Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 6. January 24, 2025
- Boeing came close to running out of cash in 4th quarter January 23, 2025
- Hexcel Earnings: Returning to Pre-Pandemic Revenues, Ready for Rate Increases, but MAX Remains A Wild Card January 23, 2025
- GE FY and Q4 2024 Earnings Power Above Consensus Driven By Services While LEAP Makes Durability Strides January 23, 2025
- Earnings: Pay closer attention to the supply chain than to the OEMs January 23, 2025
Pontifications: Final thoughts of the Paris Air Show
- Our interview during the Paris Air Show with Tom Williams, president and COO of Airbus Commercial, is now open to all Readers. Williams discussions production, supply chain issues, launch aid for the potential A380neo and more.
By Scott Hamilton
June 22, 2015, c. Leeham Co. The Paris Air Show was largely as expected, with a few small surprises. Boeing did better than expected via-a-vis Airbus, actually leading slightly in firm orders and tied in orders-and-options going into Thursday. This is virtually never the case, particularly at the Paris Air Show, Airbus’ “home” turf. At the same time, some Wall Street analysts noted the firm orders fell below expectations. I’m not especially concerned about whether an announcement was firm or a commitment, because the latter typically firm up, if not within the current calendar year then usually in the next. Note, for example, Boeing announced the launch of the 777X program at the 2013 Dubai Air Show was some 200 commitments, or thereabouts, but the orders didn’t firm until 2014. Airbus announced a commitment for 250 A320s from Indigo in 2014 and it will likely be firmed up this year.
Some breathed a sigh of relief at the commitment by Volga-Dnepr for 20 747-8Fs, noting this is a “year and a half” worth of production. Well, yes, if Volga takes one airplane a month for 20 months. We must wait for understanding the delivery stream. Is Volga really going to take 12 747-8Fs in one year and eight in the next? This strikes us as pretty aggressive. Assuming all commitments become firm orders and it’s not a mix of firm and options (which remains to be seen how this deal is structured, by the way–Boeing’s press release on this is ambiguous on this point), this certainly is good news for the 747-8F line.
The orders for nine 777Fs from Taiwan’s EVA and Qatar Airways also helps the 777 Classic line, but as with the 747-8F, we need to see the delivery stream to see how these help fill the production gap. Note that freighter orders enable Boeing to fill close-in gaps, because Buyer Furnished Equipment isn’t needed, and this typically requires two year lead times.
Airbus won an important order to fill its production gap for the A330 with the A330 Regional order, the first for this variant, from Saudi Airlines. It wasn’t the expected Chinese order, but we learned during IATA that the deal with China for an A330 completion center isn’t done and the A330R deal with China is tied to the completion center.
We need to wait for data bases to be updated to reflect the delivery dates of the orders and commitments before we can draw conclusions on the production gaps of the 747-8, 777 Classic and A330.
More thrust, please
With little new news to come at Paris, two topics emerged over subjects that have already been somewhat beaten to death. The first centered around a controversy LNC lit after I interviewed Tim Clark, president and COO of Emirates, at the IATA conference June 9. Clark told me that the competition between the Airbus 350-900 and the Boeing 787-10 was still wide open and he had concerns over the 787-10’s thrust capability at the very challenging Dubai International Airport, where temperatures in the summer can easily reach 50C or higher.
The Seattle Times report from the Paris Air Show reaffirmed ours from IATA June 9. The Charleston Post and Courier, where the 787-10 will be built, added comment from an engineer, addressing the GEnx or Rolls-Royce engines.
LNC’s Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer, modeled the A350-900 and 787-10 performance at Dubai, taking two deep-dive looks at the 787-10 vs the A350-900 here and here. These explain why the 787-10 has a problem at Dubai. There’s no need to recap Bjorn’s studies here when you can go to his in-depth pieces via the links. While Airbus was predictably dismissive of the 787-10, Bjorn’s model is neutral and the results are what they are. The 787-10 needs more thrust to perform to its maximum potential, and that’s that.
“The thing that makes the 787-10 so good and efficient works against it in Dubai,” Bjorn says. “The small, light wing makes it require higher take-off speed than the A350-900, which has a large wing (it shall also work for -1000) due to a wingloading of 122 lb/ft2 versus 144 for 787-10. This delays lift-off and requires stronger engines to get to this speed. The lower span makes it harder to get to V2, safety speed, drag due to weight (induced drag) is high, once again requiring stronger engines. The engines at 76klbf that is offered to Emirates is already a 10% stretch of the std 70klbf ones, they can therefore not be stretched to 84klbf” Clark told The Seattle Times is required.
The ultimate question, to which only Emirates knows the answer, is what is the intended use. If EK doesn’t intend to use the 787-10 to its maximum potential, ie, on routes far shorter than the 7,000nm max range/payload, then perhaps the 787-10 works, insufficient thrust notwithstanding. However, if EK wants an airplane to have the potential for its maximum use, then the 787-10 has a problem that only new engines will overcome.
The other “big” story, which is really a non-story at this stage, to emerge from the PAS is about an airplane that doesn’t exist for a market that remains largely undefined and which is mis-characterized in any event: the so-called 757 replacement.
First, as we noted way back in February and March, the term “757 replacement” completely misrepresents what is needed. We did a series of reports on what we called the “225/5000 Sector” (225 seats, 5,000nm Sector), which Boeing had begun called the Middle of the Market Airplane. We pointed out then that this is really the replacement for the Boeing 767-200ER and Airbus A300, something FlightGlobal’s Ascend consultancy pointed out in an air show-timed short paper but which followed our lead by three or four months.
Boeing gathered some good headlines with some well-timed MOM stories and reporters, hungry for some headlines, obliged. But as yet, this story is probably a year too soon. Next year’s Farnborough Air Show is where we look for some real meat on this bone.
Finally, not as big as MOM is the Big Daddy, the prospect of the A380neo. Reporters, including this one, couldn’t help but ask Airbus about this over and over and over again. Airbus’ John Leahy said a modest stretch would likely accompany any re-engining (and this was real news), but no decision had been made. Since Emirates Airline is the big proponent, the Dubai Air Show seems the most likely venue to announce a decision.
One affordable low risk solutions with good results is a 767 NG.
How a 767 NG would look like ?
Firstly new GE9X technology engineengine with laminar flow nacelle
Secondly wing re-optimisation like the a330neo
Thirdly 787 cockpit and fly by wire technology
Finally fuselage wing and tail reskin with aluminium lithium and boeing sky interior
The upgrade would cost around 3.5-4 billion us dollars. It will have about 6% lower fuel consumption than the a321neo lr
Oh, a 767MAX. It’s been a while since that was brought up.
Firstly – why are you comparing the resulting plane with the A321NEOLR? It’s going to be in a completely different weight and pax capacity league.
Suffice to say that chances of a 767MAX materialising are slim to say the least. What you’re proposing would likely cost more than your estimate to begin with. You’re proposing more of a change than the 777X represents over the 777 (e.g. the introduction of FBW, which the 767 doesn’t have, but the 777 already does), but you’re expecting it to cost less. Unlikely. The 777X development cost is way north of 5bn (Airbus’ Tom Williams guesstimates ~8bn), so expect your proposed 767 revamp to end up in the same region.
But you’ll still end up with a plane that’s expensive (to develop and buy), heavy, doesn’t EIS before 2026, and still doesn’t do standard containers. Oh, and it would overlap with the 787-8.
So overall, I’m afraid it doesn’t really make sense. No more sense than doing an A300NEO with the same scope of revamp, anyway. (Or doing an A330NEO with the same scope, rather than the comparatively modest “stick new engines on it and tweak a few things” approach we’re seeing now.)
Exactly. A 767max just doesen’t makes sense. Beside the obious fact that you have to make a nearly 80% new plane (Wings, engines, FBW, …) the problem with the 767 is that the main deck is to high to alow for compfortably 8-abreast do give it LD2 capability which never took of.
The frontal area is about 60% larger than the A320 (fuslelage 5m x 5,4m vs abot 4 m) but it has only one more seat per row. To make this frame work you would need to lower tha main deck for compfortable 8-abreast (so at least 40% more capacity to the A320), give up the LD2 for normal single-asile LD3/45.
But that would be not the MOM plane but an plane nearly the size and cabapilities of the A33x without the cargo. It just doesent make any sense at all. Better to start from scratch.
I think i was not quite clear. I am talking about is doing on the 767 what airbus done in the a330neo in addition to fly by wire technology,787 cockpit suite and tail cone.
About the aluminium lithium you do not need any redesign in the wing or the fuselage. Also no or minimal change in the existing production line.
Secondly there are over 1000 767 into service. The LD2 are over 40 years into the market there are standardized in the market place.
Finally if airbus took 3 years and 2 billion euros or 2.7 billion dollars. So a launch in 2018 and EIS in 2023 is achivable.
You are somewhat describing the 767-2C. However it is an old Aircraft design to start with and will mainly work as a freighter and can be a good start for a 767MAX. Today Aircrafts have newer databuses with matching boxes, centralized maintenance computers, carbon brakes, fly by wire, newer APU’s, 5000psi hydraulic systems etc. However if FedEx orders 100ea 767F-MAX with GEnX Engines and secure a goverment contract tio fill them it can happen
So easy. Just add in some black boxes and you are all set …
NOT.
Look at the 747-8s mini FBW advance to an ~A310 equivalent technology level 😉
FBW isn’t something you just drop in.
For a competitive craft you start with the FBW idea and design a plane around it.
I think i was not quite clear. I am talking about is doing on the 767 what airbus done in the a330neo in addition to fly by wire technology,787 cockpit suite and tail cone.
About the aluminium lithium you do not need any redesign in the wing or the fuselage. Also no or minimal change in the existing production line.
Secondly there are over 1000 767 into service. The LD2 are over 40 years into the market there are standardized in the market place.
Finally if airbus took 3 years and 2 billion euros or 2.7 billion dollars. So a launch in 2018 and EIS in 2023 is achivable. Also 3 billon euro or 3.4 billion dollar is reasonable
About the cabin it will incorprate boeing sky interior and a 5 inch internal widening. So in an 8 abreast seating the seat width will be 17.3 with 1.6 inch armrest. In comparison the a330 9 abreast is 16.8 with 1.6 inch armrest
“EIS in 2023 is achivable.”
42 Years after 767 first flight. Lots of 767 systems were upgraded or replaced during those 42 years. Some not.
The 767 held out pretty well for a seventies design. The technology used for computer systems, wings design, automated production technology, the early composites etc. would need to be replaced for the next 20 years, because it won’t last for 60 years. Count that in for a few $ billion.
Maximum seating capacity would be over 300 and the empty weight ~(80 tonnes) about 45% more then a longer, rewinged A322 (~55 tonnes). If both use similar technology engines, trip costs would probably also be 45% higher.
So if airlines are ok with 200 passengers two class, it gets richly beated by a long Airbus NB, if airlines want more capacity the 787 and A330-800 come in sight. For a new 767, an engine does not exist.
A shaky business case IMO.
“42 Years after 767 first flight.”
Hmm, I’m sure you meant 34 years after first flight….. 😉
There is a ‘stick new engines on the thing’ 767MAX option. Basically, stick the GEnx-2B’s on the 767, add some aero tweaks and the MAX could be in flight testing in less than a couple of years.
Use the 748 engines, (the 767 has used 747 engines pretty much since its birth). No new wings…just some split scimitar type wingtip devices. Forget fly by wire and the rest of the unnecessary feature creeps.
Everything they would need is already in the Boeing parts bins…and the really big advantage to a quick and dirty MOM aircraft; the 767 is still in production.
Anymore mods than this would be a non starter but the comparison with the 320NEO does work on one level; the amount of modifications required would be similar…even if their markets are as different as those of the 320 and 767 have always been.
A 767MAX would simply be a better 767, which makes it a 753, 767, A300, A310 replacement. It would be almost exactly between the A321NEO and the 788/A330NEO in every respect; cost to purchase, cost to operate, range, payload, seats…just about as MOM as it is possible to get.
Nobody is retiring their 767’s because they are still making airlines tons of money. The 767 has always been a MOM aircraft…even before the concept of MOM existed.
Every MOM sketch floated by Boeing, (5-6000nm range, 180-250 seats), keeps coming back to a 767 MAX.
I don’t think the idea is dead until either Boeing actually does pull the trigger on an all new aircraft, (unlikely within the next decade), or the 767 line stops for good.
About nobody retiring their 767s. Thats incorrect, Qantas did recently and others are reducing their numbers.
ANA a big buyer of 787, has 15 767 stored and a whole lot sold off- especially the 767-200.LAN chile has under half the number operated still in service
The 767 max program you describe has similarities with the aborted A350 and is likely to meet same fate. AL-Li check, new engines check, modified/new wing check.
Your idea is good but it is not the full potential.
Aluminium Lithium can replace normal aluminium whithout the need of redesiging the wing or the fuselage and can greatly reduce the empty weight.
Secondly fly by wire technology and 787 avionics are needed for the aircraft to be up to date.
Thirdly thee genx family is greatly overpowered and in not the most fuel efficient solution. GE9X on the other hand is.
Finally an aerodynamic clean up like optimised belly fairing split schimitar winglet can give big numbers
With these cheap small changes can a new MOM aircraft do better ? I do not think so
The proper 767 MAX must have :
1. split scimitar wingtips [already developed]
2. 787 tailcone and aerodynamic clean up
3. laminar flow nacelle
4.12% more fuel efficient engine
5.787 boeing sky interior 5 inches internal widening
6.787 common cockpit
7. lower maintenance cost
development cost: 1.32 billion us dollars
fuel efficiency improvement: 23% per trip cost 40% with 41 more passengers
what a 767 MAX should not have:
fly by wire and aluminium lithium.
they are time and money consumuming with marginal fuel efficiency improvement
One affordable low risk solutions with good results is a 767 NG.
How a 767 NG would look like ?
Firstly new GE9X technology engineengine with laminar flow nacelle
Secondly wing re-optimisation like the a330neo
Thirdly 787 cockpit and fly by wire technology
Finally fuselage wing and tail reskin with aluminium lithium and boeing sky interior
The upgrade would cost around 4 billion us dollars. It will have about 6% lower fuel consumption than the a321neo lr
Mr/Ms keesje the 767 has a supercritical wing and computer systems are replaced with the new cockpit and new composites are included in the development cost. I would have to say that according that http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-Shot-2012-10-22-at-01.41.52.png
Both the 767-200 and 767-300 will be as fuel efficient as the 787-10
First of all i would agree with steve that a 767 with new engines avionics cabin fly by wire and aluminium lithium. In this configuration the 767-8 will be as fuel efficient as the all new MOM with 30% the development cost.
About the 787-10 vs a350-900 battle. The 787-10 is more fuel efficient but the more comfortable a350-900 with a good discount can match the 787-10 operating cost
Sure, put all icnredients in a red box and shake it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yi3ZC0RpfM
( TV spot for the German grid utility E-ON 😉
The “engineer” that the Charleston Post and Courier, were quoting doesn’t seem to be particularly knowledgeable about the topic in question:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3262305-emirates-putting-pressure-on-boeing-for-possible-787minus-10-order
Incredibly, Mr. Dhierin Bechai only looks at the “available thrust per unit take off weight”:
So, Mr Bechai doesn’t seem to be much of an aerospace engineer after all, as he totally ignores the wing loading of the 787 and A350. Aircraft with heavier loaded wings require, of course, larger take-off and landing speeds than aircraft with less-loaded wings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
_____Wing-area____MTOW
787-9___369m2____253000kg
A359___443m2____268000kg
Wing loading:
787-9: 685.6 kg/m2
A359: 605 kg/m2
–
BTW, it’s quite pathetic how the Charleston Post and Courier totally ignored the work by Bjorn Fehrm, and instead chose to ask both an aerospace engineer, who apparently is unfamiliar with the concept of wing-loading, and Uresh Sheth – a preeminent Boeing cheerleader – in order to reassure the home crowd that the 787-10 is still in the running for EK’s upcoming order.
Funny you ended your quote from the article when you did because Uresh Sheth goes on to point out a very salient observation,,,
““Etihad Airways ordered 30 787-10s which they’ll be flying out of Abu Dhabi, an airport that is in the same harsh climate as Dubai,” Sheth said. “So, obviously, they have no issues with the 787-10 as it is currently configured with the present engine thrust.”
Actually Abu Dhabi is, on average, slightly hotter than Dubai.
Hmm is pointing that out “Boeing cheerleading” (g;ass houses btw…) , did Ethiad Airways not do their homework or perhaps Clark really is angling for the best deal from either manufacturer?
Dubai International Airport was the world’s sixth busiest airport by cargo traffic last year; or about 2.9 times bigger than the world’s 27th. busiest airport by cargo – Abu Dhabi International Airport. Likewise, Emirates is the worlds 3rd largest air cargo carrier; or about 3 times larger than Etihad (i.e. rank 16 in 2013)
Hence, any reasonably informed observer would not conclude that just because Etihad might not have “issues” with the limited cargo carrying ability of the 787-10 during the summer, Emirates would necessarily be fine with the constraints on cargo for the 787-10 as well – Different airline, different requirements!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world%27s_busiest_airports_by_cargo_traffic
http://aircargoworld.com/the-top-50-cargo-carriers-fedex-ups-top-rankings-but-middle-east-grows-at-fastest-rate-10005/
–
Interestingly, quite a few 787-10s might end up with Etihad’s equity partners:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/etihad-could-switch-787-options-to-equity-partner-airlines-404215/
–
It may look as if Dreamliner enthusiast Uresh Sheth takes his cues from the chief cheerleader, Saj Ahmad.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150621/PC05/150629981/1536/hot-video-doesn-x2019-t-translate-to-big-dreamliner-sales-in-paris
“Interestingly, quite a few 787-10s might end up with Etihad’s equity partners:”
So they can switch out the 12 options. if needed, for 787-10s to Air Berlin.. “If needed”. Which seems to say more about possible Air Berlin’s needs than Etihads. Which says nothing about the 30 firm orders for 787-10s. But I guess they will just dump those once they realize they have made a horrible mistake. Kind of like how Clark cancelled the order for 70 350s last year.
On to… “Hence, any reasonably informed observer would not conclude that just because Etihad might not have “issues” with the limited cargo carrying ability of the 787-10 during the summer, Emirates would necessarily be fine with the constraints on cargo for the 787-10 as well – Different airline, different requirements!”
Hmmm any actual data, sources, that say Etihad plan to fly with less than full cargo holds? Any? A “reasonably informed observer” might realize without such data this sounds like rationalizing the fact that Etihad plans to fly the same aircraft from the same climate. Sounds like a “cheerleader” move.
Speaking of “cheerleading” exactly hat about the quotes quoted qualify as “cheerleading”? How about this quote…
“Boeing has sold around 1,000 787s. It’s in a market sector that is smaller than the -300ER. UA’s opportunistic deal fits UA’s needs.
There is nothing wrong with the 787. Not “everyone” is deferring and the 787 remains game-changing.”
Wow what cheerleading! Scott Hamilton better get his act in gear.
Regardless simply stating the facts does not make one a Boeing
cheerleader even if they are, gasp, favorable to Boeing or it’s product. Actually such Ad Hominem tactics, especially in light of the sales performances of the 350 and 787, sounds rather like an effort to reassure the home crowd that the 787-10 is actually not in the running for EK’s upcoming order
“Hmmm any actual data, sources, that say Etihad plan to fly with less than full cargo holds?”
Well, with the 787-10 they can operate the 787-10 – powered by 78,000 lb of thrust engines – all year around with full cargo holds (i.e. 40 LD-3 positions); that is, if they don’t mind carrying mostly low-density cargo such as flowers etc. What is clear, though, is that they just can’t operate the 787-10 with cargo holds full of high density and/or high value cargo – all year around to destinations in Europe, North-East/South-East Asia.
If you don’t accept this, why don’t you present your own analysis debunking Bjorn Fehrm’s post:
https://leehamnews.com/2015/06/12/bjorns-corner-hot-competition-in-middle-east/#more-16159
–
BTW, it’s not an ad hominem tactic pointing out that Mr. Sheth hasn’t provided any technical insight into why hot temperatures won’t be a problem for Etihad operated 787-10s – nor is it an ad hominem attack pointing out that Mr. Sheth tends to regurgitate whatever Saj Ahmad might be saying. This time around; Emirates ordering the 787-10 is apparently a done deal according to Saj:
http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2015/06/08/emirates-787-10/
–
Now, of course, Saj Ahmad has a long record of Airbus bashing. However, his latest “work” might seem more like wishful thinking.
http://sajahmadfactcheck.blogspot.no/p/who-is-saj-ahmad.html
Addendum
https://leehamnews.com/2015/06/15/hot-competition-in-middle-east-airframe-analysis/
“nor is it an ad hominem attack pointing out that Mr. Sheth tends to regurgitate…”
Nah but elsewhere using words like “regurgitate’ , “Cheerleader” or using “engineer” in quotes isn’t ad hominem at all…
“This time around; Emirates ordering the 787-10 is apparently a done deal according to Saj”
Where does he say that? Because I see question marks, “could”, “poised”. “will also look” and “up for grabs”. None of which is saying it’s a done deal. As for the comments about the Emirates cancellation being damaging to Airbus is absolutely true. As for the move to Al Maktoum International that is simple fact that Clark has discussed publicly. The quote is, like so many others, trying to predict the future. If this quote is meant to damage the author’s credibility I believe it fails. I guess every article that predicts success for Airbus is cheerleading or incorrectly predicts an order’s timing by that standard.
“What is clear, though, is that they just can’t operate the 787-10 with cargo holds full of high density and/or high value cargo – all year around to destinations in Europe, North-East/South-East Asia.”
Again source/ That is proprietary info and I would actually like to see something other than speculation about the cargo loads Etihad or Emirates haul or plan to haul.
“If you don’t accept this, why don’t you present your own analysis debunking Bjorn Fehrm’s post:”
I love Bjorn’s writing and I don’t have to try to debunk it because he has written nothing contradictory to what I believe.
After his informed analysis he speculates on the 787-10s chances…
“It remains to be seen what this means for a more normally optimized aircraft like 787-10. ”
Though he detailed the problems the engines might have he does not write the 787-10’s chances off as you would seem to favor.
Really what he does is detail the 350’s advantages in taking off in this environment which is undoubted, however, that is not the same as writing off the 787-10’s chances as once airborne it’ would seem to be a better choice. The decision is not to which aircraft has the better hot and high performance which is the 350, the decision is which aircraft will work best overall and there is nothing but tea leaves to read at this point.
The only ones who will really know, who will have access to the relevant proprietary engine and aircraft performance data is Boeing ,Emirates and of course Etihad which has already ordered the 787-10. Clark will make the final decision and if it was open and shut he would have never cancelled the A350.
Alas Bjorn did get one important data point wrong. In the article he is under the impression that the runways at Dubai are 12,000 feet long. They are actually 13,123 feet and 14,157 feet long (over 2,000 feet longer than he thought).
http://www.fly-sea.com/charts/OMDB.pdf
The runway at Al Maktoum International is a whopping 14,764 feet! Whether the thousands of extra feet of runway would affect his analysis only he knows but it certainly wouldn’t hurt the 787-10’s case.
I don’t know what aircraft Clark will chose, only he knows, or will know. Anybody predicting one or another does not make them cheerleaders
“Nah but elsewhere using words like “regurgitate’ , “Cheerleader” or using “engineer” in quotes isn’t ad hominem at all…”
@Pickles
I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to grasp what the meaning of “ad hominem” is, do you?
http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
As for regurgitate; Saj Ahmad wrote in his “blog” on June 8 that “Etihad 787-10 selection means no engine thrust issue for Emirates”, while Uresh Sheth was quoted by the Charleston Post and Courier on June 16: “Etihad Airways ordered 30 787-10s which they’ll be flying out of Abu Dhabi, an airport that is in the same harsh climate as Dubai,” Sheth said. “So, obviously, they have no issues with the 787-10 as it is currently configured with the present engine thrust.”
Again, Mr. Sheth was just repeating what Saj a week earlier – and he doesn’t seem to grasp the dramatic difference that high temperature makes in takeoff performance.**
So, what Mr. Sheth was doing is pretty close to the definition of regurgitate*; i.e. to repeat (something, such as a fact, idea, etc.) without understanding it.
* http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regurg
** https://goo.gl/KGnmTZitate
–
As for “cheerleader” – I’m just being factual. These two individuals are really rooting for Boeing – btw, there’s nothing wrong with that. However, they obviously harbour a severe dislike for Airbus – btw, that’s typical “cheerleader” behavior. Therefore Mr. Sheth and Saj would probably qualify more as (obnoxious) cheerleaders than true aircraft enthusiasts; that is, based on their track record:
A few examples:
http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2015/06/paris-air-show-2015-day-4.html
http://nyc787.blogspot.no/2010/05/a380-production-cost-weigh-down-eads.html
http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2015/04/28/airbus-a380-failure/
–
“Engineer” – yes, that’s sarcasm. However, it’s you who don’t know the difference between sarcasm and “ad hominem”, right? 😉
Again, Dhierin Bechai claims that he’s an aerospace engineer, yet he manages to write down an “analysis” – based on differences in thrust only – seemingly without knowing much about “things” such as wing-loading etc. LOL!
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3262305-emirates-putting-pressure-on-boeing-for-possible-787minus-10-order
–
“Alas Bjorn did get one important data point wrong. In the article he is under the impression that the runways at Dubai are 12,000 feet long. They are actually 13,123 feet and 14,157 feet long (over 2,000 feet longer than he thought).”
The limiting factor is the tire speed limit for a 787-10. Even a 50,000 metre long runway would be of no help. 12,000 ft of runway is what the 787-10 would need in Bjorn’s case study.
All the gory details:
http://sajahmadfactcheck.blogspot.com/
( no idea about the identity of the humorist behind that blog 😉
“I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to grasp what the meaning of “ad hominem” is, do you?…the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments. .. Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argumentt (sic) by attacking you,”
You are absolutely trying to counter their arguments by attacking their credentials thus undermining the validity of their judgements.
Whoa is that too much for the condescending professor to grasp?
But know one knows as much as you right? Well obviously anybody that might disagree with you doesn’t.
Please though copy and paste more gems like that they are very educational, just not in the way you intended…
“The limiting factor is the tire speed limit for a 787-10. Even a 50,000 metre long runway would be of no help. 12,000 ft of runway is what the 787-10 would need in Bjorn’s case study.”
What is the tire speed limit of a 787? Hmmm? You seem to have access to all this proprietary data. Did Clark mention that or, gasp, more speculation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation Is it a 787 limit or is it a function of the tires themselves? Is it a braking speed limit? Regardless you don’t know because Clark never elaborated!
Notice Bjorn makes no definitive statement as you seem qualified to. He doesn’t claim to know as you seem to.
Perhaps Clark was referring to diminished climb ability which is needed to take off in which case over 2,000 feet of runway would sure as hell make a difference.
Which actually Bjorn addressed in your favorite article…
” The critical point in an aircraft’s take-off is the so-called Safety speed point directly after rotation, V2. Here the aircraft has to be able to continue on one engine with a climb-rate of 2.4%, i.e., it shall climb 2.4ft per 100ft forward motion.”
So again that extra runway makes a difference eh?
But you didn’t think of that did you? Instead of regurgitating Bjorn try actually critically thinking about your argument before you write.
http://www.decodedscience.com/jet-airplanes-take-off-speeds-and-aircraft-performance/5453
[Edited as a violation of Reader Comment rules.]
I will be rooting for you champ!
@Pickles
“You are absolutely trying to counter their arguments by attacking their credentials thus undermining the validity of their judgements.”
Nonsense. It’s not an ad hominem attack to justifiably scrutinise the relevant credentials or the relevant disqualifications of a person. An ad hominem argument comes into being when one, for example, uses the implied presumption that stupid people can only make stupid arguments; or attacking the person rather than the argument.
The argument in this case was that the runway performance of the 787-10 in hot weather supposedly won’t be an issue for Emirates since it isn’t an issue for Etihad – that is, according to Mr. Sheth and Saj. My counter-argument was that Emirates won’t necessarily be fine with the constraints on cargo for the 787-10 during hot-weather operations just because Etihad supposedly has no issues.
You, on the other hand, don’t seem to accept that there are take-off issues with the 787-10’s cargo carrying capability in hot weather – dismissing outright what Tim Clark has been saying about it. You’ve failed to present an analysis corroborating your points. Seemingly, you only want to listen to what you want to hear, namely the talking-points offered by Uresh and Saj.
Furthermore, pointing out that Uresh and Saj don’t seem to have much expertise on the topic at hand, and that they have a long track record of talking-up Boeing products and vilifying everything that Airbus does, is quite relevant to the topic at hand. Saj’s “analysis” (i.e. sarcasm on) came out shortly before Tim Clark publicly raised the issue on the 787-10’s performance during hot weather take-offs. Hence, it would seem to be quite important for Saj (and Uresh) to imply that what Mr. Clarke was essentially doing was to posture to obtain a better deal from Boeing. Better then to say that there are no issues since Etihad has already ordered the 787-10 – in order not to lose credibility with your “clients” (i.e. the Charleston Post and Courier is apparently a client of Strategic Aero Research).
–
“Whoa is that too much for the condescending professor to grasp?”
Well, that’s an argument from someone who typically choose to resort to an anti-intellectual attack mode.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/02/1041833/-Anti-Intellectualism-A-Republican-Weapon-of-Mass-Delusion
–
“But know one knows as much as you right? Well obviously anybody that might disagree with you doesn’t.”
Yes, know one knows……
Attacking the person rather than the argument, that’s your strong point, isn’t it? BTW, what is the phrase for doing exactly that?
It is also worth noting that when Tim Clark was complaining about the A350 prior to cancellation, Saj though Clark was great. It was only after Clark criticized the 787-10 that Clark suddenly became a boob.
@Pickles
As Bjorn wrote:
Again, the runways at DXB are long enough. The problem is that the tires on the 787-10 (i.e. same MLG as the 787-9), are not rated to go fast enough to lift more than 230 metric tonnes at a temperature of 45°C. If the tires would be rated for a higher speed, the DXB runways should be plenty long enough for a MTOW take-off. The limiting factor, therefore, is the tire speed limit for a 787-10. Again, even a 50,000 metre long runway would be of no help.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_09/article_04_1.html
@Scott Hamilton
The “chief analyst” at Strategic Aero Research wants to be in on the action too (i.e. in response to Tim Clark’s press conference today). Apart from providing easily obtainable information, he doesn’t disappoint and delivers on the predictable Airbus bashing as well.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/as-it-happened-dubai-airline-s-official-response-the-subsidies-allegations-597965.html#.VZMGzXY4Whw
The majority of “analysts” that populate the “Quarterly Results Sphere” would be better classified as PR Mouthpiece, Astroturf Cheerleader or some other intensely partisan occupation.
( The “minority but fair” setup here is a reason to cherish this place )
Given that the world of civil aviation analysis/journalism is quite small and everyone I suspect runs into each other all the standard trade shows/events, the question arises: has anyone actually met Saj Ahmad?
I always find in extraordinary (and worrying!) how often respectable media outlets quote him when so little is known about his credentials – do these journalists do any background checks on their ‘sources’ these days?
I’ve been in the same room as Saj a few times. Chose not to meet him, though. http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/pictures/Saj-Ahmed.jpg
Hamilton
Scott, please do you work for Airbus?
https://leehamnews.com/about/
this should suffice..
On a serious note, where do you think you have identified bias in this piece?
Are you mad bro?
So, is anyone aware of the intended flight profile for the Etihad 787-10s? Has anyone asked their CEO?
Is it possible that Etihad won’t actually base their 787-10s in the ME at all, but instead mainly with their equity partners (Alitalia, Air Berlin … etc)?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/etihad-could-switch-787-options-to-equity-partner-airlines-404215/
NickW, you definitely might be on something here. From Europe the 787-10 can fly everywhere (Americas, Africa, East Asia), Alitalia is cash strapped and AirBerlin does little cargo anyway..
E.g. 6000NM from Berlin:
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=6000NM%40TXL&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720×360&PM=*
So, what Tim Clark ideally wants is a 787-10 powered by Trent XWB-84s?
The 747-8F deliveries will be spread out over seven years, so it seems from 2016 to 2022 — assuming, of course, Boeing keeps the 748 production line going until 2022.
Quoting Boeing’s (updated?) press release: “These additional 20 airplanes will be acquired through a mix of direct purchases and leasing over the next seven years.”
What was quickly neglected is that the 787-10 has the 787-8 wing. Plan A was to have the bigger (+3 meters) 787-9 wing.
However 5-6 years in the 787 development cycle, Boeing had to change plans, the wing-root issues, overweight, delays. OEW grew anyway.
Boeing had a feel good story the 787-8 wing was so good for all, nothing else was needed. At that stage everybody took for granted.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-weights-shrinks-9-wing-336055/
Smaller wing, higher weight; up goes wing loading, V2, acceleration/ thrust requirements, etc.
Now chickens come home to roost.
They come home to roost 1100 orders later…
Interesting comments by Mr. Hamilton on Airbus and Boeing, following the Paris air show.
Will there also be “pontifications” on, Embraer, ATR and Bombardier? The first two raked up orders, while the C Series was certainly a main attraction. What about the lack of new orders (only a few conversions) for the C Series, CRJ and Q400?
@bernardp: Hadn’t planned on it.
Question about the Volga-Dnepr order: Is there any chance this might be a “malicious order”? An order intended to embarrass Boeing by cancelling it just as the first 3 or 4 planes are in the very middle of production? What would the impact to Boeing be if they cancelled just before the first planes were ready to be delivered?
This wouldn’t have crossed my mind, but it is kind of equivalent to what is happening to the French and the carrier(s) they built for the Russians. What do you do with an aircraft carrier that you can’t deliver to it’s customer? Not that big a market for 300m long hunks of metal!
@Rob This seems pretty far-fetched.
The planes would be built, and the Ex-Im bank would take the hit !
For the helicopter carriers built by the French, it was the builders, the French who stopped delivery. Possible buyers are Canada, Poland or India as it now seems Russia doesnt want them.
I suppose if US sanctions against Russia were to include civil aircraft then US would stop delivery of any 747-8F.
If revenge for the ship order was the goal wouldn’t it make more sense to go after Airbus?
It is not possible to cancel an order like that without paying penalties…
Apparently, Boeing plans to produce the 777X at 125 units/year
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/state-permit-reveals-boeing-plan-to-hike-777x-output-413967/