Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 3:05 p.m.

They need see the A350XWB definitely in order to keep in truck; otherwise AC with B787 will be lost as a company

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 3:35 p.m.

Can somebody translate what #126718 said ???

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 3:51 p.m.

What he meant was A350XWB is late and in a truck. the ac on the B787 is lost somewhere in the company. LOL! J/K

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 3:55 p.m.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Now its about time Boeing told the truth of the 787. This failure of a program is going to deliver aircraft 30 months late, when they eventually arrive lets hope there are no slight ramp incidents as who knows how long it would take to repair one of these "shining coffee pot fuselages"!
This is great news for Airbus, with many airlines re-evaluating A380, the 'Bus will be gunning for sales, already ahead on sales this year, now watch them pull away from Boeing. Lets also see how many of these airlines switch to the technologically superior A350? There will be no time lag now for several customers if they want to switch.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 3:57 p.m.

No suprise looking at the current and originally projected irrealistic ramp up in 2008, 2009.

2.5 years delay for airlines like AC, at this stage.

Have they sold their busses yet? Or did Boeing take them over, as was agreed as an option when the 777/787 order was placed?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 4:20 p.m.

The US government Im-Ex Bank financed the Air Canada 777 + 787 deal to maintain and create more U.S. jobs.

www.canstock.com/shownews.php?article_id
=179

Indeed Boeing offered to buy all the Airbus long haul aircraft owned and ordered by Air Canada.

Just coming out of a bankruptsy they could do little but accept the industrial / political powerplay.

Boeing can move delayed slots to Air Canada. It seems there is not much they can do & Boeing knows.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 4:27 p.m.

ILFC will give Boeing a thrashing they'll never forget though.
The whacking stick will be out for sure and the quiff haired program execs at Boeing are going to have to drop their shorts and get the chequebooks out.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 5:00 p.m.

I know the AC situation better than all of you.

1. The A340 is a fuel pig and an inefficent dog. The A330 now has high maintenance costs. They along with the A320 family are 'disposable' aircraft.

2. AC will never buy the A380. AC sold or disposed of all of its 747s. VLAs make no sense in the new aviation environment. Point-to-point is where it's at.

3. The only reason AC bought the original A320s (34 of them) was because of Airbus secret commissions ($17 million) to a notorious lobbyist (now linked as having given our former Prime Minister - whose friends were in the deal up to their eye balls - $300,000 in cash in a New york City hotel). This is all now under a parliamentary ordered inquiry. Those who flew these planes call them 'Scarebuses'.

4. It's just a matter of time before the 320 fleet will be a 737 (or its replacement) fleet.

5. The 787 is a superior aircraft and is more technologically advanced than the 350 (if it ever flys).

6. AC bought the Boeing 777 and 787 because they are much better planes than the Airbus offerings.

7. Airbus still does not have its act together on the 350. The program has already had serious setbacks, some quite recent. Right now it is 6 years late if you count all the false starts.

8. Repair of composites is well known. AC and 57 other airlines spent a lot of time on this.

9. AC did not buy Boeing because "Just coming out of a bankruptsy they could do little but accept the industrial / political powerplay." AC is doing well and the buy was not driven by lack of funds. Airbus offered a lower price but it has now come to a point with fuel costs that they could undercut Boeing 50% on the 340 and it wouldn't matter. In sny case the 777 is superior.

10. The 350 will not be in the AC fleet (unless of couse secret commissions come into play).

11. Airbus is the company that has the French politicians doing tremendous lobbying and pressure (you want slots at CDG etc).

Sorry Airbus lovers. AC did a tough independent assessment and the better planes won.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 6:11 p.m.

#126785 ... not this knob again !!!

Hey tool, you may think you know everything, but you're just proving to be an idiot with a keyboard.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 6:20 p.m.

Unregistered user 126785 is dreaming, like some of the planning execs on the a380 and 787 programs. Comments like "where it's at" show your bias and ignorance.

Tactically, airbus is in the better position now. Before the 30 month figure, shoppers could have bought an a350 or 787 and had it delivered roughly around the same time. With this slippage to up to 2 1/2 years (and this is still before the 787 has flown, so could increase) an airline can order the a350 and get it sooner than the 787.

Therefore, watch the a350 sales fill faster than 787 sales for the next few months. Airbus will probably take orders for around 100 more a350s while Boeing's 787 orders inch upwards towards 920.

Also, it looks like the a380 will have another delivery delay announced. Since Boeing has made all the same mistakes with delivery announcements which the a380 program made, chances are they'll make this one too after delivering a few 787's and realising how tough it's going to be to ramp up with their supply chain challenges. So that 30 months could become 35 or more for some poor airlines.

Posted by handsome at 5/8/08 6:58 p.m.

Disinformation - Misinformation - Who To Believe? - If You Are Trying To Make A living In This Industry-In The Commercial Sector (Airbus/Or The Lazy B)!!

http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/sector/manufacturing/SectionNews/Object/C3EE4C4B-E4FE-A8BF-161DA168CFE1B409

"Airbus denies that superjumbo faces fresh delays
Published on 9 May 2008

European aerospace group Airbus has denied that its A380 superjumbo aircraft programme is in trouble, after airlines warned they faced further delays on delivery of the aircraft.

Dubai's Emirates airline, the biggest A380 customer, and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways, both said they had received warnings of delivery delays on the world's largest passenger airliner, which is already two years behind schedule.

Airbus confirmed that chief executive Tom Enders had written to all A380 customers telling them production had reached a critical phase. It announced a "major review" of A380 production last week, but insisted this was a normal procedure for this stage of the programme.

Emirates, the largest Arab carrier, hopes to receive five A380s before the end of March 2009 and another 12 in the year to March 31, 2010. Etihad has ordered four of the $300 million, 525-seat planes.

Europe's biggest single industrial project first faced upheaval in 2006, when A380 sections reached the French assembly plant with wiring flaws that caused production to halt."

Yipp-Pe-Ky-Yah!!(SP?)

Posted by handsome at 5/8/08 7:20 p.m.

"Yipp-Pe-Ky-Yah!!(SP?)" - last post "exclamation" attributed to "Die Hard" Movie/Bruce Willis/Couldn't recall the name of the movie a few minutes ago - 3 glasses of a Great Merlot tonight!! Excusez-Moi!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 7:24 p.m.

the 787, even late

is 4 years ahead of 350

that's why it has more than 900 orders

boeing is in a nice place

specially with the upcoming 777ng

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 7:41 p.m.

Please #126827 can you refrain from drinking at least 8 hours prior to posting. It's a shame that your only argument is to heap insults at the poster - Boeing's successes (plural) and Airbus' failures (A350 configuration, 400M, A380, A340, insider trading etc) must really be hurting you. Don't worry though as there are a lot of jobs for Airbus maintenance workers coming shortly and you can also join the recycling team when the AF tanker contract to Airbus gets ripped up.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 7:57 p.m.

#126834 - you fail to understand the aviation marketplace. The airlines have spoken with their $ as to 'where it's at' which is very slow sales for the 380 and huge sales for the 787. The market says point-to-point. There are already rumors in airline circles that the 380 will be cancelled. Airbus is losing its shirt on this project and is heaviuly discounting the plane. It's a disaster anyway with it's high trip costs, inferior cargo capacity which is about the only thing that airlines are making money on these days and its miniscule residual value, done in by the 747 freighter.

You may also not realize in your further ignorance (since you brought up the word)that the 350 is not a direct competitor to the current 787. When Boeing brings out its competitor to the 350, the 350 will fizzle. C'est la vie!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 8:45 p.m.

126865 By your logic, any aircraft not currently selling as well as the 787 should be cancelled. That's like saying all cars selling worse than the Toyota Corolla should be scrapped. I recommend you take courses in logic and economics.

The a380 is the most efficient way for an airline to transport passengers per seat mile today. The a380-900 will improve on this as the passenger density of the volume displaced is higher than that of any other craft, including the 787, giving it a huge economic leg up.

Several airlines have publicly expressed interest in the larger, more efficient A380-900, and as you're no doubt aware, these craft are built for a long life and long sale period, measured in decades. So with 5 years worth of manufacturing ahead of them, there's no sane reason to take your suggested insane action.

Your predictions suck too. Here's a sensible one: the 787 will be the craft with the most expensive compensation payments in history.

Thanks for pointing out to everyone that the a350 is not a carbon copy of the 787 blueprints. There is some overlap in the model specs however, so like I said - airlines will start to choose the a350. Sit back and watch it sell.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 9:25 p.m.

" poster #126834"..

You have forgotten that most if not all of the A350 production line is sold out for a few years also.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/8/08 11:38 p.m.

Re: #126842 Posted by handsome at 5/8/08 6:58 p.m.

Click here: Global Traffic Continues to Slow

Global traffic growth is slowing. The industry needs less new airplanes than expected. The order frenzy triggered by over-optimistic traffic growth projection is over. Airlines now start to see that their expansion plan has been built on wrong assumptions and are forced to lower their ambition. Don't be surprised if Emirates announces more A380 "delays".

Reality starts to bite.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 12:03 a.m.

The delays hurt Boeing's customers plan, it's true. But, you have to notice that the 767 or the 777 can do all of 787's missions. So, Boeing can effectively provide 767 or 777 as interim lift at interesting lease rates and with a little bit financial help to offset the extra fuel cost.

If you consider the A380's case, the situation is a little bit different. No airplane has the capacity offered by the A380. So Airbus cannot provide any interim lift because the only way to offer the same capacity is to fly two airplanes. But, the A380 is only suited for high density trunk routes where there is a slot restriction in the origin or destination airport, meaning that replacement with two airplanes is impossible.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 12:45 a.m.

#126785
You are a monkey with a computer. Your unsubstantiated opinions, poor grammar and use of "hip" phrases prove to us all that you are no more than a colonial oaf!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 1:00 a.m.

You have forgotten that most if not all of the A350 production line is sold out for a few years also.

This may be true, however the A350 is ahead in many of the new systems introduced. The new cabin air system is very advanced and should provide a far better air quality than 787. Extra fuselage width will provide a 777 style cabin which is far better than 787. Avoiding the immature technology bleedless engines is also a master step. We will see a lot of 787 problems there. A350 will be a step change in fuel economy, far better than 787.

Boeing are also far behind in interior design. The formica and steel look is very 80's diner. They need to get some people with an idea of style and ergonimics.

Also 787 is a little too small, everyone wants the big version and its just not coming because of the delays. If Boeing do the big version it will be a overweight crow and unable to compete with A350.

Dexter Seng.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 1:17 a.m.

"But, you have to notice that the 767 or the 777 can do all of 787's missions. So, Boeing can effectively provide 767 or 777 as interim lift at interesting lease rates and with a little bit financial help to offset the extra fuel cost."

And where is Boeing going to magic these 767s and 777s from? Both lines have a 4 year backlog at current production rates. ROTFL

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 1:29 a.m.

Re: #126921 Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 1:17 a.m.

And where is Boeing going to magic these 767s and 777s from? Both lines have a 4 year backlog at current production rates. ROTFL

You don't need new 767s or 777s to do interim lift.

And, don't forget their 767 line is currently producing only one airplane per month. This rate can increase.

Also there will be more 767 that will come back to the lessors soon. The current downturn will be severe.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 4:00 a.m.

Boeing and Airbus both made schedule promises they couldn't keep trying to out do each other...Airbus with the A380, Boeing with the 787. In the end, both ended up looking bad.

Time for both to get real.

What we all really need is a healthy industry. High fuel costs will force a big turnover in fleets, and both Boeing and Airbus need to concentrate on delivering.

With orders continuing to come in at high rates, I think we should expect another airframer to move in to the large commercial market, and offer an advanced narrow body before Boeing can offer their 737 / A320 replacements.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 4:42 a.m.

Two airlines are going to announce big orders of 787 at Farnborough. Does anybody know who hey are?

Posted by Leelaw at 5/9/08 5:41 a.m.

@ #126932

The 60+ month development/industrialization schedule set forth at the launch of the A380 program was hardly aggressive. In an era when engineers were working with slide-rulers, the groundbreaking 727 and 747 were both delivered to customers in substantially less time after "program launch" than the 48 months originally envisaged for the 787.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 6:08 a.m.

TO: #126919 - can you please post before you hit the pub. But that probably won't make a difference either.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 6:12 a.m.

#126920 pastes this drivel "This may be true, however the A350 is ahead in many of the new systems introduced. The new cabin air system is very advanced and should provide a far better air quality than 787. Extra fuselage width will provide a 777 style cabin which is far better than 787. Avoiding the immature technology bleedless engines is also a master step."

The 350 in its current rendition is not as technologically advanced as the 787. As to extra fuselage width it's only 6 inches total and 4 inches at hip height. In any case the 350 is a gas guzzler compared to the 787 with the 350s extra expected weight , higher drag, heavier landing gear and engines and bigger wing.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 7:23 a.m.

#126951
Try reading some facts you oaf!
Some of us work on these programs.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 7:54 a.m.

"In any case the 350 is a gas guzzler compared to the 787 with the 350s extra expected weight , higher drag, heavier landing gear and engines and bigger wing."

Yes, of course, and with that bigger wing and heavier landing gear it can lift more over a longer distance. Whats your point? You want to prove a 747 uses more gas than a cessna. Great pieve of info, thanks

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 9:29 a.m.

@ #126977

Yes, of course, and with that bigger wing and heavier landing gear it can lift more over a longer distance. Whats your point? You want to prove a 747 uses more gas than a cessna. Great pieve of info, thanks

You have to use a more relevant example like the A340-600 vs 777-300ER. The A340-600 is heavier than the 777-300ER, burns more fuel than the latter but not only it transports less payload, it has shorter distance.

Posted by ikkeman at 5/9/08 10:48 a.m.

My god, what a load of personal attacks. I never realised how many fanboys are attracted to aviation. I though the business was filled with serious(ly) boring engineers, levelheaded managers and proud production crews.
Is there really a big difference between boeing and airbus? Their products look very much alike, they fish in the same pond and do the same kind of business. Airbus alledgedly paid ccanadian politicians, Boeing offered a us procurement officer a plush job. They both reek, as any big company does.
They both have their sucesses and failures, they both rely on government bodies backing them. They both use overly optimistic plans to entice customers and then revise those plans when the commitments are in.
They build parts for eachother!

Could we please try to keep to the facts and not resort to personal attacks when you don't agree with someone else?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 2:43 p.m.

Thanks #127030 for a touch of sanity and reality. Reading all the other posters is like following the US Democratic Party primary- each side slimes the other and resolves nothing. Sure, it is too bad for Boeing and all the 787 customers encountering the delays, but reality intercedes: where else are the 787 customers to go? The A350 is still further out in time and less defined. So, there is little any 787 customer can reasonably do, except try to get some money back from Boeing as compensation for the delays. I believe the 787 purchase contracts impose severe limits on the amounts of delay compensation. So, let all simmer down and live in the real world.

Posted by POWER UP BOEING at 5/9/08 3:20 p.m.

Now is the time for Air Canada To get A really good deal on new 737's I suggest a variety of 737-700's,800's,and 900ER's that would then totally wrid them of those Airbus 319's throught 321's take for example the 319 has a -100, -200, -300 talk about a confusing fleet as for the 747 unless the modify it to be composite like the 787 it's dead in the water I think but how knows it could become a hit yet

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 4:06 p.m.

Dear POWER UP BOEING,

Where would Boeing find an autoclave large enough for a 747 fuselage section? Because of the more complicated shape it wouldnt work. If they couldnt get 787 barrels to fit together, imagine the problems with 747 size.

And last but not least, 787 has proved that moulding whole fuselage sections is not viable and results in at least a 30 month delay to your program.

Does any same person really want to fly in a 737 instead of a A320. 737 is a rattling old pile of scrap.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 5:22 p.m.

I'm wondering if Boeing executives will ever be held accoutnable? It was just last week that they denied any more delays...and now we know that thsi was a lawyerly evasion gesturing at the 20 month delay when they knew full well that it will be 36 months for some customers...and that's if everyone goes right. Boeing seems be be trying to provoke a strike from its two largest unions by proposing a series of takeaways that could delay matters even more.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 6:40 p.m.

The biggest takeaway happened in Wichita three years ago.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 6:43 p.m.

To be fair to Boeing, providing they fly this year, they will probably achieve what they said, subject to there being no nasty surprises in the flight tests.
Getting into the claims of a 30 month delay, as has been stated previously is simply a knock on effect because it is going to take a long time before we see one plane every three days, which was the plan.
I read somewhere that 200 planes will be affected by this slower production build up.

Its also the same problem that Airbus is facing with the A380. Next year they are supposed to produce one airplane every 14.6 days(excluding holidays), but maybe it will be a 17 day cycle, which would produce only 21 planes instead of the planned 25.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 7:36 p.m.

So what pipe dream founded that '3-day' fantasy? And, how is it that these superb minds (within Boeing) were so misled for so long (leading the rest of us to perdition, almost, to boot)?

This project needs to be studied in the context of psychology as well as of business.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/9/08 10:22 p.m.

This may be true, however the A350 is ahead in many of the new systems introduced. The new cabin air system is very advanced and should provide a far better air quality than 787. Extra fuselage width will provide a 777 style cabin which is far better than 787. Avoiding the immature technology bleedless engines is also a master step. We will see a lot of 787 problems there. A350 will be a step change in fuel economy, far better than 787.

Boeing are also far behind in interior design. The formica and steel look is very 80's diner. They need to get some people with an idea of style and ergonimics.

Also 787 is a little too small, everyone wants the big version and its just not coming because of the delays. If Boeing do the big version it will be a overweight crow and unable to compete with A350.


787 is too small? Its larger than an A330. The 787 has massed almost 1000 orders before its even flown.

Old-technology bleedless? Seems to me you really don't know too much about integrated systems, pneumatics, etc.

The new cabin air system of the A350 isn't more advance..in fact, its basically in-line with Boeing's fuselage pressurization, recirculation, etc.

Step-change in fuel economy? That's a laugher..harharhar..where are you getting that one from?

Far behind in interiour design? Again, where are you coming with such outlandish comments from.

You have not proved even one iota..please come back with some proof of your vacuous statements....

Posted by unregistered user at 5/10/08 12:04 a.m.

Soon Boeing will announce the 787 isn't real after all it's just another sonic cruiser!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/10/08 12:41 a.m.

#127230
Try reading what I said you pleb.
I said that bleedless gas turbine technology is immature. The jury is out whether there will be a tangible benefit on fuel burn. The technical risk is huge to the 787 program while offering little if any benefit.
A350 is introducing new cabin air filters to remove all organophosphates and other nasties, there are other improvements to the cabin air, extra pressurisation etc.
The A350-800, with more seats than the 787-8, will be able to fly about 300 miles farther than the Boeing plane with about 4 percent lower fuel burn per passenger seat (seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/226955_leahy03.html).
787 is too small, many customers would convert to the large one if Boeing had the ability to make it.
Come on Boeing interiors are a joke, its like sitting in one of your american cars in the 80's, all panelling, formica, cheap nasty seats, i could go on...
So there you are. If you knew anything you would be aware of the above FACTS and be more careful about spouting your crap.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/10/08 3:15 a.m.

The sonic cruiser and BWB designs are certainly far ahead of anything that Airbus has come up with. The SC didn't fit the customer's needs. Unlike Airbus and the A380 (if you build it, they won't come), Boeing decided not to build the SC.

Airbus/EADS is late on everything it builds. It's the company with an impacted colon. EADS just now finally got the Giove-B launched. Who knows?! Given 100 more years, EADS might actually have Galileo working?

The problems with the A380 still aren't solved but I wonder if the wiring is a smoke screen for some other design flaw??? Do A380 rudders come with a note attached...if found please return to...?

Just like the Power-8 program floundered, the A350 will flouder when its turn comes up.

Posted by POWER UP BOEING at 5/10/08 10:08 a.m.

TO 127132 What boeing could do is just make the 747 a composite shorter then A380 double decker holding about 600 people in premium economy class or on average 500 people in two class format as for the 737 remark THEY CAN ALWAYS Wait for the 737 replacement 7+ years from now and blow away the competition as the should anyways demand 2 777-300ER'S as compansation for the 787 delays

Posted by unregistered user at 5/10/08 11:03 a.m.

#127260 is just a blow-hard. He should be ignored as he hasn't a clue about aviation. And to talk about interiors as a significant competitive difference is a bad joke, reflective of his ignorance.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/10/08 2:00 p.m.

#127184 Its also the same problem that Airbus is facing with the A380. Next year they are supposed to produce one airplane every 14.6 days(excluding holidays), but maybe it will be a 17 day cycle, which would produce only 21 planes instead of the planned 25.

Getting cabin interiors installed into A380s takes MONTHS. The airframes currently being outfitted have been built more than a year ago. Cycle times like the above are pure theory, most aircraft were built far in advance of outfitting. Major assembly is underway on aircraft beyond MSN40.

The three-day cycle quoted for the 787 is the ideal factory (final assembly) flow only. Intermediate target was 6 days by aircraft #100. Add an 8-day pre-delivery field flow to that.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 1:23 a.m.

#127346

Your ignorance is astounding. The whole point in an airliner is for the passenger travel and comfort. Interiors are very important.
Just because you americans have no style with your bad quality formica, plastic rubbish. We french can make even a small space pleasing to the eye and with good ergonomics.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 4:45 a.m.

@ #127476
The whole point in an airliner is for the passenger travel and comfort. Interiors are very important.

There is something very important for the airlines, it is called efficiency.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 6:54 a.m.

"I said that bleedless gas turbine technology is immature."

Every mature technology began as an immature technology, including the turbine engine and aluminum aircraft construction.

Some technologies fall short of expectations, some meet expectations, others far exceed expectations. I expect many of the immature technologies of the 787 to meet or exceed expectations as they mature. Much has been made of the problems Boeing has had in bringing the 787 to maturity, but without taking the risks there is no chance for advancement.

When Airbus first introduced fly by wire in commercial aircraft, it was an immature and very criticized technology, but lets face it, now that it's matured we can expect all next generation large commercial transports to be fly by wire, and we can also expect that once composite primary aircraft structures and bleedless system mature, they will be incorporated into next generation aircraft.

The fact that Airbus changed from conventional aluminum to composites in the A350 shows that the 787 is indeed a game changer; Airbus was not willing to push the technology as far as Boeing, using panels rather than one piece barrels, but time will be the judge of who made the better decision.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 8:42 a.m.

#127476 - your last experience of an American aircraft interior must have been in a DC3, maybe the military version C47.

I am glad to know that you are French and perhaps you are in charge of investment, R&D and marketing at Airbus. Maybe you are John Leahy himself. Now we know why Airbus is so screwed up!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 1:04 p.m.

Excerpts from the article above:
The 777, according to Air Canada, burns about 15 percent less fuel than the four-engine Airbus A340 that the airline previously operated.

Fifteen percent difference in fuel burn is huge.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 1:06 p.m.

"The sonic cruiser and BWB designs are certainly far ahead of anything that Airbus has come up with."

You obviously don't know nothing of aerospace R&D or have your head wrapped in an (old) flag.

Dozens of wing, including BWB designs have passed european windtunnels and mainframes during the last decades.

Projects like Acare and Clean Sky have always been there. www.kat-net.com/display.php?id=103

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 1:26 p.m.

The last time airbus came with something it was the A340-500 and 600.

Excerpts form the article above:
The 777, according to Air Canada, burns about 15 percent less fuel than the four-engine Airbus A340 that the airline previously operated.

The next thing Airbus brings is the A380, the airplane that is too big for a very small niche market.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 3:22 p.m.

#127486

Yes, efficiency would fall under passenger travel.

The point I was offering is that the style of the Boeing product is nowhere near the style of the european prouct. I guess thats what you get when you pour thousands of years of culture into an industrial project. When 300 years after forming your country houses are still made of wood, and yet you accuse AIrbus of making disposable aircraft. I propose this an american attribute, we must only look at your houses, cars and food. What a joke.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 3:43 p.m.

@ #127595
The point I was offering is that the style of the Boeing product is nowhere near the style of the european prouct.

Yes, like offering a four engined airplane that burns 15% more fuel.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 3:57 p.m.

That was an engine problem with the Trent 500.

Boeing only achieved this by stretching already shady ETOPS requirements. Lets see what happens when an airliner flying an extended ETOPS flightplan comes down in the sea having flown for several hours. Unfortunately this will happen sometime and the general public will then have the chance to vote with their feet.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 4:33 p.m.

I think AC will be one of the last airlines to introduce the 777-200ER. It weighs 20.000kg or 44.000 lbs more empty then a A330-300.

The A350-900 will beat it in all areas by a large percentage. Boeing knows and is studying stop gabs. A similar sized 787-10 would need a bigger wing etc & is not even on the agenda.

Congratulations Air Canada. I really hope you have really hedged a lot of fuel for the next 5 years..

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 6:11 p.m.

AC chose the 777 because it's a much better plane for the routes AC flies. AC had enough of Airbus' empty promises and chose the 787/777. Airbus just didn't get it. It took a baseball bat to its rear by Udvar-Hazy and others so that Airbus' paper 350 was even competitive. At this point its not competition. 58 airlines have spoken for the 787. Many are European airlines. Furthermore AC and other airline mechanics find the Airbus aircraft high maintenance and disposable. Boeing aircraft are simply better made aircraft.

As to the guy commenting on ETOPS (#127604), he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The A350 makes no sense in the mid-size twin aisle market which is 60%+ of the market. Any airline who flies it to compete in this category against the 787 will suffer a slow demise because of its much higher expected fuel costs.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 11:40 p.m.

Will A350 ever fly ETOPS routes?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/11/08 11:56 p.m.

#127604

That was an engine problem with the Trent 500.

Trent 500 doesn't have 15% fuel burn shortfall.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 1:33 a.m.

Once Boeing has delivered the first 787 then maybe you yanks can do some bragging. Until then I would keep your mouth shut as there is only more woe coming on this program...
A380 is a huge success compared to the 787 debacle. The total value of the tanker deal could dwarf the loss in earnings Boeing are suffering over the 787.

Wasnt the 787 supposed to have EIS this month? What an arrogant, inflated over-hyped joke!

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 3:19 a.m.

787 is too small for busy European and Asian airports. Might be ok for flying from places in the US like Salt Lake city and Cincinnati, but to fly in and out of important major cities 777 type size is a minimum.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 6:33 a.m.

Re: #127695 Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 1:33 a.m.

A380 is a huge success compared to the 787 debacle.

A380 is huge, but a success? It is a double debacle both technically and commercially.

While Boeing Commercial Airplanes is still making double digit operating margin despite 787 longer development, Airbus is losing about one billion Euros per year.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 6:36 a.m.

Too small an aircraft for such a large market.
People will take a long time to trust Boeing after the 787 failure.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:09 a.m.

@ #127733 said, "Too small an aircraft for such a large market."

The 787 is perfectly sized for that huge market. That's why it has an impressive number of sales. The smallest module or the 787-8 has reached more than 640 firm orders.

There is a delay for its entry into service, but orders are still coming in, a proof that airlines still consider it as a real game-changing airplane.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:10 a.m.

For 127612...

I think AC will be one of the last airlines to introduce the 777-200ER. It weighs 20.000kg or 44.000 lbs more empty then a A330-300.

The A350-900 will beat it in all areas by a large percentage. Boeing knows and is studying stop gabs. A similar sized 787-10 would need a bigger wing etc & is not even on the agenda.

Congratulations Air Canada. I really hope you have really hedged a lot of fuel for the next 5 years..

You need to do better research or buy a bigger keybored. AC only ordered 77L an 77W so all will be bigger than the 333. If you also happen to notice, they are used on short routes so that they can get the best fuel use out of them.

Last I checked, Airbus is giving away 333s in order to keep the production line going while they try and figure out how to assemble and wire an A380.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:42 a.m.

Re: #127740 Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:10 a.m.

The A350-900 will beat it in all areas by a large percentage.

When it will enter into service, if it ever enters into service.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:50 a.m.

What a load of chuff you all talk!

Cant you see 787 is a late plane, it will now take several hundred, maybe a thousand deliveries to break even. Its not even flown and yet it has major problems. A380 was nowhere near as late to its first flight.
Imagine all the problems going to pour out of the composite fuselage, composite wings, more electric engines, electric ECS etc. Its only going to get later

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 8:02 a.m.

Re: #127750 Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 7:50 a.m.
A380 was nowhere near as late to its first flight.

Oh, that potemkin first flight? It was not even certificated on standard two years later. The deviation list was almost as long as the certificated items.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 8:29 a.m.

At least the 787 will break even, probably at 300 units. The 380 will NEVER break even.

Posted by Leelaw at 5/12/08 9:13 a.m.

It seems very unlikely the 787 will reach financial "break-even" at 300 units delivered given what's transpired so far, nevertheless, it's also doubtful it will match the 500+ units delivered AWST reported last October it would take the A380 program to reach a positive ROI. In fact, EADS/Airbus has not provided a detailed forecast regarding the financial performance of the A380 program since Ocober 2006, only supplemented by some cursory comments by Mr. Galois about a year ago that break-even deliveries would indeed surpass the estimate of 420 units in 2006. Mum's been the word as far.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 10:24 a.m.

@ #127785 Posted by Leelaw at 5/12/08 9:13 a.m.

The notion of break-even is today a little bit old-fashioned. The reality of current globalisation and risk-sharing principle changed completely the notion of "break-even" point. Boeing could well have its return of investment at N units, but its partners may reach the ROI earlier or later. Its up to each partner to define their business case. You can even think about a partner that will not reach financial break-even point, but the know-how acquired during the partnership can be considered more valuable than simple financial return.

Learning from recent business practices, services can give you better financial return compared to building airplanes. Have you ever considered the money Boeing is making from training, providing navigation information and other services?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 10:26 a.m.

But, in any case nobody will make money from A380. Engine manufacturers on board of the A380 are those who suffer most.

Posted by ikkeman at 5/12/08 10:31 a.m.

The 777-200, according to Air Canada, burns about 15 percent less fuel per seat than the Airbus A340 it replaced.

It has twice the engines and burns "only" 15% more... Are the additional engines filled with hydrogen?

I think the 340 was a mistake. It was designed to meet the ETOPS rules in effect at the time - Boeing broke the rules and won with the 777. Bohoo, next round:

I see the same thing happening between the 380/787. Airbus responds to the current market and helps airlines solve slot restrictions through tried and tested methods, Boeing tries to break the rules by flying point to point. Two interresting fighters in either corner.

Remember that a lot of changes need to be made to air navigation rules and ANSP operations to allow the 787 to shine. The A380 only requires a single investment to extend the shoulder of some runways.
I do believe the 380 and 787 burn an equal amount of fuel per pax (787 is probably a bit lower because it's a lot newer) when flying the exact same route at similar load factors. The winning point for the 787 is the deletion of the feeder system. If that works, who'll still need an 737/320? (380 customers?). But who will pay for the added workload for the controllers, who now have to monitor flights from all directions (at infrequent intervals - you probably wont gat a full 787 worth of poeple wanting to fly point to point every day). Who'll pay for the need for customs and baggage handling for 300 poeple at small, regional airports. (or are poeple willing to stand in line longer because there's only one security point to go through?). Who get's the poeple to their final destination? Mus Avis drive a fleet of rentals to every 787 touchdown? Will airliners team up with coach companies to get poeple home?.

Much must change to make the 787 work. The airliners are confident. But are they right?

Also: Why all the personal attacks? Is there anyone out there that really wants either Boeing or Airbus to win? Anyone of you happy with the idear of having no choice?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/12/08 10:46 a.m.

The Americans on this site dont want choice, they are narrow minded and do not want to believe that us europeans can make an aircraft every bit as good as theirs.
Sad really.