Odds and Ends: 777X wing to Everett; Boeing discounts; A330, A380neos; A350 debugging; 787 bonuses; CSeries costs up $1bn

777X wing to Everett: Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times reports that Everett (WA) at Paine Field has been selected for the production site of the 777X wing. The plant will be adjacent the huge  Boeing factory at Paine Field.

Boeing’s facility in Pierce County 65 miles away was another possibility, as was a site on the west side of Paine Field.

Boeing discounts: The Blog by Javier figures the average Boeing pricing discount for its 7-Series airplanes last year was 45%. Note that this is “average.” We’re aware of some campaigns that comfortably exceeded 50%. The same can be said for Airbus.

A330, A380neos: Aviation Week has a good interview with Tom Williams, EVP of programmes for Airbus, over the prospect of A330 and A380 neos. Although the AvWeek article includes the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbo Fan as a possibility for the A330neo, we’ve previously reported that the timeline being discussed–a 2018 EIS–precludes the possibility because PW can’t develop a Big Engine GTF before 2020.

A350 debugging: Bloomberg has a long article about the “debugging” process for the A350.

787 bonuses: Boeing has offered its Charleston employees bonuses if they meet production targets for the 787: three 787s a month by this summer, a good six months later than had been targeted (year-end 2013). The report comes from the Charleston Post and Courier via The Everett Herald.

CSeries costs up $1bn: Bombardier announced its year-end earnings Thursday and bumped the program cost of the CSeries by $1bn. Reaction among analysts was not kind. See stories here, here and here.

77 Comments on “Odds and Ends: 777X wing to Everett; Boeing discounts; A330, A380neos; A350 debugging; 787 bonuses; CSeries costs up $1bn

  1. From the Bloomberg article on the A350:
    If all goes well with the A350 program, says Brégier, the airliner “will be 40 percent of our revenue probably for a minimum of 20 to 30 years.”

    I wonder if they are planning on any revenue at all from the A380 program?

    • The A380 was never been planned to be a high sale aircraft with sales more in the 100s than the 1000s that the A350 could be…

  2. I think so. They always have 5 year backlog, blue chip customers and no serious competition. First flight was delayed a few months, EIS 19 months and it met its performance targets from day 1. Passenger love it and still has the lowest CASM a decade after first flight. Some OEMS would give a leg for this. E.g. Comac

      • That’s about as relevant as bringing the 747-8 into any discussion of the 787 and its revenue potential, to be honest.

        • Are you trying to limit the discussion?

          keesje thinks the A380 will show a profit. I’m wondering what percentage of revenue he thinks it will provide Airbus for the next 20-30 years, if the A350 is providing 40 percent. I think it’s a relevant question.

    • 788s and some 77Ws have better CASM then the current A380s that are in service.

    • Just because you may be pulling in lots of revenue does not mean that you are making any profit. Profit is what counts.

      • There is always the future to take profits from 😉

        A hail and hosianna to creative bookkeeping.

        Jokes aside. IMHO Airbus has a much better chance for real profit
        than Boeing has.

        • IMHO Airbus has a much better chance for real profit
          than Boeing has.

          Based on what?

    • Soon LH, AF, SQ, BA, EK will start flying A380s into the 1 Billion India markets while Asiana, Etihad, Qatar and Skymark introduce the A380 in new markets. The competitions seems to have given up on VLA’s while gradual enhancements on the A380 are scheduled.

      Now if you prefer to ignore what is happening and stick to the envious A380 bashing we saw in the 2005-2010 period you are totally free to do so. The rest of the world moves on anyway.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=54422

        • Dog: bow-wow 747-8i bow-wow MAX bow-wow 777X bow-wow …

          I guess there are better methods to compare aircraft than dog sounds but I still can hear the “woooow” of the sonic cruiser.

        • The last think I heard of the Touareg was fleeing with Ghadaffi and terrorizing the moderate people of Mail before being kicked out by the french. Not sure what they were saying at that stage 😉 😉

      • So why are LH and AF considering reducing their A380 options? I think you’re the one ignoring what’s happening, with all your A380 happy talk.

        • Oh hurray, finally someone Really did consider reducing A380. That compensates a lot. No sleepless nights about 200 787 orders evoporating during the last 5 years, no overview, comments, nothing. But a few A380 cancellation among a string of successes means a lot for some. This goes deep 😉 😉

        • No sleepless nights about 200 787 orders evoporating during the last 5 years, no overview, comments, nothing.

          But even with the 200 cancellations the 787 order book is still 1031!
          See the difference?

        • “But even with the 200 cancellations the 787 order book is still 1031!
          See the difference?”

          No, I’m no specialist in comparing VLA with twin sales. I saw the 800+800 A330/350 orders since the 787 was launched though.

        • 800 A330s+800 A350s < 1000 777s+1000 787s…
          You're also not looking at the backlogs. Airbus has ~250 for the A330 and ~800 for the A350, but Boeing has ~600 for the 777 (including 777X) and ~900 for the 787. 1050 is a good amount less than 1500.

          Also keep in mind that Boeing's lineup here goes both above and below Airbus' capacity-wise…

    • If the A380 goes to 11 across from 10 across will passengers still love it? And, if it now has the lowest CASM OEMS would give a leg for why bother with this squeeze plus an engine upgrade?

  3. re 777X wing …well DUH cubed ! Just cuz the permits and other issues had been settled a long time ago, and all but building contracts let prior to the ‘ negotiations”, one might have figured out the logistics of building it elsewhere simply wouldn’t work.

    Ponzi was a piker- boeing ethics supercedes all rational thought !!

  4. Boeing has 6 years to develop the 777X and are probably a few years from design freeze.

    With the 777-8X already looking like the -800 version of the 777X (too capable / heavy for the market) Boeing could IMO better turn the 777X into the Super Twin Airbus isn’t looking at.

    A shorter 777-9X variant for long / heavy flights with a lot of cargo and a -10X optimized to replace the 747 on flights to/from Asia. With A330/A350/A380 cabin comfort standards and realistic cabin specs.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing777-10XConceptfeb14_zpsdf3d7445.jpg

    They have time enough time to optimize the wing, landing gear and GE-9X for that, improve CASM and avoid further confrontations with the inherently lighter A350XWB’s

  5. it just might be that the wing can be cured without an autoclave- otherwise, it would seem that two autoclaves of large size would be needed to make rate ? Or wing spar made in three sections inboard to engine strut, strut to tip, folding tip >

    While checking this out I cam across great history of 787, worth reading even just the stub available . .

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8L9DR0KlS7EC&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=787+wing+cure+times&source=bl&ots=Jba_zRgjnw&sig=Vj4_Q_fRECFpuH1nKM39kH5KKNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZXABU5n8OY3qoATk0oKYBw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=787%20wing%20cure%20times&f=false

    Boeing 787 DREAMLINER GUY NORRIS AND MARK WAGNER INCLUDES FIRST FLIGHT

  6. Thanks for the link, stumbled over:

    “Depending on the 7E7 version, Boeing said this would make it twenty thousand to forty thousand pounds lighter than its nearest rival, the A330-200. Yet the 7E7 would still be able to fly 1,700 nautical miles farther with the same load of about 250 passengers..”

    2003 Wild hyping towards a receptive target group as I remember it.

    • Keesje- can you explain to me how a 20-30 year old aircraft is expected to remain competitive to a new a/c? How will those copies that are >10 years expected to compete? This theory that has been floated about the A330 being as competitive as the 787 make no sense to me because the fleet is going to be replaced over the next 10 years, and that relacement will be made by 787-8 and -9s. There are 500-600 frames that will be removed and there will be new adds to those fleets. Those adds will not be done by existnew adds of A330s so the demand will reduce and it will reduce exponentially in the next 5-8 years. So Airbus gets 200 more sales and that just moves/delays those relapcements for 10-15 years. If Airbus has no real A330 replacement what happens to their widebody strategy? How do they win back all the ahre lost playing this game? I get keeping the line running but at some point you have understand a replacement will be needed, and no -800 will not be a good thing long term. If you put a 10 year old A330 against a 787-8 or -9 you will see that the performance drop off is pretty terrible, and they A330 is MUCH heavier than the 787-8-9. That’s waht Boeing is going after and they will win every competition.

      • “… A330 is MUCH heavier than the 787-8-9 …”

        According to the OEW specs on Wikipedia, the A332 is 1600 kg (about 1.4%) heavier than the 788. Doesn’t seem like it’s really MUCH heavier to me, in spite of the difference in materials.

        Has Boeing published the 789 OEW data yet?

  7. “Keesje- can you explain to me how a 20-30 year old aircraft is expected to remain competitive to a new a/c?”
    I7room, in interesting question if we focus on the 787 and A330. But elect to ignore the concept for the 737MAX vs A320 NEO, 777X vs A350 and 748 vs A380?

    The 787 no doubt has advantages over the A330. But the A330 also over the 787. We can makes lists for both. (E.g. reliability, an installed base of 1000 ac/100 operators, 18 seats, etc)

    “A330 is MUCH heavier than the 787-8-9”
    Have you even looked at the numbers or is it a feeling?

    Everybody seems to agree the 787 is 10-12% better then the A330, the GENX is 13-15% better then the CF6-80, new winglets can do 1-2%, some A350mk1 earo enhancements are feasible, some weight can be shaved off, the A330F nose landing gear can add some rest value, additional fan inches.

    Combining those observations remains a no-go area among analysts though. It leads to the wrong answer. Can’t be right, better look away..

    • Airbus FBW aircraft seem to age exceptionally well.
      Neither 737NG nor the 787 seem to be able to make their “advance/advantage” stick. The Airbus “abstract airplane” model and a layout that can take easy advantage from improved details like engines and and other technological progress shows its strength.

      • The 787 has not been flying very Uwe!!! How do you know over the current life of the program what will stick and not? Don’t say thing like that because you show too much bias and that negates the quaility of any of your arguments.

        • “long” was the word missed. You got me so worked up with another off the cuff statement, sorry for that. And then it’s “things”. Scott this is not disrespect to Uwe because many comments are worthy of discussion, but to be rash fails to add crediability to the defense of either company’s approach.

        • “Longtime success of the basic type without core changes”.

          Except for refinements todays A330 is very close to the orignal A330 ( or A340 at that ). Compare to the 777 which had to have massive changes inside and outside to stay relevant even though it should have had similar potential : the 777 to is an FBW design.
          The last new introduction to “kill, kill, kill the A330” was purportedly the 787-10 after the 787-8 and after the 787-9 were assigned but failed to do that job.
          The future will show if the 787 has this potential. But I don’t think so. Too much is compromised by “one tech generation too early” half baked systems.
          Even the engines will continue to lag behind their initially expected potential ( How many years late to achieve spec performance and in huffs and puffs at that. I expect them to stay behind the generally observed average improvemts for an in service type. )
          Say it: you didn’t want to take a look 😉
          Centering your world around your personal bias does not make others biased.

        • Uwe- you say the 777 was a terrible play, but it KILLED the entire A340 program. Let’s not go there w/o mentioning the entire 4 is better than 2 story. It took the A330 SIGNIFICANT mods to get any traction. Guess you fail to remember the major mods that were done to make the A330 competitive. Do you remember the range limitations? I guess you fail to realize as well that the CF6 was the engine that was developed for the 767 and the 747, and by the way the same core that is used on the 737 and the A320. Understand, very little goes in to one program that was not also used on the other program. Airbus FBW was a success after there were many A320 in service issues as well. Uwe please get your revisionist history together and remember Airbus fought tooth and nail to get relevancy. What Airbus did to get to the table is now not being done. That page is now being done at Boeing because Airbus used an excellent playbook to change their approach. Now the playbooks have gone in the completely opposite direction. Again, you are so biased with your comments you fail to realize that the industry is a mix of common technology because the cost of development is simply too much for either airframer to handle on their own. Just as the A330 has transformed, the 777 has done the same. Both programs are not successful because one company did more then the other, but the INDUSTRY made significant changes to design, testing, and commercialization to produce those solutions. You, make people who have made those contributions look like hacks!!! Respect the work and stop trying to make halfbaked comments like these.

        • Uwe- you say the 777 was a terrible play
          Where did he say that?

          but it KILLED the entire A340 program.

          Just like the A330 killed the 767 way before the “significant mods” you claim it took the A330 to get any traction.
          Your point being?

          Let’s not go there w/o mentioning the entire 4 is better than 2 story.

          Yeah, let’s not, because Boeing used exactly the same story in a recent Lufthansa-endorsed promo video for the 747-8i.
          (Also, “4 Engines 4 Long haul” was a Richard Branson advertising stunt, not an official Airbus marketing campaign.)

          It took the A330 SIGNIFICANT mods to get any traction. Guess you fail to remember the major mods that were done to make the A330 competitive.

          Funny, this coming from somebody who asked Uwe to “get [his] revisionist history together”.
          You fail to remember that even before these “significant mods”, the A330 killed the 767 and prompted the launch of the 7E7 programme.
          Which means the A330 was quite competitive almost right from the bat. It just got constantly better since – and here’s the subtle but important part: these improvements and modifications meant that it remained competitive in a changed and changing market environment.

          Both programs are not successful because one company did more then the other, but the INDUSTRY made significant changes to design, testing, and commercialization to produce those solutions.

          Now this I agree with.

          You, make people who have made those contributions look like hacks!!! Respect the work and stop trying to make halfbaked comments like these.

          I think the discussion here would benefit hugely if everybody held their comments to that standard.

    • Where I’m going is not current to current because the A330 is at the highest level of its performance curve. Major imporvement have been made over the 48 months, on the frame as well as on the engines. The frame will reach the limits of the design parameter and the curve will turn negative, where the engines will need to do more to offset the negative drag influences. Natural design issue. The A350-900 (and potentially the A350-800) will reach that moment 20 years from in service data say. If the A330NEO provides 5 years more life, the engineering and design required to get those 5 addtional years will put the A350 program beinhd the competitive curve. Adding to that many of the subject matter experts are retiring, where will Airbus get the engineering support to leverage the performance improvements needed for the A350? We are losing design capacity across the industry, and this decision will be an impact to the enrtire food chain. So do the wings, and the the rest of the frame but there is a limit.

      • ” .. where will Airbus get the engineering support to leverage the performance improvements ..”
        Except for maybe the UK the European educational systems are distinctly different from the US system.
        Qualified workers tend to have an abstract job education in an industry wide system and not only get qualified “on the job”.
        And Airbus does not cycle its workforce as much as Boeing does anyway.

        Then last night I got a schoolside introduction on the details of choosing an educational “profile” for my youngest kid.
        The trend to demote MINT ( Math, engineering and the hard sciences ) is there.
        Introducing the Bologna system of higher education whas an absolutely dumb act of the highest density.

        • Glad Europe is making such great strides, but the baby boom population has produced major numbers of workers across the globe. China is prodcuing engineers, but the quality of those trained in Europe and US is not the same. The developed world has less kids coming in to the workforce and it will strain many industries. Look at the demand currently, it is far less than .

      • I think you are wrong in several aspect, the first one being that the A330 wing has some growth margin since the removal of the commonality with the A340 wing (A340 which was btw killed as much by the A330 than the 777).
        As mentionned earlier, slight modification can put the A330 on part with 787 performances.

        • (A340 which was btw killed as much by the A330 than the 777).

          Very true indeed.

    • You think the narrow A330 fuselage is an advantage?
      Spin, spin, spin…
      That’s what killed the A350 Mark I.

      • that was the argument.
        IMHO all the pre XWB incarnations were stunted by a rather successfull spin campaign. very well managed. really impressive.
        If the Dreamliner project had been executed with similar rigor ..

  8. “Major improvement have been made over the 48 months, on the frame as well as on the engines. The frame will reach the limits of the design parameter and the curve will turn negative, where the engines will need to do more to offset the negative drag influences.”

    For an A330 NEO some improvement options are open
    1. a 13-15% sfc reduction by using existing new engines
    2. a 1-2% sfc improvement because of replacing existing winglets with sharlets
    3. a 500-1000kg weight reduction removing A340 specific structure
    4. A330F nose gear to get an extra large fan and improve A330F rest value
    5. fine tuning fuselage lengths to best fit market niches
    6. optimizing cabin to fit 9 abreast for regional flights
    7. further increase MTOW / range / payload
    8. further improving mbtf’s based on operational feedback
    9. launch an A333F freighter
    10. some other already thought out enhancements http://blogjfa.blogspot.es/img/A330changes.gif

    The A330 is about 20 years old, like the 777, and has lots of upgrade potential. It’s not a bad aircraft to start with. That’s why they sold 800 during the last 10 years.
    http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/8/0/73913_1359706084.jpg

    The A330-300NEO can have 2-4 % better sfc then 787 based on 1-4. CASM can be reduced based on 5 & 6. Do both, think about the A330 price flexibility and you have a regional winner. It won’t hurt the long haul A350-900 much. If GE/RR picks up the bill, it (still) seems a no brainer to me.

    How long should an A330 NEO be, to exactly match 787-9 9 abreast seating capacity with 18 inch 8 abreast? And carry a few more LD3’s?

    I agree with Scott a Pratt GTF would probably take long and 2018 EIS is important to continue pushing out 10 a month in the 250-300 seat segment.

    • “2. a 1-2% sfc improvement because of replacing existing winglets with sharlets”
      “The A330-300NEO can have 2-4 % better sfc then 787 based on 1-4.”

      You are getting SFC mixed up with fuel burn. SFC is dependent only on the engine and engine installation. Drag and weight reduction can reduce aircraft fuel burn but have nothing to do with the engine SFC. You’re going to have to do much better than this if you want anyone to believe any of your numbers.

      “Everybody seems to agree the 787 is 10-12% better then the A330”

      Who is this everybody you are talking about? Also,what does better mean? Are you talking fuel burn, or cost per seat mile, or sexiness, or what?:) If you are talking fuel burn per seat, I have not seen a credible analysis that comes to this conclusion. Perhaps I’ve not looked hard enough, however.

      • Back on Nov. 5th of last year, Scott posted about what an airline fleet planner had to say on the subject of 787 fuel efficiency and compared to what aircraft.
        “As readers also know, Boeing promotes its 787 as being 20%-25% more fuel efficient than today’s airplanes. With the (also) never-ending prospect of Airbus proceeding with an A330neo, the question arises over what the delta is between the A330 and the 787. We asked a fleet planner. The answer: 10% in favor of the 787, a gap that an A330neo could narrow considerably (but be unlikely to close altogether) with new engines and sharklets. So how about that 20%-25%? These figures compare with the 767 and A340 respectively, the fleet planner tells us.”
        It certainly is not everybody but being that it is, admittedly only one, of the “customers” and not a mouthpiece for either Airbus or Boeing, such statements carry more weight for me than any presentation published by or statements made by, either of the big two OEMs.

    • Keesje- it is a no brainer and Airbus should think strongly about doing the program. I must ask you, why didn’t Airbus develop the A350-800 first? Why did Airbus choose to go after the A350-900 first, and why is the A350-1000 sized the way it is? Because the strategy was to position the new frames over Boeing’s current a/c. So, Boeing went after the A330 and sized their entire 787 fleet on top and around. They knew Airbus would do the A330NEO and saw it as the best way to neutralize the competition. Why, because Airbus is spending money trying to defend the space rather than being offensive and owning the space. Everthing you speak of puts Airbus behind Boeing for the next 15-20 years. Boeing is giving the 777-200ER because they know the demand of the A330 space is greater long term and they knew Airbus would doing nothing to attack. With the 777-300ER, they moved the postion to a slightly larger a/c and then developed a beach head. Again, the plan was not to go head to head but to go to a space that forces Airbus to either be fenced in or make a thrid offer. Just as the A330 is hard to knock out directly, so will the 777-300ER, and if performance of the A350-1000 just as good as the 777-300ER Airbus will be fighting to provve capability. So doing what you say makes very good sense but the A350-800 and the smaller widebody program for Airbus will be fighting for share for the next 20 years because the NEO strategy.

      • I must ask you, why didn’t Airbus develop the A350-800 first? Why did Airbus choose to go after the A350-900 first, and why is the A350-1000 sized the way it is? Because the strategy was to position the new frames over Boeing’s current a/c.

        Interesting portrait of things. At the time, everybody was confused by the fact that the A350XWB was not a direct competitor of the 787. It was usually a question of “A350XWB or 787″, while it’s now become almost the norm that airlines will buy both, because they fit different missions.
        The A350 was placed across the upper end of the 787 line and – much more significantly – the 777. Which makes perfect sense, actually, as it allowed Airbus to capture a large part of the the early 777 replacement market – rather than competing 1:1 with the 787 and thus a) compete for a market segment where the 787 already had a significant head-start b) leave the door wide open for Boeing to come along with their own 777 replacement, to which Airbus would then have had to respond to. Instead, it was now Boeing that had to react to the A350 by offering the 787-10 and 777X.

        So, Boeing went after the A330 and sized their entire 787 fleet on top and around.

        And how is that being offensive, rather than the strategy of “position[ing] the new frames over [Airbus’] current a/c”?

        They knew Airbus would do the A330NEO

        I am willing to bet money that when the Sonic Cruiser was binned and the 7E7 first proposed in 2002/2003, Boeing did not know that an A330 re-engine was in the cards. Airbus didn’t know themselves at the time.

        Airbus is spending money trying to defend the space rather than being offensive and owning the space.

        Sorry – what exactly are you saying here? It’s very hard to make heads or tails of it.
        It seems like you’re trying to paint a picture that paints the usual (and in a duopoly quite natural) to-and-fro between Airbus and Boeing as something ever only driven by Boeing. Which I personally find quite ludicrous. The A330 was a response to the 767, the 737NG to the A320, the A380 to the 747, the 787 to the A330, the A350 to the 787 and the 777, the 737MAX to the A320NEO, the 777X to the A350… and so on. And even that is overly simplified, because there are many more nuances to market forces and airplane programme developments than just a simple “oh – X does this, we need to follow suit!”.

        Expect this to see-saw motion to continue for another while yet – and don’t expect any manufacturer to be leading the other by very much or for very long for at least the next 15-20 years.
        Market dynamics might change once the Chinese or the Russians get their acts together, but we’re talking 2030 there at the earliest.

    • Good list by the way. Got caught up, but the other point is the structural fatigue of the frame. Yes the A330 is an excellent a/c, but putting the level of stress you’re presenting could result in performance degredation, which can drive the performance curve negative. Adding a new wing will impact regions outside of the wingbox, and material changes can introduce corrosion. Yes much can be done but there are side effects and I wonder whether that is added into your analysis of performance improvement?

  9. Mike what you talk about is TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
    which is a pure engine metric.

    Specific Fuel Consumption of the plane is what Keesje ( in context ) talks about.
    Chose your metric ( /seatmile blockfuel /tknm ) all will trend in the same direction)

    Scott published some comparative numbers 8..10? posts ago.

    • “Mike what you talk about is TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
      which is a pure engine metric.”

      No kidding! Of course that is what I’m talking about! I’ve never ever seen SFC used in any other aviation related context other than the Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption of a gas turbine. The T for thrust is almost always dropped. When talking about an entire aircraft, terms like block fuel burn, or fuel burn per seat are what I’ve seen, never SFC. “SFC of the entire aircraft” seems to be a conveniently sloppy usage that allows one to play with the numbers however they want.

      • IMHO it is acceptable usage. As a purist you’d go bonkers here anyway 😉
        Handy way to reference engine integration losses, aerotweaks and even
        seating arrangements with an eye on relation to purely engine related imrpovements. i.e. xyz winglets are comparable to n% better (t)sfc.

        • It would be an acceptable usage to me as well if anyone other than keesje ever used it that way. I may be coming across as a purist, but my real beef is with the ambiguity of it, which leads to bogus conclusions, intentionally or through laziness. Talking qualitatively is one thing, but if one is going to put numbers to their statements, they should probably make sure they are clear.

        • Having a Leak^Hhy moment with Keesje?
          In the racy numbers Olympics Keesje would see no medal. Ever.

  10. “Who is this everybody you are talking about? ”

    “As readers also know, Boeing promotes its 787 as being 20%-25% more fuel efficient than today’s airplanes. With the (also) never-ending prospect of Airbus proceeding with an A330neo, the question arises over what the delta is between the A330 and the 787. We asked a fleet planner. The answer: 10% in favor of the 787, a gap that an A330neo could narrow considerably (but be unlikely to close altogether) with new engines and sharklets. So how about that 20%-25%? These figures compare with the 767 and A340 respectively, the fleet planner tells us.”

    https://leehamnews.com/2013/11/05/odds-and-ends-looking-toward-the-south-lion-air-updates-cseries-interest-787-fuel-advantage/
    Aspire
    http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/01/17/boeing-787-more-cost-efficient-than-a330-new-report-finds/
    Sjah
    http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2014/02/07/boeing-787-9-races-to-finish-line/

    Even Boeing is claiming more then 12% better fuel efficiency.

    About SFc, engine. GE claims the GENX is 15% better then the CF6-80 used by the A330. If Airbus can install a larger fan (its high on it wheels) add 0.5% sfc per inch diameter. And the GENX has 10 yrs of PIPs. 13-15% sfc NEO improvement over the A330 is not a wild guess.

    http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/genx/genx-2b.html

    If you take the 787 is 4-5% better then any A330 NEO as a starting point, as many seem to do, you get into fuzzy logic.. Better keep quiet.

    • “If Airbus can install a larger fan (its high on it wheels) add 0.5% sfc per inch diameter.”

      So, if one increases the fan diameter by 200″ the SFC will be zero? That’s great!

      All joking aside, though, are you sure this rule of thumb that you’ve repeated so often applies equally well to a 70,000 lb thrust class engine as it does to a 25,000 lb thrust class engine? Also while we’re at it, are you talking about SFC of the engine, or some new “SFC” for the entire aircraft that Uwe thinks you are using?

      • “So, if one increases the fan diameter by 200″ the SFC will be zero? That’s great!”

        Hi Mike, that a bit of a dump comment 😉 I looked at different engine sfc and diameter and it shows pretty well on engines that are available with different diameter fans.

        Maybe that is why the OEM’s spending lots of resources on getting the diameters/ BPR’s as large as possible in the first place? http://www.jet-engine.net/civtfspec.html

        The trend in modern engines is to go with higher and higher bypass ratios, because they are more efficient. E.g. the GE9X gets a 4 inch larger fan producing 10% less thrust providing a 10% improvement in fuel burn vs GE90-115.

        • keesje,
          I’m well aware of the benefits of increasing BPR, and that’s indeed been the trend in modern engines for quite some time already. There are limits, however, and I was illustrating this fact in a tongue-in-cheek way. Heck, if the GTF marketing guys are to be believed, the limit is closer than the competition is willing to admit and the only way to really keep the trend going long term is to reduce the fan speed.

  11. I read some strange logic between the lines.

    The A380 will never pay for Airbus but no one likes to mention how well the 747-8i works for Boeing.

    An A330NEO won’t be as good as a 787 but the 777X will compete well with A350.

    An A330NEO will hurt A350 sales but nobody mentions that A350 is sold out for at least 5 to 8 years or how close the 787-10 is to the 777-8X.

    By the way, the A380 already paid for Airbus. These values are called prestige and confidence. Without the A380 far less airlines would have believed in the A350.

    • It’s always amusing how people talk about the A380, and that includes all future derivatives, an A388 neo, an A389, even the resurrection of the A380F. But when they talk about the 747 program, it’s only about the 748, and in your case it’s only the 748-i, completely ignoring the 1573 747s that have been ordered over the life of the program, something the A380 will never match.

      If the A380 is so wonderful, why the dismal sales?

      • I’m just referring to the 747-8 program costs and sales. So how successful is and will be the 747-8 compared to the A380? 119 orders for 747-8 against 300 for A380.

    • This is very true. The same could be said of Concorde: a financial disaster that keeps paying big dividend to the original investors…;)

  12. This blog already provided the proof that the A380, 747-8 and the 777-300ER are all in the same ball park in term of efficiency expressed on per seat basis.
    This blog also stated that The A350-1000 and the 777-9 would be about 20% better in term of efficiency on per seat basis relative to the three aircraft mentioned previously.

    • According to what logic you put the A380 and the 747-8i in the same ball park? According to Lufthansa seating and official list prices Lufthansa paid $925,000 per seat on the 8i and $770,000 per seat on an A380. Also according to Lufthansa an A380 burns about 10 % less fuel per passenger than a 8i.

      Lufthansa ordered the 8i because the seating capacity is right in between A380 and A340.

      I doubt that the 777-X and the A350 are in the same ball park.

    • VV if you take the 777-9X at 407 seats and the A380 at 525, anything is possible. It gives some interesting per seat results. However such a comparison is total non-sense, a useless exercise. Absolutely apple & oranges an aviation professional would never burn his fingers on.

      Stuff the 777-9X 10 abreast seats into a A380, and we have 11 abreast (but still 17.4 vs 17 inch wide seats!) on main and 9 abreast on upper-deck. Remove the usual A380 bars etc and stuff it with seats/ lav’s galleys etc. That makes the A380 a 600+ seater. Pick the CASM calculations up from there. Or if using a real world A380 525 seat chart, pick a real world 777-300ER too and add a few rows for the 9X. http://www.jetairways.com/Images/B777-300_8F30J274Y-seater.jpg

      If Boeing wants to offer A330/A350/A380/777(9 abreast) comfort with the 777X, they better skip the 8X and optimize the 777X for large 9 abreast seat-counts upgrading to a 9X and -10X versions. I think the changes they will are rising. Who wants to invest in a heavy expensive -8X in 2025?

      http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing777-10XConceptfeb14_zpsdf3d7445.jpg

      • If Boeing wants to offer A330/A350/A380/777(9 abreast) comfort with the 777X, they better skip the 8X and optimize the 777X for large 9 abreast seat-counts upgrading to a 9X and -10X versions.

        I don’t think Boeing needs your advice on the 777X. After all, they sold more in one year than the A380 sold in 10 years.

        Who wants to invest in a heavy expensive -8X in 2025?

        Same could be asked of the A358.

        • IMO the problem is Boeing good in talking but not in listening. Countless warnings the 787-3, 747-8, 737-9 are probably not going to cut it. Airlines won’t wait for the 777x, 2008 787 EIS is unrealistic, the 787-10 isn’t covering 90% of long haul markets, years before the damage begins to show.

          The nose in the air attitude is costing them Billions.

        • Yes, it has been 3 months and no 200 firm orders for the 777x as promised? All good things in time I am sure, but makes for speculation if they are still negotiating price, or like Keesje says, length of the aircraft?

          As for the 787-10, that is the ace in the hole, just like the A333 turned out for Airbus. TransAtlantic Gold Standard.

        • The 787-10 looks good/ excellent for 4000-5000NM missions for sure, where 17 inch wide seats hurts less too. Boeing officially says “7,000 nautical miles (12,964 km) — more than 90 percent of the world’s twin-aisle routes”
          http://www.boeing.com/paris2013/pdf/BCA/fct%20-787-10.pdf

          Without any winds, diversions, reserves and cargo I suppose? Who do they think they are fooling? The Airlines? Not.
          “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.” – See more at: http://www.carry-on.com.au/blog/lufthansaorder777x/#sthash.k9Sp4kJS.dpuf

          If the 787-10 and 777-8X are going to have to match the A350-900 and -1000 in the booming Asian long haul markets, we have a problem Chicago. The stockholders have been seduced with back to the future 777X graphics, the “boxed A350” and a non existing EK order, so everything is fine for the next quarterly I guess.

          http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A350XWBcustomers_zps927fbabd.jpg
          ANA likes the A350-1000, doesn’t want to wait 8 yrs and Boeing and its supporters are pulling all stops in Japan to prevent ANA following JAL.

  13. l7room,
    If you are not able to understand what i wrote I really see no way to help you.
    Please return to my posting and reread it carefully.
    None of the allegations you use for raising your hackles have been made in my posting.
    Just for a start: commonality across A330 and A340 over all production years is probably significantly higher than across the 777 range.

    • Innovation at Boeing is worse than innovation at Airbus, and Airbus does development better than Boeing. Was your point? Your kid goes to better schools than those in the US. History should be killed if it does not display Airbus as the winner? A global aerospace industrial complex means nothing if those efforts are used to show Boeing in a good light? Did I miss something? The industry has made great strides in development and that is why performance can be found today that could not have been found 15 to 30 years ago. Respect that and respect that innovation is being attempted to produce better performaing frames. Don’t waste the time of readers to make procolamtions as you do. Respect innovation, whether it be from Airbus or Boeing. Hopefully you got my drift because I’m not asking for help.

  14. What Boeing needs to do is do what they did with the 777 family: divide the 777X family into size, which they’ve done, but also range. In the most recent AWS&T, Delta talked about how there are no short range wide bodies save for the A330. Especially in SE Asia, there is a large demand for short haul widebodies, and with Airbus and Boeing targeting ULH routes (notice that most of the launch customers for the 777X were in the Mid-East: Emirates, Etihad, Qatar), there is an increasing demand for the short haul wide bodies, which is one of the reasons that many airlines are pushing for an A330 neo (besides commonality).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *