frieze

The next development I am watching for is a single aisle replacement using 787 technology to replace the 737 and compete with the 320 and will it be enough to forestall the encroachment of Embraer at the lower end of this slot. The ER 195 seats 105 but there is a rumor or stretching it to 120 seats. In a dollars per seat comparison Boeing and Airbus do not come even close. The initial cost and operating costs saving of the Embraer are substantial. Boeing will announce and develop this at a time when Airbus is staggering from the burden of developing a plane (A380) that may never sell enough units to reach break even (187 and dropping vs 420 and climbing) and attempting to finance and develop a plane to compete with the 787. Airbus may not have the resources to compete with the 737 replacement in a timely manner and may again be 5 to 10 years behind as they are with a 787 competitor, especially with the French government trying to get out of EADS.

Whom

cocoarevo

The B777 has absolutely *crushed* the A340 in the market, it isn't even a contest. I noticed you left the B777 out of your post. The A340 is Airbus's lame duck. They bet on four engines for long-haul, while Boeing bet on two. Boeing always held an edge with the B777, but when fuel prices went up, A340 sales almost totally stopped. The only reason they still offer it is that it shares the fuselage and wing of the A330, so it uses the same production line. If it had to stand alone it would've been killed by now.

The A330 on the other hand has been outselling the B767 for a while. A few years ago Boeing considered killing the B767 off completely, and just waiting for the B787. But the B767 has seen a resurgence of orders over the past few years, so things are looking up. It will remain in production until the B787 ramps up to replace it - and possibly longer if it wins the USAF tanker competition.

The B757 was killed because it was no longer needed. The growth of the B737NG pushed the B757 out of the line. The B737-800 and B737-900 are effective replacements for the B757.

Right now things are unbalanced. Boeing doesn't have a good answer to the A330 - the B767 is getting old. The B787 will be that answer. Conversely, Airbus doesn't have a counter to the B777 - the A340 is uneconomical. They're not competing much at the high end. The B747-8 slots in above the A340 (and B777) but below the A380.

Airbus is kind of stuck. Boeing is eating their lunch in the highly profitable long-haul market with the B777. Both vendors sell more single-aisles, but the profit margins are MUCH higher in the wide-bodies. But if Airbus focuses on a B777 competitor, that would leave the mid-market to the B787, which will eat the A330's lunch. Conversely, if they focused on the B787, they still leaves the B777 untouched.

Airbus screwed up. They took the B787 WAY too lightly at first. Their first response was NO response. They said the A330 would hold its own. No way. Then they came back with a warmed-over A330 with some minor aerodynamic tweaks and new engines. Weak sauce. Then they warmed it over *again* and slapped the A350 label on it. And then they tweaked that some more, while continuing to call it the A350. This was basically an answer to the B787. The plan was to make three models, each slightly larger than the equivalent B787 model (-3, -8, and -9).

The industry rejected this, soundly. ILFC had some pretty harsh words about the Airbus proposal, and they went home with their tail between their legs. They went back to the drawing board, and came back with the A350XWB.

The A350XWB is a hybrid effort - it competes with the higher end B787 models and the lower end B777 models. But it isn't possible for one design to cover the full range from B787-3 to B777-200LR/300ER. Effectively they've come back with a larger proposal which, while billed as their answer to the B787, is more of an answer for the B777. They've caused themselves some problems though - the A350-1000 is too big for the GENx and GE is balking at producing a larger variant as it would compete directly with the GE90 used on the B777. Industry insists on engine options - but P&W has nothing at all to offer. Right now it is Rolls-Royce only, though if talks finally break down with GE, Engine Alliance may be able to step in. (EA is a GE & P&W partnership formed to produce the GP7200 for the A380.)

Boeing, of course, still has the B787-10 up their sleeves, but they're waiting for Airbus to firm up the A350XWB before they commit to a response. Most likely the B787-10 will replace the lower-end B777 models, and there is talk of a possible further stretch of the B777 at the high end.

All of Airbus's screwing around on the A350 cause several years of delay, and now they won't have it until 2013 at best, while Boeing should be delivering next year. Airbus really dropped the ball on this one. And there have been delays on the A400M program as well, and, of course, the well publicized delays on the A380. All of these delays taxes their engineering department, and puts Boeing in a better position to develop the next-generation single-aisle that will replace the B737NG around 2015. Airbus is going to be stretched thin with work on the A350XWB continuing well into the time they should start on the A320 replacement.

MegaZone

Hey Giz, stop hating Airbus or anything European, pleeeaaase??? :'(

mesaboogie

hazmx

hazmx

Kensterdotnet

jellobrains

So american

nicointhesky

GenericWhiteGuy

It should also be noted that the A380's competitor, the venerable Boeing 747 is not only still selling but selling well. Not to mention that but there is a new, more fuel efficient version version that while not carrying quite as many passengers, with only 450 in a three class setup compared to the A380's 555 in an undisclosed setup, will beat or match the A380 in every other category, especially fuel efficiency. This still on paper aircraft already has firm orders and is scheduled to begin deliveries in 2009 for freighters and 2010 for the passenger version. The A380's first delivery is currently supposed to be sometime this year, but no firm dates are set, and they said the same thing last year.

One more thing, you heard me talk about how the new 747 will not meet the A380 head to head on passenger capacity, this isn't strictly true. As I said the 555 number is an undisclosed seating configuration, probably all economy class seats. IF you configure the current 747-400 model in that manner it can not only match, but beat the A380's numbers with no less than 568 seats. Of course I don't know about you, but I don't like being packed in like a sardine, regardless of who makes the can.

Amuro

You mean just like what Airbus, Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and tons of other companies would do as well?????????????

phantom701

Actually, 747 are being retired as commuter planes. This has been happening in the last 5-10 years. The 747s are being replaced by 777.

Japanese airlines are facing fierce competition from the bullet trains which offer significantly more frequencies.

phantom701

islandmonk

Tonicboy

Dude27

1) Before the 787 was announced, Boeing was essentially screwed. Airbus was selling way more planes and their planes were much more modern and efficient. Even Boeing admitted that the Airbus 330 was a very formiddable opponent and really hard to compete with. There was series speculation that Boeing would stop making commercial planes completely because Airbus was just stomping all over it in sales and Boeing didn't have planes to match (747 was old, 767 couldn't compete against the 330/340, the 757 was cancelled, and the Airbus 320 was totally superrior to the 737 until the "NG" 737's caught up).

2) Both the A380 and the B787 are super efficient and green. Both are super modern. The two just simply answer to two different scenarios. The B787 are for direct flights from point to point. The A380 is betting on that large hub-airports (Singapore, Frankfurt, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.) will be where all the long-range flights start and end at, and that people will be ferried in from smaller airports with smaller - also efficient - planes. This is a direct attack on the market that the Boeing 747 has owned. I'll repeat: it's an attack on the B747 - not the 787. Boeing will answer to the A380 but the answer is the "Y3" project - not the Y2 which became the 787. So don't compare apples to oranges!

3) Airbus first felt that their Airbus 330 was so superrior to Boeing's offering that all the 787 would do would be catch up to the 330. They felt all they had to do was make a small upgrade (similar to the 737NG series) and that would be enough to counter the threat from the 787. That's what the Airbus 350 was to become. However, since the 787 was doing so well, they re-designed the whole A350 concept from scratch and that new A350 (the Airbus 350 XWB - extra wide body) is definitely a very, very strong answer to the Boeing 787! Even the original improved Airbus 330 would have been a strong competitor, but this new 350 XWB is by no means "20% less fuel efficient than the 787" like the article makes it sound. The two are essentially identical in specs; passengers, range, fuel consumption, use of advanced materials, etc.

I understand that there are lots of patriotic issues involved here. Americans are cheering for Boeing, Europeans (and Asians to some extent) for Airbus. But let's be fair and stick to facts. And the facts are that Airbus was super strong (basically killing Boeing) before the 787, then they lost their advantage for a while, but now they are making a very strong comback with the new 350 XWB.

The differences are mostly PR generated rather than factual.

John68

Flights are consistently 85%-90% full. Out of the last 10 flights I have taken, only was not 100%. Airlines are are eliminating flights to increase loading level.

In Japan, 747s are used as commuter planes. I think getting 90% load level on a A380 will not be too much of a problem. The bigger issue is getting the airports to accomodate the plane.

JChristopher

"
the A380 holds approximately twice as many people as the 787. So the question of efficiency comes down to "Does the A380 cost less than twice as much to move x number of people from point A to point B?"
Costs include amounts of pollution, fuel consumption, personnel (pilots, ground, etc.), maintenance per flight and lots of other items.
The A380 also (I believe) has somewhat longer range. The planes are designed to different requirements and therefore different markets. Comparing the A380 to the 787 is like comparing apples to oranges, both are good but have different flavors.
Conclusions:
1) Compare the 787 to the A350, its direct competitor, and Boeing is winning hands down.
2) I do not think you could pay me enough to be on the first passenger carrying flight of the A380. I think I want a couple of trouble-free years of operation
"

But you see you're assuming the flights are full. A vast majority of non-holiday traffic flights are not full, not even close to being full. It's only during holiday flights that you get full planes. That is why this plane will be the more popular of the 2 and the more effiecient.

Lupison

The smoothness of the nose is an indirect consequence of using composite. With aluminum, you have to use multiple panels and rivets to assemble the nose together. With composite, Boeing and friends build a single large hull eliminating all the rivets. Which is why the skin is soooo smooth!!

It's truly a gorgeous piece of machine. I can't wait to fly in one.

phantom701

Boeing has been seriously lacking in the innovation department for years. Airbus has always been one generation ahead of them with things like composites and the flight deck.

This battle won't be decided in a few years, it'll take a decade to see who made the right gamble.

scoobydoo

Not to get all patriotic on you guys, but isn't it nice to see American engineering and manufacturing kicking butt again?

Thank God we're doing something right. Now, if we can only figure our how to build cars people will want to buy.

Serolf Divad

Not to get all patriotic on you guys, but isn't it nice to see American engineering and manufacturing kicking butt again?

Monty

the question of efficiency comes down to "Does the A380 cost less than twice as much to move x number of people from point A to point B?"

Yes, but also: Can I consistently fill that many seats? With the Boeing you can fly half as many planes if you need to.

Serolf Divad

My only explosure to newer planes is the couple of flights I took on 717s, but I was still really impressed.
More open feel (and better air).

They even let me peek at the cockpit on the way out, noting that it's the same one the 777 has.

Great stuff!

strider_mt2k

Both companies have linked their futures to each respective aircraft which is why these two aircraft will be forever linked, despite their having very little in common.

brianfike

zamafir

A rollout is a big milestone and is "complete" in the aviation mindset....because its a completed aerostructure.

Another note..the Airbus A380 is not a direct competitor, neither is A350. These are airbus myths. Only the A350-800 competes with the 787-9, while the A350-900 competes with the 777-200ER and the A350-1000 competes with the 777-300ER. Just wait till Boeing launches its 777 replacement, Airbus is in for some severe turbulence then!

kEiThZ

revanche

MarktMan

JasonCo

Costs include amounts of pollution, fuel consumption, personnel (pilots, ground, etc.), maintenance per flight and lots of other items.

The A380 also (I believe) has somewhat longer range. The planes are designed to different requirements and therefore different markets. Comparing the A380 to the 787 is like comparing apples to oranges, both are good but have different flavors.

Conclusions:
1) Compare the 787 to the A350, its direct competitor, and Boeing is winning hands down.
2) I do not think you could pay me enough to be on the first passenger carrying flight of the A380. I think I want a couple of trouble-free years of operation.

JChristopher

logikgr

Windhawk

We will have to wait and see what takes off (no pun intended) for real, but I like Boeing's approach better than Airbus. Less flashy, more convenient.

Jesus Diaz

bobvilla

I'd like to imagine that it flew very very well.

strider_mt2k

rcarydon