear that the increase in percentage of Airbus aircraft flying versus Airbus must be faster than the current relatively equal production figures would show.
And since airlines tend to be loyal (even if only for cost of change reasons) what does that say about the future /
Yes, you heard correctly.
The price of innovation is it takes time to shake down the gremlins in the technology. The 787 will get there just as the 350 will get there. As the 380 has pretty much gotten there and the 777, 330, 737, 320 etc. have clearly gotten there. It doesn’t happen overnight.
The problems with the quads (IMHO) are that they are not any more fuel efficient in the versions that can currently be filled by airlines, they cost more, they have more maintenance, they have more risk to buy, the value after lease is not yet known, they seem to make money on only a few hub constrained dense routes and only for select carriers; the new twins from both manufacturers are going to force new investment to keep the quads competitive. Boeing looks like it has given up, Airbus has to make a decision in the next 5 years to ante up. The market has pretty much spoken, sales for the 380 are slow. Maybe someone else will come up with a business plan that can work with it (Turkish Air?)
Is the mega twin the next development from Airbus? It would take a huge risk to go after a market that is going to be crowded. A derivative -1100 makes more sense? Or an NSA? The 320 is going to be a reengined 40 year old frame by 2020. Surely there have been some advances to be taken advantage of? Or a 320-330 (325)
Interesting times… Boeing is pretty much committed to its path (777-x, 787-8, 9, 10) likely followed by an NSA in the 2020-22 launch time frame
I think the Mega Twin need for Airbus is a virtual construct that lacks any substance. Probably to create a virtual market position for the 777X. Its so good and unique, Airbus just has to respond.
Nope, the 777X is a responds to the reality of A350-1000 stealing the 6 largest 777 operators. Another “if you can’t convince them (stockholders), confuse them”.
Airbus are focussed on bringing into service the A350s, A320NEO’s and new enhancements / versions. Wait how Boeing will respond to the 40/60 NB situation, talk to the airlines and define a new product for launch a few yrs after Boeing.
I always thought Boeing’s next wing should have been a 50m wing. Perhaps folding tips if needed. My thinking is the same for Airbus. For the large aircraft market, they have a state of the art aircraft which covers most of it. So, might as well buid an all new small twin. 8 abreast with a 5.4m outside diam. with a lower floor and no LD3s.
Pardon me but when you say “stealing” what exactly do you mean? Customers who have ordered the A351 have also ordered the 777x meaning that they both can fly together. Its not always going to be A vs B. Boeing and Airbus makes products for customers and for what the market is calling for, not for their competition. The 777x was a natural progression from current 777. 767–> 787 The only difference is that Boeing did not go clean sheet as Airbus did with the A350.
Rotate, something happened. The A350-1000 order wouldn’t be that impressive if it weren’t the biggest, most loyal 777 operators. EK, AF/KL, UA, AA, JAL, BA, CX. LH and SQ saying they will order-1000 later on. QR also ordered them. And a large group of A350-900 operators that could upgrade down the road. A switch in the center of the segment is taking place.
The 777-8i after 2021 and payload range restricted 787-10 are not going to change that. The (probably excellent) 787-9 will IMO be the hotests bird Boeing offers in the twin segment. And avaliable in good numbers soon.
“The A350-1000 order wouldn’t be that impressive if it weren’t the biggest, most loyal 777 operators. EK, AF/KL, UA, AA, JAL, BA, CX.”
If the A350 can’t win RFPs to replace 772s, 77Es, and 773s there is a problem. Winning these orders is what the A350 is supposed to do and its excellent for that reason. The A350 is now the third Airbus family used to attack the 777 (A330 and A340) and I think they are really smart enough to get it right and occupy this space.
AA, AF, and KL have not ordered the A351. BA and UA are using the A351 to replace the 747 not the 777 and if the A350 is that impressive why have these customers and other A350 customers EY and SQ also bought 787-10s? The A333 has sold very well and only recently can it fly 6knm, while the -10 does close to 7knm. I see it as a complement to the A351 especially as the A351 doesn’t seem to improve fuel/seat over the A359; an unimpressive feat though I think it will be a great bird. However touting its sales history is disingenuous; the 787-10 has more sales in less than a year than the A351 had in its first seven years on offer.
The JAL order was impressive because it is the only order up to this point that is evidently going to use the A351 to replace the 77W. I suspect other 9-abreast operators may do the same; maybe even SQ to a certain degree. These are the orders that will hurt the 777x.
However, I don’t see too many 77W operators wanting to have less capacity in its replacement. In my opinion airlines typically like to grow, not shrink, and this will hurt the A351. For 747 and 77W operators and for would-be A380 customers but for a significant improvement, the 777x is the likely replacement.
I respectfully disagree. The 777-x will be a hit in Asia and the middle East where large masses of people need to be flown around cramped like sardines. That’s about it and the middle east already placed its orders. Lufthansa and a few other Europeans will also purchase a few as will Turkish and Ethiopian. I agree that the 777-9x will be a class of its own. That will translate into sales too. Not many airlines will need it. Not many will need the range of the 8x either. The A350-1000 will be a more balanced aircraft for the average the airlines and will sell better than the 8x. It will also be less vulnerable to fluctuations in global economy and fuel prices. If things turns for the worse, airlines will have much more trouble with the much heavier and seats-cramped 777-x. A stretched 350-1100, if needed, will basically take care of the 9x advantage except for range which brings me back to the point that ultra-long range flights are not really needed and abandoned. Even the ultra long range 777 LR did not sell well. An 1100 with a range of lets say 7900 nmiles will fly 99% of the 777-9x routes and would be the most appealing aircraft in that segment.
More than anything, the 777-9x will possibly finish off killing the A380.
It also fun to notice that Boeing needs to position 5 aircrafts from two models to compete with the A350; three 787’s and two 777-x’s. That alone should be an indication of well-positioned the A350 is.
As for the 787, well , IMHO not deserving of any discussion at this point.
“The A350 is now the third Airbus family used to attack the 777 (A330 and A340)”
The 330/340 flying years before the 777 seems to contradict that believe..
” AA, AF, and KL have not ordered the A351. BA and UA are using the A351 to replace the 747 not the 777″
And you really believe that? Wasn’t UA going to replace 744 with 359s, officially?
The 787-10 will prove excellent efficient up to 5000NM’s. Not to/ from Asia. Ask LH. They directly debunked Randy’s 90% of routes figures. You just can’t leave out cargo.
You are free to believe the A350-1000 won’t be better per seat. I would check the used class (F?) configurations and objectivity. IMO the many critics of the A350-1000 of the last 6 years.. well, kind of hit the wall, although they’ll Never admit.
Boeing would not rebuild the 777 if they didn’t have to.
Replacing 777-300ER’s with 350-1000 is some time away because the 777 are young and 350-1000 are years away. So w’ll have to wait on which 777-300ER routes they’ll used. The airlines themselves don’t know yet 😉
Let me tell you all a story.. I myself with a group of about 17 other people have been flying South East Asia a couple of times per year for 9 years now. We started with Emirates 777 from JFK connecting in Dubai. Then our agent recommended we try Etihad from JFK connecting in Abu Dhabi. The switch was substantial. Everyone preferred the A340 2-4-2 configuration in coach and fell in love with Etihad because of that. In business and first we also liked the absence of the center overhead bins which made the cabin feel so much bigger and taller. Because of this aircraft, passengers fell in love with the Airline. It all came together. The feel of luxury service, even in coach, in a big private jet. That was the feel and the Etihad mystique. We flew this 13-15 hrs flight in A340-500′s and A340-600′s for years and loved every single one of those flights. We called it the Etihad journey!
From Abu Dhabi to our final destinations albeit Bangkok or Dhaka, we were often cramped in these massive 777-300 ER and everybody hated it. It was cramped with lots of people doing things that people do and felt like a cramped low-cost tour operator airline. Going from the A340 to the 300- ER was like going to from the Ritz Carlton to the Double Tree. We accepted it as “it must be because it is a regional flight”.
This past year, Etihad did a switch and now flies the 777-300ER from JFK to Abu Dhabi. Everyone complained and it was interesting hearing people say; “Etihad is not as good as it used to be”. “The service was not as good”. “It felt crowded and the bathrooms were nasty”. “They don’t come around as often anymore and they seem overworked and unfriendly”. “it feels like the regional flight”. Some did and some didn’t catch on immediately …….it was the aircraft and the larger number of passengers.
For the following trip, people opted to fly out of Washington DC instead of JFK, just to catch that A340 flight and others switched to Turkish because it was cheaper. The same will happen for our next trip. You see where this is going? I can tell you from personal experience that this one switch made such a difference. The A340 flight made people feel the Etihad mystique and what the airline is known for. The bigger and cramped 777-300 ER completely killed it and downgraded the experience to one of that an ordinary carrier catered to the masses. In the end, it was Etihad’s name that suffered.
This example shows where the A350 will come in. An elegant, sleek, less cramped long-ranger that will help premium airlines maintain their premium service and image.
Joe, totally recognize where you’re coming from, love the 340 too as a passenger.
Don’t ignore the differences in cabin noise, specially in front cabin.
The 777 is ok in economy class if you are in 3-3-3 specailly if the middle seat is free. 3-4-3 crosses a red line IMO on long flights. Operators and Boeing say its OK, but what else can they say? Look at passenger forum trip reports.
It is not clear to me what “myths” were busted.
Five percent annual cargo growth over the next 20 years is a fairy tale in my humble opinion. It is unworthy of a reality-based forecast.
I’m not really into the Cargo business. The stored 747s and relatively orders of the last 5 years say something though.
From my understanding belly freight, China airfreight being replaced by boat-air combinations play a role. Long term I see growth though.
Perhaps Airbus puts the 777-9 in the VLA category, whereas Boeing doesn’t.
From Above: “It also fun to notice that Boeing needs to position 5 aircrafts from two models to compete with the A350; three 787′s and two 777-x’s. That alone should be an indication of well-positioned the A350 is.”
Joe, I see the A350 as competing in the 315 and 369 seat market. I see the 787-777-9x as competing in the 240-400+ seat market. Alas the A358 didn’t fare well against the 787. I don’t think these remaining frames of these aircraft compete with each other as some might think.
“340 flying years before the 777 seems to contradict that believe…”
Keesje, And seeing as it isn’t flying (for Airbus) anymore indicates what happened with that competition 🙂
“And you really believe that? Wasn’t UA going to replace 744 with 359s, officially?”
If you don’t believe that then you have to assume the 777x would replace the 747s.
“The 787-10 will prove excellent efficient up to 5000NM’s. Not to/ from Asia. Ask LH. They directly debunked Randy’s 90% of routes figures. You just can’t leave out cargo.”
I don’t think the 787-10 is designed to perfectly compete with the A359 but it certainly will be an excellent A333 replacement and there are a lot of those. I wouldn’t doubt LH using it for that purpose down the road. Oh, and in terms of cargo, the 787-10 fits and lifts more up to about 10 hours.
“Boeing would not rebuild the 777 if they didn’t have to.”
Of course they have to, EK needed its replacement and Boeing isn’t going to give up on a 150 unit order. To think this is in response to the A351 when even Sir Tim Clark says the A351 is a 10-hour airplane and has only ordered 20 is a bit off the mark I feel.
Now SQ is said to be looking at an order for 40 777x.
“Keesje, And seeing as it isn’t flying (for Airbus) anymore indicates what happened with that competition”
The 777-200ER stopped selling at around the same time. if we ignore the A330/340 came from the same FAL and shar most part numbers, the A340 was a real drama, only 400 sold..
I believe the 787-10 will do great on e.g. North Atlantic, Intra Asia, leisure flight etc. 17 inch seating has smaller risks of passenger revolts their anyway.
“EK needed its replacement and Boeing isn’t going to give up on a 150 unit order.’
EK hasn’t signed up any 777X firm order and has firm orders for 70 A350s and options for 50 more. Lets pick it up from there..
“Sir Tim Clark says the A351 is a 10-hour airplane’
Well lets says the rest of the world, including the largest 777 customers, Udvar Hazy and Boeing have a different opinion 😉
EK wants DXB-LAX and SFO with the large cargo load. Boeing bended because they needed badly to convince EK. Airbus drew a line and got the “10-hour” comment in return.
The world does not revolve around Tim Clark. Maybe not in EK, but the A350 will fly way beyond 10 hours and not cramped with a full load of oassengers in narrow seats.